Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 10:04 AM        US raise deflector shields!
US Activates Missile Defense Amid North Korea Concern
By Will Dunham
Reuters

Tuesday 20 June 2006

Washington - The United States has activated its ground-based interceptor missile-defense system amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a US defense official said on Tuesday.



This strikes me as a highly ill concieved political manuever. If Korea does indeed launch a missle, there is virtually no chance our 'intercept' will work. The only succsesful tests to date have been to 'intercept missile that we knew the exact launch times and trajectories of that had no decoy or other evasive capabilities.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 11:36 AM       
I've never hoped so much to see something that I hate so much, work as they say it will.
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #3  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 12:53 PM       
I fail to see why this has not worked thus far. isn't it the same concept as our Patriot missiles during the Cold War?
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 02:07 PM       
I know this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory, and I don't have time to look it up just now, you'll have to take my word I'm not making this up or DRUNK AGAIN, but the actual succes rate for patriots during the gulf war was zero. All the 'hits' were 'missreported'. In adition, I think it's way harder to hit an ICBM because of their extreme parabola.


Incidentaly, I hear their is a new, drug resistant strain of extreme parabola going around, so where your raincoats, boys.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 02:26 PM       
can you back that up, max? my grandfather worked on Patriot missile guidance systems during the Gulf War and he would be, oh, a LITTLE more optimistic about their success.
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 03:57 PM       
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

Quote:
During the Gulf War, the Patriot was assigned to shoot down incoming Iraqi Scud or Al-Hussein Missiles launched at Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Army which was in charge of the Patriots claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were scaled back to 70 and 40 percent. (See Frontline, WGBH Educational Foundation: "The Gulf War" and "Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons" by Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret), Signet 1991) (Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. Furthermore, the Patriot's success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play up the Patriots success rate and even had reasons to downplay the Patriot's success rate. The IDF counted any Scud that exploded on the ground (regardless of whether or not it was diverted) as a failure for the Patriot. Meanwhile the U.S. Army who had many reasons to support a high success rate for the Patriots, examined the performance of the Patriots in Saudi Arabia.)

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:41 PM       
I know this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory, and I don't have time to look it up just now, you'll have to take my word I'm not making this up or DRUNK AGAIN, but thanks to Tesla's research back in the 20's, we really have nothing to worry about as far as ICBMs go...

http://www.haarp.net/
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:47 PM       
"Consider the situation in Israel. On average four Patriots were launched at each incoming Scud which was engaged. This expenditure of interceptors was due to the standard firing doctrine and the fact that, early in the war, some interceptors were fired against debris and false targets. According to Israel Defense Forces reports, somewhat fewer than one half of all attempted intercepts met with success-the origin of the U.S. Army's figure of almost 50% success. Certainly no more than one Patriot from the quartet launched for each engaged Scud will intercept successfully (if the first hits, the Scuds trajectory is likely to be so perturbed that the second Patriot will not fuze close to the target etc.)."

"In Saudi Arabia an average of three interceptors was launched at each Scud which was engaged, so one random film clip in three would show a hit if 100% of all engaged Scuds had been destroyed. That was not the case, so the fraction of videotapes showing successes would actually be less than one out of three or 27%. The correct result for Saudi events is that only about 27% of all random news videotapes would show successes but 73% would show misses. The Saudis situation is not significantly different from the Israeli case, and in neither instance would one find very many successes." (Testimony of Peter D. Zimmerman before the House Government Operations Committee, April 7, 1992)"

25% is about the percentage that my grandfather always claimed. since he was out in field and dealt with this first hand, I think I'll be much more likely to believe him than anyone else.
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #9  
ArrowX ArrowX is offline
Banned
ArrowX's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Illinois, Alberta, Canada, Thailand, Space, Groundling Marsh, Manhattan, Man Hat Ton
ArrowX sucks
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 05:21 PM       
The idea for a missile interceptor system for me would be some kind of UAV with a high output booster equipped with 2 or 3 CWIS firing 20mm explosive shells.

