A technical analysis found "no basis for believing the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack," the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a 76-page report titled Technical Realities.
Do people still feel that this is/was a worthwhile effort?
Last edited by Sueven on May 13, 2004, 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We'd need like 10,000 satellites all armed with frickin laser beams to actually make a missile shield that works. The only sure way to ensure our survival in the event of global thermoneuclear war is to colonize the moon. Then we could build a huge laser beam there, turning the moon into a "death star."
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Dregor Thule wrote:I'm still getting over the fact people were bamboozled into thinking it would work in the first place.
Same here I laughed when people thought the world was round or when a man said we could fly, or how about breaking the sound barrier. I am still rolling on the floor that someone said we could put a man on the moon. What a bunch of fucking idiots.
While a clever use of sarcasm, for a change, it's misplaced. If it were say an obvious thing that would work perfectly well and I was saying it wouldn't, well then, it'd be touche to you, sir. But as it stands the missile shield is a piece of shit in terms of defensive ability. I wasn't saying NO missile shields could work... just not this one.
Well yes, I'm sure that we could eventually, given plenty of money and unlimited time for scientific advancement, develop a capable missile shield.
I'm equally confident that, given the pragmatic restrictions on time and money that the real world creates, a government program to devise an effective missile shield is a practical impossibility at this time.
i'm not arguing for the shield but my understanding was that it is not desigmed to stop an all out attack from, say Russia or China, but rogue states lik NK or Iran. i think a shield is a good idea, i'm just not sure this one is.
My goal is to live forever. So far so good.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
I would say mutual extermination has worked well for the past 60 years. The real threat can't be neutralized by a missile shield. It would prove useful on the battlefield though, so the research is definitely not in vain.
+ I do think it is possible and benefitial to develope a defense against a small size missile attack. A defense against a small number of missiles, which we would expect\hope that is all a rogue element would be able to launch.
+/- A missile attack IMO would be the less likely method of attack by such a rogue element. There are easier and less advanced\cheaper methods of delivery. This makes such a defense less significant but at least there would be some means to defend such an attack.
- It forces other nations to increase payloads\warhead counts to guarantee any defense would be overwelmed by sheer numbers. Any increase will be matched of course and the arms race cycle continues.
All posts are personal opinion.
My opinion may == || != my guild's.
"All spelling mistakes were not on purpose as I dont know shit ." - Torrkir
This is long past the engineering/development stage... this is scheduled to go live in less than 5 months. This project was contracted out for billions and billions of dollars and the net result is roughy a 6% success rate under ideal conditions. I doubt it would have received funding if they tried to sell it on it's success rate.
What a monumental waste of resources.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Thing is.. this would have worked against a Soviet Union type situation. That is not the world we have now or the threat situation of today. Small rogue groups wont lob a few intercontinental missiles at you, they will most likely hide a dirty bomb in a populated area or a small size nuke that will be transported in.
Sueven wrote:
Do people still feel that this is/was a worthwhile effort?
Yes. A missle attack is one of the few things that actual has a substantial threat of actually doing significant damage to the U.S. As such, I think its worthwhile to pursue. I realize that there are other delivery methods for nuclear weapons but I still think doing something about about the missle threat is worthwhile.
How effective the current implementation actual is and if it is currently cost effective is a different question. Not sure on that, would have to do some more reading.
Adex_Xeda wrote:There is no telling what the future will bring.
Because can't predict tomorrow's madman.
It is wise to prepare a defense.
Instead of pumping billions of dollars into building a system with a 6% success rate, it would have been more logical to pump a fraction of that money into R&D of a system that may actually be a reliable defense.
Thinking that a missle defense system can provide any sort of defense in the next few decades is a pipe dream. The technology is nowhere near an acceptable fail rate.
I doubt the continental USA has faced any real threat from ICBMs since the cold war.
There are more efficient, cost effective and far less detectable methods of payload delivery available should an 'enemy' wish to attack the USA.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
I figure the system will be up and running only a few short decades after the technology it defends against is no longer in use by anyone. Yay!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
I think terrorists have figured out that firing a missle at us isn't the way to go. There's plenty of other ways to do damage. MAD works best for dealings between superpowers. Embrace the horror.
As for all of the nazi scientists being dead, that's debatable. Word has it that they were all cloned in the 70's.
...
