Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ionia23 on October 06, 2004, 04:26:37 pm
-
Read this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/tech/main647764.shtml)
Now it gets ugly. You watch the response to this.
-
Frankly, I view this as good news. What's wrong with the U.S. having a way of actually PROTECTING ourselves from missles?
I live there...and I really don't want to get hit by an ICBM...;)
-
The response? What, laughter?
They don't even bother to make their lies plausbile anymore. They might as well have said they have a base on the moon that can shoot lasers at the sun.
-
So now all the short range nukes are aimed at thevital US radar station being installed in the UK?
(nice one, Tony)
-
Umm...it is very plausible. It launches missles to intercept other missles launched at us. What is so impossible about that?
-
No, the missle shield is a pipe dream thats been "very near completion" since Reagan's time. There are major problems with the design and implementation which why most US physicists have condemnded it.
If they actually have the damn thing operational, I'll grow wings and fly up to intercept any missles myself. Its bull****, an attempt to boost Bush's popularity before the elections. In the absence of Big O, (and we'll soon see if he really is absent) this is their October Surprise.
-
What amazes me is that billions of dollars have been spent on a non-threat. At the end of the day, the threat to the American people doesn't come from ICBM's etc, it's come from Dirty Bombs and poison gas smuggled in tiny amounts through airports etc.
I can assure you the Osama's $30 million pound fortune does not even begin to run to the cost of buying even a single Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, let alone the payload, launch platform etc, and no other Nuke-nation, except possibly that nutcase in N.Korea would even consider launching a Nuke at the US. It would be like throwing a snowball at an Avalanche.
-
Maybe I ought to clarify why this is bad.
Rictor might very well be right, that it's all a bunch of hooey. I honestly hope it is.
Yes, in thought being able to defend against a missle strike is a good thing, as the only current defense to all-out nuclear conflict is deterrence. Great policy. Yeah. As long as you're fighting an enemy who actually gives a damn about surviving.
Think about this a moment, assuming the system actually works. I see two BAD things coming out of this:
1. Iran. If this current administration gets re-elected (Bush and company), Georgie Porgie's next target will be Iran. If the Iranians proceed with a nuke program, this administration would be just stupid enough to strongarm them. "We fear not your weapons which you probably haven't built anyway". Likewise for North Korea. Think about the physical, financial, and emotional damage of the 9/11 attacks over here. Compared to a 5 megaton detonation over a city. Hell, detonated in near space (EMP burst), the 9/11 attacks weren't diddly ****. We just might finally piss someone off enough to fire first.
(Qualifier: I have no issues with Iran at all, and I think giving them a hard time about things is extremely ****ed up.)
I'm also of the opinion that we are greatly underestimating the Russian response. Greatly.
2. If this defense system is even 95% efficient, it just might 'spook' one of the other members of the nuclear family into firing first under the principle that if they don't launch now, they'll never have an opportunity.
This system, if it works, represents a major shift in the balance of nuclear powers.
Maybe I'm hyping it, but this is also how WWIII started in Whitley Strieber's "War Day". 25 years later than it took place in the book, but damned near the same.
-
You have to understand that this Star Wars bull**** started out as some kind of ludicrous publicity stunt proposed by Reagan. Since then, it has had a long, distinguished history of being total bull****. For its entire lifetime, the people who know what they're talking about have almost universally assessed it as being a long shot at best. It is a waste of time and tax money, and it is a testament to the simplistic worship of science as an omnipotent god.
EDIT: Now redundant. People posted like crazy.
-
DON'T **** WITH SCIENCE!
Oh, and remind me to stab Maeglamor for the censor. :doubt:
-
Rictor, you're funny.
The reason "it's been very near completion since Reagan's time" is twofold. One, the processing tech has not been developed until recently and, two, we haven't had an interceptor missile capable of reaching and stopping an ICBM until recently. Also, you should be happy about this, given that it's going to protect Canada too.
Also, in every poll I've seen or heard Bush is 5-10 points ahead of Kerry except in Lefty-Wacko areas.
Would you really want that...tit...as the leader of your country Rictor?
All he has is secret plans which he won't reveal until he's elected. Bush on the other hand has visible, well documented agendas that everyone knows about.
-
But see, there really *are* no ICBM threats to the US anymore. The Cold War is over guys, like it or not. Several hundred billion dollars, for what? To guard against an single, untested ICBM that North Korea may or may not (in all likelyhood, not) have and that they may or may not use (again, not)? Want security? Already have it, better than virtually any nation on Earth. Still not satisfied? Station guards at your ports, put in better detection measures at airports and that sort of thing. Oh wait, you already have. Most of the world has more reason to fear for its safety than America, but I don't see them deploying billion dollar pea-shooters and buying up duct-tape.
