First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply us missile defense system might not work
21712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/19/17
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-missile-defense-system-may-not-work-say-experts/ar-BBA21rd?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP

well gee I shouldn't have expected it to work lol
Despite years of tinkering and vows to fix technical shortcomings, the system's performance has gotten worse, not better," The Times concluded.
Last July, the highly regarded Union of Concerned Scientists, which is often skeptical of military programs, weighed in with a 47-page report calling the U.S. approach to missile defense "disastrous." Of the GMD, it concluded: "Its test record is poor and it has no demonstrated ability to stop an incoming missile under real-world conditions."

A 2012 National Academy of Sciences study called the GMD "deficient" and recommended a complete overhaul of the interceptors, sensors, and concept of operations. No such overhaul has happened.
818 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/20/17
Meh... Good to see our tax money hard at work...

(sips tea..)
21523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/20/17
Lol welcome to the money black hole that is the Military Industrial Complex where 90% of it's products are way over budget and don't work as advertised aka the F-35 and Trump in his very limited wisdom wants to throw billions more into it
Humms 
11793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/20/17
Good.

Just another excuse to start bombing people. Just another excuse to spend money. Just more Bullshit.

Just more excuses, more lying cheating fuck faces running the show.

No news to me.
54651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/20/17
If it doesn't work, it don't work! We need to be partner up with Roman Empire to take on North Korea, which shouldn't even be hard for only 10 Roman Solider!

Need to be lead by Marcus Octavius!

2116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 4/19/17
I find missile defense perplexing: Say North Korea finally figures out how to make a missile that doesn't explode mid-flight, and it decides it wants to nuke someone. It could fire 300 missiles at once, with 299 of them decoys; then the missile defense system has to take down 300 missiles at once. Or North Korea could fire 3000 missiles with several hundred nukes. Admittedly, firing that many missiles at once doesn't seem easy, but it seems a lot easier than building a missile defense system that can take out 300 missiles at once. All you need is one foolproof way to get around the defense system, and I don't see why crazy people wouldn't go for that one foolproof way.

But I imagine real nuclear strategists have already taken this argument as far as it can go, so if people are still building missile defense systems, they're probably worthwhile.
10209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/19/17
Then we have the Russians who made the a fast af missile that can easily bypass any ships or nations missile defense system. It travels at about 2 times what our defense system can shoot down and has a range that pretty much says "Fuck you" to our early warning system. It is capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads.

I didn't see this much on the news at all... treaty violation and all ya'know...
19763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

auroraloose wrote:

I find missile defense perplexing: Say North Korea finally figures out how to make a missile that doesn't explode mid-flight, and it decides it wants to nuke someone. It could fire 300 missiles at once, with 299 of them decoys; then the missile defense system has to take down 300 missiles at once. Or North Korea could fire 3000 missiles with several hundred nukes. Admittedly, firing that many missiles at once doesn't seem easy, but it seems a lot easier than building a missile defense system that can take out 300 missiles at once. All you need is one foolproof way to get around the defense system, and I don't see why crazy people wouldn't go for that one foolproof way.

But I imagine real nuclear strategists have already taken this argument as far as it can go, so if people are still building missile defense systems, they're probably worthwhile.


Which is why saturation attacks have always been a cornerstone of any sane military attack. It doesn't matter how fancy you build a wall if your enemy is willing to throw a few billion people against it. Same goes with missiles as you pointed out. Every notable military victory in the past 200 years have been mostly about a numerically superior force engaging a numerically inferior force.

37625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/19/17

Ranwolf wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

I find missile defense perplexing: Say North Korea finally figures out how to make a missile that doesn't explode mid-flight, and it decides it wants to nuke someone. It could fire 300 missiles at once, with 299 of them decoys; then the missile defense system has to take down 300 missiles at once. Or North Korea could fire 3000 missiles with several hundred nukes. Admittedly, firing that many missiles at once doesn't seem easy, but it seems a lot easier than building a missile defense system that can take out 300 missiles at once. All you need is one foolproof way to get around the defense system, and I don't see why crazy people wouldn't go for that one foolproof way.

But I imagine real nuclear strategists have already taken this argument as far as it can go, so if people are still building missile defense systems, they're probably worthwhile.


Which is why saturation attacks have always been a cornerstone of any sane military attack. It doesn't matter how fancy you build a wall if your enemy is willing to throw a few billion people against it. Same goes with missiles as you pointed out. Every notable military victory in the past 200 years have been mostly about a numerically superior force engaging a numerically inferior force.