So where again did we all of a sudden start a new cold war?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jun 21st, 2006, 08:28 PM       
*sigh*

The Soviets sold all their technology and weaponry away to the countries that still felt the need to use force to get their way. Nobody really wants any of those guys to develop ICBM technology. "Cold War" refers to the type of war-fighting required to battle with nukes. Most wars fought throughout history have been "Hot Wars." We won a "Cold War" against the USSR, and we're winning one now against China, just in a different way... just like we won two "Hot Wars" against Germany.

Are these actually Patriots they're installing out west?

I actually like Arrow's idea better than missle defense. They should be more like the UAVs in the Matrix, though. Latching on to stuff and cutting it up...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 22nd, 2006, 09:48 AM       
Tesla fucking rocks. It's sad how many of my heros had OCD.

Eye Tai, if we grant a 25% hit rate on surface to surface short range patriot missles , that would put the hit chances of a long range ICBM continent to continent intercept at somewhat less then my chances of getting wildly boned by Spring Break Coeds without any money, liquor, or drugs changing hands and without me ever leaving Salem, Mass.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 22nd, 2006, 09:55 AM       
For N. Korean Missile, US Defense Is Hit or Miss
By Peter Spiegel
The Los Angeles Times

Thursday 22 June 2006

Washington - The Bush administration has spent nearly $43 billion over the last five years on missile defense systems, but with North Korea poised to launch its most advanced missile yet, U.S. government assessments and investigative reports indicate little confidence in the centerpiece portion of the program.

Eleven ground-based interceptors in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Central California, the cornerstone of the administration's new system, have not undergone a successful test in nearly four years and have been beset by glitches that investigators blame, at least in part, on President Bush's order in 2002 to make the program operational even before it had been fully tested.

In all, the interceptors hit dummy missiles in five out of 10 tests, but these were under controlled conditions that critics say do not reflect the challenges of an actual missile launch.

A little-noticed study by the Government Accountability Office issued in March found that program officials were so concerned with potential flaws in the first nine interceptors now in operation that they considered taking them out of their silos and returning them to the manufacturer for "disassembly and remanufacture."

"Quality control procedures may not have been rigorous enough to ensure that unreliable parts, or parts that were inappropriate for space applications, would be removed from the manufacturing process," the report says.

Since Bush took office in 2001, the ballistic missile defense system has been one of the administration's most controversial military priorities, advancing an array of programs designed to down enemy missiles in various stages of flight.

In recent days, Pentagon officials have remained coy about the capabilities and alert status of the system, leading to speculation that they may be preparing to try to shoot down the North Korean missile, believed to be the first trial of a long-range Taepodong 2. The missile is thought to be capable of reaching U.S. bases in Japan, the U.S. territory of Guam and possibly Alaska or Hawaii.

The problems in the ground-based system, as well as the ongoing expense of the war in Iraq, have not damped the administration's enthusiasm for the program. The Pentagon has requested $10.4 billion for missile defense in next year's budget, which would be its largest annual grant to date. And according to the GAO, the Pentagon plans to spend $58 billion, or 14% of its research budget, on missile defense over the next six years.

The vast majority of funding has gone to the ground-based interceptor system, designed to take out long-range missiles as they arc toward a target. Interceptors are rockets that have missile-seeking devices to destroy incoming weapons.

In addition to the interceptors, nine at Ft. Greely in Alaska and the other two in California, the system includes a series of complex radar upgrades and a sophisticated command system that enables all the components to interact.

The ground-based system has received most of the attention and funding. But missile defense systems based on Navy ships equipped with sophisticated Aegis radars, which have proved more successful in testing, have been winning a growing share of the funding, at least in part because of the ground-based devices' failures.

The U.S. military's most high-profile involvement in any North Korean launch is likely to come from the Aegis-equipped destroyers that patrol the coastal waters off the Korean peninsula. But the purpose of the radars is to track enemy missiles rather than to shoot them down.

The U.S. first sent a destroyer with Aegis radars upgraded for tracking ballistic missile launches into international waters near North Korea in October 2004, when the guided missile destroyer Curtis Wilbur was deployed as part of the Navy's first missile defense mission.

