It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missile Defense to Save Potentially Billions of Lives

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Quote from Aaron B. Fuller, President, Defense Engineering and Integration Division of Computer Sciences Corporation: "You are cordially invited to participate in the Year 2006 Multinational BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) Conference and Exhibition to be held in London, United Kingdom, 18-21 Septemeber 2006. The Year 2006 Conference is sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (www.aiaa.org) and supported by the Missile Defense Agency (www.mda.mil)."

The conference and exhibition has a call for papers; the abstract deadline is 7 January 2006. Mandatory forms are available at www.bmd2006.com. Technical help is from Kelli Hawthorne at Khawtho2@csc.com or (703) 205-6115.

May every American and Ally contribute to missile defense; consider it a life-saving mission.




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
My opinion -

Anti-missile defense people basically say that its not fair that we can nuke other nations, but not get nuked ourselves. (MAD is flawed and was favored by the Soviets.)

The whole point of missile defense is so that no one has to get nuked.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
My point-of-view on our missile defense has yet to be determined...I will at least have to see that the missiles can hit and destroy there target..it has been one problem after another, and its behind schedule and over budget, so it better work.




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I work in a very closely related field (understated) and I think the concept (part of it anyway) is great but the implementation is laughable.

We cannot (demonstrated time and again with expensive failures) at this point reliably hit a single inbound target when it does not maneuver and we know the exact launch time and coordinates in advance. The enemy's missiles will not behave so timidly.

This is no secret at all- every test launch receives its share of the news and successes are extremely rare. (Test missile is launched from Vandenberg AFB in California and interceptor is launched from Kwajaelin atoll- Google it all you want)

All we have proven to this point is that we can spend tons and tons of money- and annoy me all night with phone calls containing no new info. (Ah well, that's why I get paid the "big" bucks- yeah right)

Another big problem with the program most people don't realize- but covered in the news: There are going to be very limited numbers of interceptors- never enough to cover a full scale attack. Maybe enough to protect against a rogue missile- if it ever works even 50% of the time.

In the event of a full attack only key places containing the big wigs are likely to be protected. So much for the rest of us. I guess eventually the big wigs will starve and have to do their own laundry as all of us 'laborers' will be dust particles.


Don't get me wrong and think I am all negative about this- it is my 'bread and butter'; I just think we have been going on about this in a poor manner- or at least have the wrong folks building the parts. Hello? Lowest bidder? Hello? American made???? (Doesn't inspire confidence it used to with a service based economy). Then there is trying to tie together a bunch of very old equipment (80's is considered NEW) because there is very little new in the military since the 60's. (compare that to China's growth right now)

Ah well, enough of my rant. Here is another one.


www.ceip.org...



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There was a US anti missile system that worked. The problem was that the antimissile system used nuclear warheads to intercept the incoming missiles.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?


- Where did you get those numbers?

A single interceptor has yet to be tested...so I wouldn't judge its accuracy just yet.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I personally would rather have a missile defense with a 10% success rate then none at all. Though I would like one with a much higher rate. Say just for example Kim Jong-il goes alittle crazy with age and decides enough is enough and launches a single nuclear missile at the West Coast of the US. Without a MD we have a 0% percent chance of stopping it. Im no mathematician but I think 10% percent is better then 0%

Also when another major asteroid ends up heading for earth again information we learn in a MD program could come in very handy. Its only a matter of time with that not if it will happen.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?


- Where did you get those numbers?

A single interceptor has yet to be tested...so I wouldn't judge its accuracy just yet.


Actually it's a little less.

They've done 8 shoot down tests, 5 were successful. I think I got that from either BBC or CBC.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I personally would rather have a missile defense with a 10% success rate then none at all. Though I would like one with a much higher rate. Say just for example Kim Jong-il goes alittle crazy with age and decides enough is enough and launches a single nuclear missile at the West Coast of the US. Without a MD we have a 0% percent chance of stopping it. Im no mathematician but I think 10% percent is better then 0%

When nukes are launched, usually all or a very great number are launched as the retalliation might destroy remaining warheads in their silos. It's also a bloody waste of money. And you might also consider the following scenario: North Korea's leader is not stupid at all to risk his cosy dictator life and won't launch, while the retard president of the US thinks - due to bad advisors and/or taking his desires for reality, as with Iraq - that BMD will protect the US, attack North Korea and end up having the US nuked. Which is a scenario in which BMD actually INCREASES the chances of the Us getting nuked.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

When nukes are launched, usually all or a very great number are launched as the retalliation might destroy remaining warheads in their silos.