If you want to talk about WW3, consider what happens if/when Israel decides to take out Iran's potential nuclear program, ala Osirak. ****storm baby, thats what. And thats MUCH more probable than anyone lobbing an ICBM at America, in fact I would go so far to say that it is actually likely.
-
All he has is secret plans which he won't reveal until he's elected. Bush on the other hand has visible, well documented agendas that everyone knows about.
Yes, and knowing what his agendas are, I think I'll take my chances with the unknown. Although one might dispute the "well-documented" part.
The missile defense system is going to protect jack ****. It doesn't work and it never has worked. During some of the tests, they were actually putting electronic tracking devices on the missiles. It's a complete waste of our money.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
two, we haven't had an interceptor missile capable of reaching and stopping an ICBM until recently.
That's factually incorrect. Cold War era systems could easily intercept ICBMs... the difference is that they used (often large) nukes to accomplish kills. They were designs to protect vital areas in case of an all-out nuclear war, not defend against a possible limited strike and as such could afford to use nuclear warheads.
Look up the Sprint missile. The damn thing pulls over one hundred gees during launch. It's an awesome piece of engineering.
-
Liberator: if you think that the this system would get anything near reliable then you're a fool and know nothing about the basic laws of physics
-
Unfortunately(?), most people outside the US are against Bush exactly because his agendas are well documented.
Anyway, didn't this miracle interceptor missile fail its testing pretty miserably a few years back? With the tests being faked?
Lib - are 'lefty-wacko' areas wacko because you disagree with their politics? (presumably they result to tactics like calling Bush, etc, tits or something)
Oh, and that defense system doesn't cover the UK. So like **** we should let them build an early warning radar station for it here - might as well replace the clock face of Big Ben with a bullseye while we're at it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and that defense system doesn't cover the UK. So like **** we should let them build an early warning radar station for it here - might as well replace the clock face of Big Ben with a bullseye while we're at it.
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, you're funny.
The reason "it's been very near completion since Reagan's time" is twofold. One, the processing tech has not been developed until recently and, two, we haven't had an interceptor missile capable of reaching and stopping an ICBM until recently. Also, you should be happy about this, given that it's going to protect Canada too.
Also, in every poll I've seen or heard Bush is 5-10 points ahead of Kerry except in Lefty-Wacko areas.
Would you really want that...tit...as the leader of your country Rictor?
All he has is secret plans which he won't reveal until he's elected. Bush on the other hand has visible, well documented agendas that everyone knows about.
1. So, I guess Left-Wacko areas include most major cities, right? That arguement makes no sense. You could just as well as that every poll I've seen indicates that Kerry leads Bush except in Rightist-Wacko areas. Kerry leads where Kerry leads, Bush leads where Bush leads. You just said it in a different way.
2. No, I would not want Kerry as my President. But not for the reasons you think. I wouldn;t want him because he is a jingoist, a imperialist and I agree with virtually none of his policies.
3. Canada will likely not be a part of the missle shield. All major parties are against it, and it has become a topic of near-unanimous public condemnation. Even Steven Harper, the leader of the Conservatives and perhaps the most US-friendly politican in Canada does not support it.
4. Read my above post. There is no threat of ICBM. I shudder to think what good could have been done with that money, instead of lining the pockets of defence-tech corporations on a project that will not only not work, but that is unecessary in the first place.
-
Giving the US this protection if it works is like giving a megalomaniac a gun and a star trek shield that will defend him against any enemy fire.
Besides which it's a joke - they've had less than a 20% success rate in tests of the system.
-
Yeah, this whole discussion is pointless, since the chances of them actually having it done are so small. Of course, they can just say its done and people will believe it, and -boom- instant ratings boost.
And when no one attacks, they just say how thats because its workings so perfectly.
Read my lips: nothing-to-worry-about-cause-there-is-no-missle-shield-and-everyone-knows-it
-
The only chance of Canada being nuked is if someone misses the US.
-
Who's gonna nuke us? North Korea? I laugh at them? China? No. Russia? No. France?
well, maybe... :D
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Who's gonna nuke us? North Korea? I laugh at them? China? No. Russia? No. France?
well, maybe... :D
*Hides ICBM's*
*Whistles*
Not me.
-
In 2002 the missile shield had a 5/8 success rate. And that was when the tests were rigged in favor of the defense system. I guess we can all be greatful that if eight thousand nuclear weapons are launched, at least five thousand will never reach American soil. Yaaays, anybody? :nervous:
-
American paranoia strikes again.