None of the destroyers are equipped with rockets that can shoot down enemy missiles, said Dave Kier, who oversees the Aegis missile defense system for prime contractor Lockheed Martin. Instead, they are used to feed real-time data on missile launches to the U.S. Strategic Command, the Pentagon division responsible for all missile defense systems.

Three larger Navy cruisers - the Shiloh, Lake Erie, and Port Royal - are equipped with antimissile rockets, but they are not expected to be directly involved in any response to North Korea's possible launch.

These rockets are being developed to combat shorter-range rockets rather than intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the Taepodong 2.

For its part, the Shiloh is scheduled to undergo a test to shoot down a decoy missile launched from Hawaii today. Unlike the ground-based system, cruisers have hit their targets in six of seven previous tests.

Pentagon officials said today's test had been scheduled for months and was not related to the current standoff with North Korea.

Because of the repeated misses by the ground-based system - including back-to-back attempts just over a year ago in which the interceptors failed to launch - Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, suspended all ground-based tests early last year.

He ordered two separate teams - one internal and one run by three outside experts - to investigate the glitches. In December, an interceptor missile was launched without problem, but it was not aimed at a dummy missile.

In spring, Obering signed off on a new test schedule for the ground-based system. The first test was planned for summer, and a spokesman said the move was a sign that Obering now believed the interceptors were back on track.

During testimony on Capitol Hill last month, Obering said that although the system was not yet on alert, "if we had to use the system in an emergency, I fully believe that it would work."

But the Government Accountability Office study and a similar study issued in February by the Pentagon's internal Operational Test and Evaluation office, a department created to take independent looks at the military's biggest weapons programs, paint a far less optimistic picture.

The annual Pentagon report says "there is insufficient evidence to support a confident assessment" of the latest components installed in the system. The report does, however, praise Obering for overhauling the program.

The GAO is even more skeptical in its assessment, saying that even though individual technologies involved in knocking a long-range missile out of the sky have been tested, the agency has yet to prove that the full system works.

Much of the trouble, both the GAO and Operational Test and Evaluation Office reports argue, can be tied to the administration's decision to push the system into operation even as it was being developed. In December 2002, Bush ordered the Missile Defense Agency to develop a limited capability in Alaska by 2004, a process that authorized the Pentagon to field components before they were fully tested.

Both the Missile Defense Agency and the GAO have laid some of the blame on Boeing, the ground-based program's lead contractor. Obering docked Boeing $107 million in bonuses last year for the failures, though both the company and the Defense Agency say relations have improved since the move in February. A Boeing statement said the company had revamped and improved its oversight processes, but the GAO was still projecting significant cost overruns.

The most troubling failure appears to be potential glitches in the interceptors. The Government Accountability Office said officials involved in the ground-based system recommended that the Missile Defense Agency remove the first nine interceptors entirely, after concerns that the rockets may contain parts that are not "adequately reliable" or "appropriate for use in space."

The agency has agreed to take them out of their silos to check the parts, but not before the missiles go through scheduled upgrades next year. That would mean that the first test since the hiatus, which will be the first at Vandenberg, will involve a suspect interceptor missile.

"It's not a perfect system; it never will be," said one person familiar with the issues involved, speaking on condition of anonymity while discussing internal deliberations. Officials are debating whether the system now is good enough to provide "a high probability" of success, he said.

"They're some who think that it is, and some think it isn't."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 22nd, 2006, 10:02 AM       
Whoever wrote the title of that article must be proud of how clever they are.

This is all for show, do we REALLY care if we could stop one of their missiles? I mean, of course we want to defend ourselves, but this strikes me as puffy chest stuff that will never result in anything.

N. Korea isn't going to attack us, and I think we probably know that. But we need to say that we could hypothetically, just maybe, shoot down their hypothetical missile if needs be.

Fuck you, Hanz BLix!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 22nd, 2006, 10:30 AM       
I think it's a dumb move, because now if they do test fire a missile we either have to attempt to shoot it down and look bad when we almost certainly fail to, or explain why after four years an 38 billion dollars we are not even in a position to try.