I guess the missile defense system is about not making it too easy. Nobody will surprise us with 500 missiles. We will see an attack like that coming (even if we can't do anything about it). However, a country could manage to fire one or a small number of ICBMs, or someone could shoot one off by accident. Also, missile defense gives us an excuse to set up military bases. Who doesn't like more US military bases?
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

uncletim wrote:

Lol welcome to the money black hole that is the Military Industrial Complex where 90% of it's products are way over budget and don't work as advertised aka the F-35 and Trump in his very limited wisdom wants to throw billions more into it


The star wars system was a giant bluff designed to scare the soviets. It worked.
19763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

kinga750 wrote:



I guess the missile defense system is about not making it too easy. Nobody will surprise us with 500 missiles. We will see an attack like that coming (even if we can't do anything about it). However, a country could manage to fire one or a small number of ICBMs, or someone could shoot one off by accident. Also, missile defense gives us an excuse to set up military bases. Who doesn't like more US military bases?


I am not against missile defence per say, it helps people sleep at night. Which is all well and dandy, people need their sleep after all. But it seems to me rather then waste the resources necessary to keep up such a thing that preemptive strikes designed to disrupt or deny them the ability to produce ICBMS and nuclear payloads seems a more surefire way of ensuring safety for all. As Imperialistic as that may sound and all.
Banned
30256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/19/17

kinga750 wrote:

I guess the missile defense system is about not making it too easy. Nobody will surprise us with 500 missiles. We will see an attack like that coming (even if we can't do anything about it). However, a country could manage to fire one or a small number of ICBMs, or someone could shoot one off by accident. Also, missile defense gives us an excuse to set up military bases. Who doesn't like more US military bases?


DINGDINGDING! Give the man a cigar.

The system was never intended to defend against massive strikes from the likes of Russia or China; it was designed to defend against rogue states like north Korea who have limited warhead counts and missile airframes, and to defend against missiles being seized and fired by rogue commanders, terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers in unstable nations with poorly secured nuclear arsenals (Pakistan, I'm looking at you).

With a missile defense system, lone launches or small volleys can be shot down and the situation can be de-escalated diplomatically (or through the judicious application of precision fires and SOF teams). Without the missile defense system, the US looses a city or two and several million citizens, AND has no recourse but to fire ICBMs in retaliation.


Rujikin wrote:

The star wars system was a giant bluff designed to scare the soviets. It worked.


Yes, it was. And it forced the Russians to pour so much money into countering it that it bankrupted them.

Which is exactly what would happen to north korea or Iran if they poured the resources into building several hundred warheads to overwhelm the system (or even just several hundred missiles capable of reaching the US).
Banned
30256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

Ranwolf wrote:

I am not against missile defence per say, it helps people sleep at night. Which is all well and dandy, people need their sleep after all. But it seems to me rather then waste the resources necessary to keep up such a thing that preemptive strikes designed to disrupt or deny them the ability to produce ICBMS and nuclear payloads seems a more surefire way of ensuring safety for all. As Imperialistic as that may sound and all.


Yes, I can see why you, of all people, would think it would be so simple as just invading every potential threat nation that may be developing nuclear missiles, and occupying them indefinitely to prevent them from *ever* developing missiles.

That would totes be cheaper than designing and fielding an ABM interceptor fleet
379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/17
Ah yes, the Union for Concerned Socialists, you too can become a member for a 35 dollar donation.
19763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

outontheop wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

I am not against missile defence per say, it helps people sleep at night. Which is all well and dandy, people need their sleep after all. But it seems to me rather then waste the resources necessary to keep up such a thing that preemptive strikes designed to disrupt or deny them the ability to produce ICBMS and nuclear payloads seems a more surefire way of ensuring safety for all. As Imperialistic as that may sound and all.


Yes, I can see why you, of all people, would think it would be so simple as just invading every potential threat nation that may be developing nuclear missiles, and occupying them indefinitely to prevent them from *ever* developing missiles.

That would totes be cheaper than designing and fielding an ABM interceptor fleet


Who said anything about invasion and occupation? I said strikes, attacks against material producing places and assassination of key personal that kind of thing. You can't invade and hold a place like North Korea, even the Yanks don't have that sort of firepower . Since an outright invasion of North Korea would likely trigger a war with China ...not the prettiest picture that as the last Korean War taught us. But hey even the Chinese are telling North Korea to back off with it's nuclear plans. So I doubt they'd shed a tear if some material and personal went 'missing' and thus hampered North Korea's plans to produce ICBMs.

Either way I am not all that serious about that anyway. And more to the point the missile defence network ain't really working, hasn't even produce encouraging results . So why bother supporting it instead of trying something else? Not the idea I half jokingly came up with but something other then the quagmire missile defence is proving.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.