-
Just because most countries do not CURRENTLY have the means to manufacture and deploy ICBMs, doesn't mean they WON'T one day. Better safe than sorry.
And, if by some (I support the missle interceptor plan, even though it is likely to be somewhat unreliable) miracle it does work as planned, we won't have anything to fear from North Korea and Iran, and such.
With that kind of threat out of the way, perhaps we can more easily reason with these countries...preventing war.
Far fetched? Maybe. But it could be worth it.
-
I want one of these, but it's years away from _posably_ working, this is BS.
-
They've been working on it for almost 30 years, it's probably much closer completion than we realize. Remember, we went to the moon in less than 10 years when they said we couldn't and shouldn't. I do realize that this is not Jack Kennedy's United States.
-
there are major technical problems with this, it's like sooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet without haveing any forwarnment about it, it's an insanely complicated and dificult problem that makes landing on the moon look like takeing a bus to the corner market. it's an incredably hard thing to do, but I do think we should try it, but I'm realistic about it, it's years and years away from being useable.
-
good, now I don't want to hear either of you ever complain about taxes ever again. You support this sort of frivilous spending, well, it aint cheap and if you're so keen to have it, you better believe its comming out of your pocket.
funny how you think that building a missle defense system costing several hundred billion dollars to maybe intercept a missle which chances are will never come is top priority, and yet paying for an old lady's athritis medicine would be a crime against nature.
Next time I find myself doubting the power of propaganda, I'll think back the Star Wars and reaffirm my belief in the capacity of otherwise normal people to act like tinfoil-hatted nutters under the right circumstances.
-
governments job is to stop other governments from killing us, not to keep us fed, you think diferently, that's why you live in Canada.
you know liveing within the blast radius of a military base on everyones MUST-NUKE-FIRST list might have skewed my priorities, but that's why I get one vote.
-
I hope folks get the point that I'm not so much worried about someone else arbitrarily starting armageddon, I'm VERY concerned about the way this administration is going about it, and if re-elected, what they'll do with it.
The Iranians are NOT wimps by any stretch, and Georgie Porgie is just stupid enough to try to strongarm them.
"Star Wars", at it's greatest hype, claimed a potential 90% kill rate. Great. Even in a small exchange of 1000 warheads (ho ho ho), that's 100 reaching their targets. More than enough to take care of the missle fields, a few capital cities near military targets, and six EMP devices in the atmosphere, effectively destroying 75-90% of the electronics in North and Central America.
This is the **** that scares me because it starts with the **** we're seeing now.
-
A little historical data on the thing:
1) There are working systems, but they aren't made to intercept ICBM, but IRBM which are smaller scale, much slower versions.
Do you remember Gulf War1 and the Patriot missiles? It's pretty much an version finally capable of intercepting SCUD missiles (based, OMG on the old german V2)... It's not that they're going to hit US territory anytime soon... maybe they can be deployed by carrier groups and US bases near hot zones...
2) The whole star wars thing and missiles shield were designed when ICBMs were much simpler and the task was feasible.
After ICBMs capable of carrying multiple warheads to multiple targets were created (up to 25 IIRC), the whole tech and project became useless and unfeasible.
There are theoretical systems capable of countering the threat, but they still requires decades of R&D and are pretty unflexible.
Given the number of WORKING (estimated at around one quarter of the total deployed systems, if Russia launches today it will probabily nuke itself) ICBMs the thing will never get serious priorities...
And about early warning stations... WTF? NORAD is already capable to monitor launches around the world in near real time...
3) Do you know what are the speeds playing when you talk about ICBMs?
If you make a ton of C4 exploding in the exact moment an ICBM passes it's not going to near hit it, as it's 8 times faster than the explosion propagation speed.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I hope folks get the point that I'm not so much worried about someone else arbitrarily starting armageddon, I'm VERY concerned about the way this administration is going about it, and if re-elected, what they'll do with it.
The Iranians are NOT wimps by any stretch, and Georgie Porgie is just stupid enough to try to strongarm them.
"Star Wars", at it's greatest hype, claimed a potential 90% kill rate. Great. Even in a small exchange of 1000 warheads (ho ho ho), that's 100 reaching their targets. More than enough to take care of the missle fields, a few capital cities near military targets, and six EMP devices in the atmosphere, effectively destroying 75-90% of the electronics in North and Central America.
This is the **** that scares me because it starts with the **** we're seeing now.
True, and the detonating of EMP devices isn't anything to be taken lightly. If enough weapons were deployed over an industralized state, said country would get to relive the 18th or 19th century all over again. The more technological a country was, the more suspectible it would be to such an attack.