If we took all the money we've spent on missile deffense over the course of my lifetime, from the Nixonian ABM plan to Reagans Star Wars, to Clinto continuing to fund Star Wars when he KNEW almost no scienbntists think it's even theoretically doable, to actually building shit in Alaska before we know how to make it work and gave that money to me...


I would be so fucking comfortable. And there would be no question about the Spring Break Coeds.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:51 PM       
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062101518.html

If Necessary, Strike and Destroy
North Korea Cannot Be Allowed to Test This Missile

By Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry
Thursday, June 22, 2006; A29



North Korean technicians are reportedly in the final stages of fueling a long-range ballistic missile that some experts estimate can deliver a deadly payload to the United States. The last time North Korea tested such a missile, in 1998, it sent a shock wave around the world, but especially to the United States and Japan, both of which North Korea regards as archenemies. They recognized immediately that a missile of this type makes no sense as a weapon unless it is intended for delivery of a nuclear warhead.

A year later North Korea agreed to a moratorium on further launches, which it upheld -- until now. But there is a critical difference between now and 1998. Today North Korea openly boasts of its nuclear deterrent, has obtained six to eight bombs' worth of plutonium since 2003 and is plunging ahead to make more in its Yongbyon reactor. The six-party talks aimed at containing North Korea's weapons of mass destruction have collapsed.

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

The U.S. military has announced that it has placed some of the new missile defense interceptors deployed in Alaska and California on alert. In theory, the antiballistic missile system might succeed in smashing into the Taepodong payload as it hurtled through space after the missile booster burned out. But waiting until North Korea's ICBM is launched to interdict it is risky. First, by the time the payload was intercepted, North Korean engineers would already have obtained much of the precious flight test data they are seeking, which they could use to make a whole arsenal of missiles, hiding and protecting them from more U.S. strikes in the maze of tunnels they have dug throughout their mountainous country. Second, the U.S. defensive interceptor could reach the target only if it was flying on a test trajectory that took it into the range of the U.S. defense. Third, the U.S. system is unproven against North Korean missiles and has had an uneven record in its flight tests. A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever deterrent value our missile defense may have.

We should not conceal our determination to strike the Taepodong if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out and take it back to the warehouse. When they learn of it, our South Korean allies will surely not support this ultimatum -- indeed they will vigorously oppose it. The United States should accordingly make clear to the North that the South will play no role in the attack, which can be carried out entirely with U.S. forces and without use of South Korean territory. South Korea has worked hard to counter North Korea's 50-year menacing of its own country, through both military defense and negotiations, and the United States has stood with the South throughout. South Koreans should understand that U.S. territory is now also being threatened, and we must respond. Japan is likely to welcome the action but will also not lend open support or assistance. China and Russia will be shocked that North Korea's recklessness and the failure of the six-party talks have brought things to such a pass, but they will not defend North Korea.

In addition to warning our allies and partners of our determination to take out the Taepodong before it can be launched, we should warn the North Koreans. There is nothing they could do with such warning to defend the bulky, vulnerable missile on its launch pad, but they could evacuate personnel who might otherwise be harmed. The United States should emphasize that the strike, if mounted, would not be an attack on the entire country, or even its military, but only on the missile that North Korea pledged not to launch -- one designed to carry nuclear weapons. We should sharply warn North Korea against further escalation.

North Korea could respond to U.S. resolve by taking the drastic step of threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on that threat. Why attack South Korea, which has been working to improve North-South relations (sometimes at odds with the United States) and which was openly opposing the U.S. action? An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to enhance deterrence by introducing U.S. air and naval forces into the region at the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong. If North Korea opted for such a suicidal course, these extra forces would make its defeat swifter and less costly in lives -- American, South Korean and North Korean.

This is a hard measure for President Bush to take. It undoubtedly carries risk. But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater. Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature. A successful Taepodong launch, unopposed by the United States, its intended victim, would only embolden North Korea even further. The result would be more nuclear warheads atop more and more missiles.

