Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Missile Defense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Missile Defense

    The purpose of this poll and thread is see how people feel about missile defense. Feel free to discuss technical issues, political concerns, and the strategic ramifications of implementing missile defense systems in America.


    The poll is split into American and non-American options to see there is a major difference in opinions on this topic in the US and abroad.
    62
    Yes, American
    51.61%
    32
    No, American
    3.23%
    2
    Yes, non-American
    22.58%
    14
    No, non-American
    22.58%
    14

  • #2
    You can only select one choice.

    I'm in favor of missile defense for any country.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Guys,

      I am declining to vote, for my position is not definable by the choices offered.

      That being said, I am generally in line with Highsea's position and feel that the thinking behind GPALS is a really good place to start from.

      There is less danger in the organized subsidization of missile defense than succumbing to the vagaries of the unmoderated proliferation of delivery systems and the attendant thingamajigs which go boom.

      Regards,

      William
      Last edited by Swift Sword; 26 Jan 07,, 20:29.
      Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

      Comment


      • #4
        I voted "No", but my position is somewhat split. I have zero issues with a home based missile defense. Where I disagree with a missile defense, is when a country stations it of foreign soil.

        There is no way the US should be considering placing a missile defense system in Poland or the Chek republic. This would be similar to Russia placing a missile defense system in Cuba.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yay, first American "no" vote.

          I dismiss the issue as a non-issue.

          Great American Money Sink. Put those trillions into the public school system so that it isn't crap.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sirpuddingfoot View Post
            I dismiss the issue as a non-issue. Great American Money Sink. Put those trillions into the public school system so that it isn't crap.

            I would like to think this would become a non-issue. Now I'm not claiming to be any sort of rocket scientist, but I heard someone describe this idea as analogous to trying to shoot a speeding bullet out of the sky with another bullet. Good luck with that. There's gotta be a better way to spend money.

            Comment


            • #7
              Voted yes, non-American. The C4ISR of all our air defence systems are getting old and needs upgrading. Might as well upgrade to the best. It's cheaper in the long run, even if you don't shoot down missiles but you do track everything else. How else did we know about how the Chinese performed their satellite intercept?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sirpuddingfoot View Post
                Yay, first American "no" vote.

                I dismiss the issue as a non-issue.

                Great American Money Sink. Put those trillions into the public school system so that it isn't crap.
                Except that the total cost of current missile defense programs can be measured in the low billions not trillions. Even the largest projections put total lifetime costs of the system at about $1 trillion, over the course of a couple decades. In fact current projections put NMD spending at about $10-$15 billion a year. While that makes it a large single item, that's only a small fraction of the military's budget and is peanuts compared to what we already spend on welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and education anyway. Of course that assumes that the military fields every system currently in development (SM-4 ABM, ABL, THAAD, GBMD, and upgrades to the Patriot SAM system).
                Last edited by Wraith601; 27 Jan 07,, 05:30.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Wraith601 View Post
                  Except that the total cost of current missile defense programs can be measured in the low billions ...
                  A billion dollars here. A billion dollars there. Pretty soon we're talking real money.
                  Last edited by steven lloyd; 27 Jan 07,, 09:13.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah it's real money but at least we are better prepared.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Yeah it's real money but at least we are better prepared.

                      I’m not challenging the idea in principle. I’m just questioning whether this investment of billions of dollars will actually pay off in something that works. Again, I’m no rocket scientist, but everything I’ve seen or heard on this subject suggests shooting missiles out of the sky with other missiles is an unrealistic goal. Does someone here have real information to suggest otherwise?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's already working. It's being used. The missile intercept part is the last step in the system but the surveillance, target acquisition, launch monitoring, are all being used. We're tracking the Chinese debris because of this system.

                        And thus far, the system has an 80% success test rate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          It's already working. It's being used. The missile intercept part is the last step in the system but the surveillance, target acquisition, launch monitoring, are all being used. We're tracking the Chinese debris because of this system. And thus far, the system has an 80% success test rate.


                          Hmmm. That's interesting. I hadn't really appreciated what was being accomplished as yet with this. Thanks for the info.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            My vote only reflects the ICBM missle intercept of this program only. I voted No, non-american.

                            I see that this is nothing but a waste of money. No missle shield, no matter how good it is, would stop a full scale nuclear attack from say Russia, or even China. Other than that, who else posseses Nukes able to reach NA? Our allies.

                            NK and other rougue states are developing nukes, but they are years away from developing long range capability, not to mention that sanctions and deplomacy are a much better defence from these rougue nations.

                            The risk is not from a rougue nation launching there only bargaining chip at NA in a suicide attempt. No, it is a small nuke or even dirty bomb smuggled into NA and detonated in a densly populated area.

                            ICBM Defence is only asking to start a new arms race.
                            Last edited by Canmoore; 28 Jan 07,, 03:14.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              It's already working. It's being used. The missile intercept part is the last step in the system but the surveillance, target acquisition, launch monitoring, are all being used. We're tracking the Chinese debris because of this system.

                              And thus far, the system has an 80% success test rate.
                              I think its kind of scary to agree with an ICBM defence system that isnt 100% to never fail...ever. If Russia launches 100 nukes at NA, with an 80% success rate 80 nukes are killed, while 20 nukes hit NA...

                              ICBM defence I feel, will always fail, even with a 99% success rate, all it would take is that one lone nuke to kill millions and dystroy the economy.
                              Last edited by Canmoore; 28 Jan 07,, 03:13.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X