Then again, I've always wondered what a world without cars and computers might be like.
*thinks for a moment*
No no no no no no no no NO. They can take the car, but NOT THE COMPUTER! I can always learn to ride a horse.
-
Zarax, go check your sources, NORAD doesn't do that kind of sh*t by itself. If this was supposed to work, there would need to be early radar systems to follow the missile so that other types of radar could identify the warhead from any decoys so that any kind of interception could be made.
Any idiot can see that the problem with this is that if someone REALLY wants to nuke the USA (which is laughable), one would simply nuke the early radar stuff one after the other only to blow up the USA next in a syncronised blow.
-
Ghostavo, they use satellites, not radars...
And please pay attention to the fact i said monitor launches, not track missiles...
NORAD is actually capable of telling when an ICBM is launched and the approximate target area.
About RADARS, US already have such installations (see Cobra Dane), so unless they thinks France or UK is going to nuke them any extra installation is pretty much useless...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Ghostavo, they use satellites, not radars...
And please pay attention to the fact i said monitor launches, not track missiles...
NORAD is actually capable of telling when an ICBM is launched and the approximate target area.
About RADARS, US already have such installations (see Cobra Dane), so unless they thinks France or UK is going to nuke them any extra installation is pretty much useless...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2658861.stm
It's required for early warning, IIRC RADAR doesn;t have an infinite range.
I think the difficulties of knocking down an ICBM correctly with a missile are about the same as hitting a bullet with another bullet when firing from positions a mile apart.
-
RADAR has a limited range based on power and line of sight.
In simple terms, the problem with an ICBM is trying to hit something moving at MACH11 with a MACH4/5 missile, and have the missile detonating at the right time, which requires it to detonate before contact, otherwise the ICBM won't be harmed.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
RADAR has a limited range based on power and line of sight.
In simple terms, the problem with an ICBM is trying to hit something moving at MACH11 with a MACH4/5 missile, and have the missile detonating at the right time, which requires it to detonate before contact, otherwise the ICBM won't be harmed.
So the natural curvature of the Earth would require early warning stations spread about the place. Which presumably would not be covered by the missile shield, and thus be the prime target for a proper attack (because you'd need a lot of good, early info to model the incoming ICBM and fire at it).
-
I never thought I would be discussing my speciality after leaving the Air Force (Radar and Missiles)
The range of radar (and other radio waves) depends on frequency, power, and atmospheric conditions. You can send a radio signal half way round the world, but the frequency has to be so low that it is unusable for radar. The problem is accuracy: Radar at airports for example is moderately high frequency, around 10GHz, which gives good positional information, but a short range. Now you can drop down to 1 - 3GHz which will hugely increase your range, but it decreases your ability to track stuff.
So, if you are chasing a high-flying, fast-moving target, then you need to up the power of each pulse to punch through the air, but you also need a lot of pulses because the target is moving quickly, and you need a reasonable frequency to pass on good positional info to the interceptor.
You may not know this, but radar signals travel down a rectangular pipe, and if it is sealed, then you can transmit something like 50,000,000 Watts in short bursts, but, even with that amount of power, you are still only looking at a range of 300 miles max on a normal search radar.
My guess, and it is a guess, is that the radars used in this system are a much lower frequency than normal search radar, so they can get the range, but I would be very dubious about the accuracy...
If, however, they link the whole system together with satellite tracking, then they may have some sort of hope of making it work.
But, I have to point out that all of this new technology becomes irrelevant in the event of an airburst nuke. Most of the satellites, radars, comms etc. etc. will be wiped out by the EMP and rendered useless.
So... is it a waste of time? Yes, I think so. If I was planning any sort of strike, the first thing I would do is deprive the enemy of 90% of thier technological advantage.....
-
If you wanted to launch a nuclear attack on the Us, then, all you'd need is a conventional weapon to take out one of the EW radar stations (or a small nuke for EMP), and the other one would get through unharassed.
-
Exactly what I said... besides, time is required in order to follow the projectiles (yes, plural because a ICBM not only has a warhead but also decoys) and blow the right one.
-
ICBMs doesn't have decoys, but multiple warheads...
-
Even worse...
(and they DO have decoys... http://www.neiu.edu/~ncaftori/starwar.htm )
-
they have both
-
I used to love the idea of this sci-fi-cum-reality tech stuff, but the fundamental (computer) problem of identification is probably the largest in this no-hope system. Being able to reliably identify ICBMs as opposed to fighter planes, space rockets etc would be virtually impossible - make it too sensitive and it gets loads of false positives (hooray for airliner passengers), make it too weak and a single false negative could spell colossal disaster. A useful balance between the two will likely be impossible to achieve with current techniques and even if it were attainable, it'd be very simple to fool because such a system would rely on very specific assumptions about what equates to a threat.