Ashton B. Carter was assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and William J. Perry was secretary of defense. The writers, who conducted the North Korea policy review while in government, are now professors at Harvard and Stanford, respectively.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 12:57 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I think it's a dumb move, because now if they do test fire a missile we either have to attempt to shoot it down and look bad when we almost certainly fail to, or explain why after four years an 38 billion dollars we are not even in a position to try.
They have just as good access to the internets as do we, max. Serial. They know all about Tesla, too. As a non-comic-book-fan on a generally-comic-book-fan-site, I've always found it ironic that 13 of the first 15 villians of the Superman comic series from a hundred years ago were some sort of "Mad Scientist," even the original version of Lex Luthor, modeled after the persona of our Gypsy Scientist Hero Guy, yet he's not ever discussed here.

Anyways, access to information regarding Tesla's Death Ray experiments and the Tunguska Incident is widely available, so Kim Jung Il knows our full on-hand capabilities as well as any of us.

I'm Serial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
If we took all the money we've spent on missile deffense over the course of my lifetime, from the Nixonian ABM plan to Reagans Star Wars, to Clinto continuing to fund Star Wars when he KNEW almost no scienbntists think it's even theoretically doable, to actually building shit in Alaska before we know how to make it work and gave that money to me....
You know as well as I do that 97% of that money went into the pockets of Democrat politicians throughout the corrupt beyond measure 60's and 70's periods. I'd just LOVE to hear your explanations of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Robert Byrd otherwise, mister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Dude from Independence Day
You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I would be so fucking comfortable. And there would be no question about the Spring Break Coeds.
I wouldn't normally say this about a dude, and this has nothing to do with you being only the second Jew I've ever met, but after having met you in person and watching you eat a salad for lunch, I don't doubt your abilities among the Ladies of ANY Spring Break, and I meant every one of those allcaps.

I also, of curse, meant some of those ladies. A very significant group. ...and I also meant that mispelling, as well. Heretofore, at the least.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 02:20 AM       
As of March Israel has something called "Trophy" which outfits a tank with an invisble forcefield that acts as a missile defense. It's the same concept as the Star Wars defense, only more contained. Of course, the problem is Israel's missile defense has been pretty sketchy, and it's just a race of catchup between the rockets, and the rocket defense systems.

My uneducated guess is the Patriot isn't designed to match whatever Korea has cooked up.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 12:10 PM       
You're totally joking about the 'invisible forcefield' thing, right? I mean, even Tesla acknowledged laws of physics.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 01:10 PM       
No joke:

"The Trophy active protection system creates a hemispheric protected zone around the vehicle where incoming threats are intercepted and defeated. It has three elements providing – Threat Detection and Tracking, Launching and Intercept functions. The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage."

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm

I would love to see a test of one of these things.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 05:42 PM       
I guess the question is, what does this protective hemisphere protect with? Rapid launching projectiles? Shock waves? Sound? Because I'm pretty sure as of yesterday the whole 'forcefield' thing was mythical.

I mean, there must be something to the claim. Claiming to have an operational weapons system that's a fairy tale would be ludicrous.

I mean, it's not as if we claim any of our missile deffense systems actually work. I'd hate to see Israel not only taking our lead in sinking significant portions of GNP into bogus 'defense; systems, but actually upping the anti by claiming their real.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:53 PM       
"The system entered full scale engineering phase launched in March 2005 and is scheduled to be ready for service entry with IDF Merkava Mk 4 tanks by 2007."
http://www.defense-update.com/featur...eature-aps.htm

It's pretty logical. There's a radar system that responds to heat and triggers an anti-missile device.

Their track record with getting these sci fi toys into the battle field is pretty good. The US airforce used their infrared targeting device for the Zarqawi hit.

In the past month alone there were 140 missile attacks out of Gaza so they're pretty motivated.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 12:17 AM       
Tesla acknowledged the laws of physics, but that didn't stop him from designing and building a Death Ray, now did it?

Why else do you think federal agents dismantled Wardenclyffe Tower?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 01:08 AM       
Tesla rocked. I'm wearing a fringe jacket and singing about signs right now.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 07:57 AM       
I love that song.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.