True but alot of countries dont have great numbers of nuclear weapons. Whats the estimated N Korea arsenal a whole 7 nuclear weapons? Hardly a great number.



Originally posted by Simon666

North Korea's leader is not stupid at all to risk his cosy dictator life and won't launch,


I think its interesting that you know what a Korean Dictator that portrays himself as some god like figure will do in the future. Especially in a scenario were KIM gets alzheimer's as he ages as I put forward ie. (gets crazy with age). Being a dictator has certian advantages like KIM is incharge for life he does not lose power when in the early stages of alzheimer's. I have worked in a Old folks home before and seen what alzheimer's can do and the madness that comes with age so often. Believe me you dont want those type of people in charge of WMDs.

But maybe I should have put out a different scenario.

Ok N Korea has been proven to been selling nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. Im talking rock solid evidence none of that Iraq intel garbage. So a international coalition decides they have to remove him from power. Kim fearing he will lose his "cosy dictator life " decides if he is going down hes bringing all his subjects with him. He launches all seven of his nuclear weapons.


Heres another one- Rogue sections of N Korea's military having been raised on a steady diet of anti-US propaganda thier whole lives decide to attack the US own thier own working behind KIMs back. Propaganda is thick over there the whole Americans eat people, christian missionaries burn the word thief in the heads of N Korean childern caught stealing and N Korea is the best place in the entire world a paradise type stuff. They really feed childern this garbage over there, just read accounts of people that escape N Korea. When children are taught this stuff they really believe its true.

But Im sure you know what ever N Korean military soldier would do as well


Originally posted by Simon666


while the retard president of the US thinks - due to bad advisors and/or taking his desires for reality, as with Iraq - that BMD will protect the US, attack North Korea and end up having the US nuked. Which is a scenario in which BMD actually INCREASES the chances of the Us getting nuked.


Ok this part makes no sense US MD had nothing to do with any decision in invading Iraq. Iraq never had the missile technology to hit the US not even close. So I dont know where you heard that from.

A MD increasing the chance of the US getting nuked is a pretty lame theory. What do you think a country is more likely to use a nuke if the person they are shooting at has a MD
With or without a MD the US response to a WMD attack is the same. They are not going to hold off and wait to see if the MD works before launching their own nukes. Assured destruction is still the response for any country that uses a WMD agianst America MD or not. But that threat wont stop someone that is insane, and the world has alot of insane people.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by NWguy83
I'd rather have a MD system even if it only has an 80% success rate, then no MD system at all. 10 major cities nuked or just 2?


- Where did you get those numbers?

A single interceptor has yet to be tested...so I wouldn't judge its accuracy just yet.


Actually it's a little less.

They've done 8 shoot down tests, 5 were successful. I think I got that from either BBC or CBC.


I believe those are the ship tests...which is one of the layers of the shield...but i'm refering to the very high price tagged land based interceptors...which so far have undergone 2 tests, both had computer problems...which are failures in my book...but I wont really judge it until one actually gets off the ground and hits or misses its target.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I believe those are the ship tests...which is one of the layers of the shield...but i'm refering to the very high price tagged land based interceptors...which so far have undergone 2 tests, both had computer problems...which are failures in my book...but I wont really judge it until one actually gets off the ground and hits or misses its target.


No, I pretty sure it was GBMI.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A MD increasing the chance of the US getting nuked is a pretty lame theory. What do you think a country is more likely to use a nuke if the person they are shooting at has a MD
With or without a MD the US response to a WMD attack is the same. They are not going to hold off and wait to see if the MD works before launching their own nukes. Assured destruction is still the response for any country that uses a WMD agianst America MD or not. But that threat wont stop someone that is insane, and the world has alot of insane people.

You completely misunderstood what I said. The theory is rather that a country with MD - even if it is not 100%, and in case of the US it is far from that - is more likely to push for conflict with countries like North Korea, if the leadership thinks MD will provide fool proof protection somehow, taking once more its desires for reality.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join