And I'm in total agreement about its usefulness in today's world, it may have been relevant in Reagan's era but is a hopeless waste of taxpayer money now that we're on good terms with China, Russia, et al. I suspect Blair is co-operating with the US on this to keep transatlantic relations cosy, as if they need strengthening any more than they are already. But as for Bush's motivations, I do wonder... it's a frivolous piece of spending considering the other host of problems the US is facing ATM
-
:lol:
Seriously, :lol:
I find this whole ordeal verry funny :D
-
60 billion to develop a missile which may or may not intercept a missile which may or may not exist. Only in america.
-
thats what I said.
and even if it does exist, which may or may not be used, heavy emphasis on not.
and I think its significantly more than 60 billion, no?
-
it's a long term solution to a long term problem, I think we should be developing it in cooperation with all major powers, Russia France UK and China, esentaly makeing ICBMs useless to nut case dictators.
-
We should cover the sky with satellites, a sort of superintelligent net in the sky, we could call it SKYN....oh....
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
esentaly makeing ICBMs useless to nut case dictators.
I know Bush is bad but I mean, not that bad is he?
-
you mean it sarcasticlly, but thats honestly how much of the world views the Fearless Leader. Not to mention that he has OPENLY threatened Iran, North Korea, Syria, and a whole host of other countries with attacks. All things considered, these and other countries have far more to fear from an American attack than the other way around.
-
Ah well, all out thermonuclear war is a far cooler way of going out than being hit by a bus I guess.
Unless it was like a bus full of topless models, and bears. Yeah. That'd be a way to go.
-
Yeah but around here they'd have to be married bears...
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yeah but around here they'd have to be married bears...
Yes but not homosexual marriage I hope. It's immoral.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
you mean it sarcasticlly, but thats honestly how much of the world views the Fearless Leader. Not to mention that he has OPENLY threatened Iran, North Korea, Syria, and a whole host of other countries with attacks. All things considered, these and other countries have far more to fear from an American attack than the other way around.
So now they're building nukes to scare off the merkins (well, if all 3 of them club together they might have one made out of a lot of sticky tape, tinfoil and some toilet tubes).
-
A Blue Peter challenge if I ever heard one.
-
I think I saw that BP episode. That explains why John Leslie was forced to leave...
-
"Today children, we're going to learn how to make thermonuclear weapons"
Man, childrens TV was awesome when I was a kid.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I think I saw that BP episode. That explains why John Leslie was forced to leave...
"Today children, we're going to tell you how to get money off the tabloids for claiming rape!"
-
Get Down Blair! ;)
-
(http://www.aldo14.f2s.com/temp/doom.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
3) Do you know what are the speeds playing when you talk about ICBMs?
If you make a ton of C4 exploding in the exact moment an ICBM passes it's not going to near hit it, as it's 8 times faster than the explosion propagation speed.
IIRC, the interceptor missile actually uses kinetic force to destroy the warhead, not an explosion. It rams the ICBM at about 15,000mph.
Thats if the whole system will work, or if it's really 'near operational,' of course.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
IIRC, the interceptor missile actually uses kinetic force to destroy the warhead, not an explosion. It rams the ICBM at about 15,000mph.
Thats if the whole system will work, or if it's really 'near operational,' of course.
I don't think that's correct - the odds of getting a direct hit would be absolutely astronomical.
-
I got it from the Site a the beginning of the thread.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
I got it from the Site a the beginning of the thread.
Odd. I distinctly remember seeing a documentary detailing how they had to use explosions for this.
-
Didn't the US pull out a nuclear proliferation treaty in '92, though?
-
The interceptor explodes before the nuke reaches it, throwing a cone of shrapnel in the way of the reentry vehicle. RVs aren't all that tough, actually (they use the same kinda ceramic stuff as is on the space shuttle, and can get damaged by a large raindrop). Also, direct-contact kills aren't that difficult if you have the processing horsepower to direct the missile well enough. Apparently the Navy's Aegis system is fairly good at it using SM2-IVs.
Also, I would point out that a Russian submarine captain (of a Delta IV SSBN) was quoted a few years ago as saying that the targeting packages on his missiles have not changed. It's kinda like a default setting, I suppose, but just because the Cold War ended was not apparently enough to get folks to point their missiles in some other direction.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't the US pull out a nuclear proliferation treaty in '92, though?
erm, not that I know of, though they recently pulled out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, as well as violating 8 major international agreements, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
dunno, maybe I'm wrong, all the names get so confusing sometimes.