IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I didn't.
Oh, you mean like we have now? Like what we've had since the beginning of the nuclear age?

That was exactly my point.

And its not since the beginning of the nuclear age. But since history around here is so derided, I won't explain further.

Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack.

Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me.

Addison
New To add a little
Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack.

Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me.

Even if we can't take every missile aimed at us out of the sky, isn't taking some of them out a desirable thing?

OK, so Russia launches a strike and takes out Washington (cough IMO that would be a good thing), Atlanta, New York, a dozen other major cities. Perhaps the missile defense saves Washington (dammit!) but if it also saves the Wriight-Patterson base north of CIncinnati I'll be happy. (I live in an area that would be within the blast range of a strike there.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New The imminent threat is not addressed after wasting $BB
One of the more astute posters on this topic (not in this thread, unfortunately) stated the obvious so succinctly:

"The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack" (paraphrasing).

So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack?

Oh, I forgot...we'll just put up video cameras everywhere....
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New That's merely one possibility.
"The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack"

Maybe.

And we've got ways of intercepting backpacks. Or trucks. Sure, it might slip through undetected, but there is *an* ability in place to potentially stop it.

(Additionally, the intelligence agencies would likely have some prior warning as they have for the other terrorist acts, as the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City - obviously that doesn't always work, but the "advantage" to nuclear weapons is they are rather hard to hide (from detection equipment. The lead time has to be increased, and its not easy to quickly change the target - unlike a missile - which could be launched, without prior warning, and be over any city in the US in about 30-45 minutes, today)

So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack?

Its very simple: you're quite possibly wrong.

In case I need to explain further: There is more likelihood (in my opinion) of a nuclear missile being fired than a small warhead smuggled in.

(And the ones that are "man portable" aren't anywhere NEAR as big as what you can stick on a missile, for obvious reasons).

So we're back to your versus my opinion on the likihood of something. Leaving yourself exposed to the current big missiles, because you might not stop a small hand-carried one is still illogical.

Unless you can be CERTAIN that that is the *only* attack you will be experiencing.

How do you propose to prove that?

Addison
New All of you are missing something
How is it no one is questioning if this Star Wars II will ever work any better than the first Star Wars boondoggle?
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New I don't think I'm missing that.
What boondoggle?

You have to define "Star Wars" - most of that is still theoretical (but research on things like attomic-pumped X-ray lasers has progressed greatly).

Most of that was at the time theoretical, and still mostly theoretical.

This is down to the good, ol counter-ballistic trajectory idea. Which has lots of prior history (anti-aircraft, anti-missile).

There wasn't really a "Star Wars I". There was Sprint and Spartan, which as I've heard, worked OK, but that's back to the same sort of thing that's currently being talked about.

Addison
New I don't think I've the patience
just now to dissect your "I THINK it WILL work..." {yawn} and variations on that theme. I conclude simply - you'll pick some wishful idea of 'techno'-later.. VS *any* basic human common sense-now.. every time. In other areas we call that,

You've Got Faith!

Swell. I've Got Faith Too: Whether it would ever have worked, or not - what it Will torpedo now and Next makes it: Not Worth It.



A.
     WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense. - (Another Scott) - (49)
         Re: WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense. - (addison) - (44)
             So lemme get this straight... - (jb4) - (41)
                 None of the above - (wharris2)
                 I'll attempt to straighten you out... - (addison) - (39)
                     It's not so simple. - (Another Scott) - (30)
                         No, its not. - (addison) - (16)
                             Couple of things. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                 Re: Couple of things. - (addison) - (14)
                                     Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-) - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         Re: Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-) - (addison) - (2)
                                             Morels! :-) - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                 A thousand pardons. :-( - (Another Scott)
                                     The only real problems I see with the ABM shield... - (Simon_Jester) - (9)
                                         My take.... - (bepatient) - (8)
                                             Impossible - (wharris2) - (1)
                                                 There's that issue, too. - (bepatient)
                                             Re: My take.... - (jb4) - (5)
                                                 Every once in a while... - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                     Don't get too used to it...;-) -NT - (jb4) - (3)
                                                         I was humbled more... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                             Credit where credit is due! -NT - (jb4)
                                                             I used to be humble - (Ashton)
                         Re: Installing in Alaska will do nothing against a threat... - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                             Alaska was picked because North Korea was viewed ... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Alaska was picked because Sen for life Ted Stevens - (boxley)
                         Scott - catch NPR discussion Mon re Russia version? - (Ashton) - (9)
                             Nope, I missed it. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Found it: - (Ashton)
                             Question: how do they propose to do this? - (wharris2) - (6)
                                 Doverai ni proverai.. - (Ashton) - (5)
                                     What is ideal? - (wharris2) - (4)
                                         An excellent solution: ABMs for all. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                             giggling wildly - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                 ..only in your rare moments of relative.... lucidity :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                     *my* rare moments? -NT - (wharris2)
                     You don't straighten any thing out by adding wrinkles - (jb4) - (7)
                         I didn't. - (addison) - (6)
                             To add a little - (wharris2) - (5)
                                 The imminent threat is not addressed after wasting $BB - (jb4) - (4)
                                     That's merely one possibility. - (addison) - (3)
                                         All of you are missing something - (DonRichards) - (2)
                                             I don't think I'm missing that. - (addison) - (1)
                                                 I don't think I've the patience - (Ashton)
             Good Reason? - (deSitter) - (1)
                 OT: 1990-1991 recession wasn't "deep" - (Another Scott)
         We need a healthy Russian economy - (mhuber) - (3)
             Very well said. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             Precisamente.. and, it is so evidently basic - (Ashton)
             Good points! -NT - (a6l6e6x)

Carefully labored prose!
135 ms