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.

 

Praise Bush for building the Missile Defense System

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Okay,what do you think? We invented the laser in 1960. We shot down a drone at White Sands Missle Range in 1972(confirmed). I can safely say that by now we have them up there. I was told many years ago that we have had them up there since the Reagan administration. Remember all of the many speeches Reagan gave on attack by UFO's? He was right. He also talked about Scramjets in his 1984 State of the Union speech. Trust me, we have lots of toys that you do not hear about. Just because you do not hear about them does not mean they are not up there




posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm not saying that there AREN'T laser satellites in orbit, i was merely wondering if this is speculation on your part or if it's something you read somewhere. If you did read about it, could you post the links? Thanks.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I wonder...
what'll happen when people start travelling to space. Will the laser sats be revealed or camoflaged somehow. Possibly some law would be passed hampering space travel. This is thinking towards the long term but what if they were used. Wouldn't people notice a big laser in the sky.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
space is pretty big, even in earth orbit....not to mention colorless and dark. when the shuttle crew goes up to work on a particular satellite, they have to have help from the ground to locate it, because they arent very easy to spot from orbit.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
But what if by sheer bad luck someone hit one. Do you realise how hopping mad everyone would get.
I mean It would look like someone shot down one of their spaceplanes/satelites.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by whaaa
A MDS won't be worth a tinkers damn against bio/chem weapons.

The cold war is OVER! Are the mds going to used against space aliens or China? Who? This is just a convient way for the neocons to shovel tax dollars to their favorite high tech campaign contributers.
[edit on 21-12-2005 by whaaa]


So you are saying that if North Korea were to fire a ballistic missle with a bio payload, and the MDS shot it down before it hit it's target, it wouldn't be worth anything?


Why would NK want to put a bio/chem payload in a ballistic missle when they could put in in a VW bug and drive it over the border in Juarez, into El Paso and drive it any where they please. Think about it!



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I agree with whaa, a Ballistic Missile defence system will be easily defeated even by the likes of Iran or N. Korea. Another way to do it is to send up dummie missiles(like Hundreds of them) to confuse and confound any defensive system put in place in the near future.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Nothing is full-proof, this would include a anti-missile defense system.
The same logic holds true for every missile targeted and launched by those seeking to do harm: not every missile is going to explode [ie: the dud factor], not every missile is going to reach or hit its target(s).







seekerof



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
But what if by sheer bad luck someone hit one. Do you realise how hopping mad everyone would get.
I mean It would look like someone shot down one of their spaceplanes/satelites.


norad tracks every single bit of debris in orbit from nuts and bolts to satellites. they are in charge of insuring that space missions dont accidentally hit an orbiting object. i'm sure that due to their vast knowledge, in the event of private space ventures norad will become the space traffic controllers, not only insuring safety of the civilian flights, but that they maintain their distance from anything deemed critical to national security.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Someone inquired about how these satellites would hide,even with civilian space exploration. Two answers:

1. NORAD(there would still be restricted areas, even in space. The spacecraft would simply be vectored to certain areas, and other areas would be off limits).

2. Electrocromatic skin on satellites/spacecraft(the use of electrocromatic skin would make the satellite look invisible to the casual observer as little as a 1/2 mile away. Simply painting a satellite black and having no running lights i'm sure would do the trick. However, cameras on the satellite could take a picture of the left side and project it on the right side. There is talk that this is something that we are working with, probably with Aurora. I have no doubt that we have perfected this technology,or we will by the time that Virgin Galactic makes space travel commonplace.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Nothing is full-proof, this would include a anti-missile defense system.
The same logic holds true for every missile targeted and launched by those seeking to do harm: not every missile is going to explode [ie: the dud factor], not every missile is going to reach or hit its target(s).
seekerof


Exactly.

If you figure that a nation like NK or Iran has a very limited nuclear arsenal (what the system would be designed for primarilly), you can expect about a dozen or so missles to be fired.

Not all of them will hit their target. Fewer still will detonate. With a shield, fewer still will get the chance to do the first two.

The idea is that - at first at least - you can legitimatly control a reasonable amount of either of those nations WMD attacks. It is not invulnerable, but it sure beats the hell out of nothing.

Like anything else, it is a stepping stone. The more the technology is pushed, the more effective it will become. While it's effectiveness may be limited now, in the coming years it will become more and more reliable. Think of this as the first stages of rocket developement. Even the V-2 was very limited in it's effectiveness. But then 20 years later you had rockets flying in space - never mind going from one place to another.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I guess. Wasn't there a book on the possibility of a country like that quote "sticking it in a vw bug" and smuggling it into the US.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   


I have to disagree. Cruise and ballistic missiles are becoming (if they aren't already) a big threat to US national security. Who says the Cold War isn't over? The 9/11 Commission Report panel interviewed an F-16 pilot who scrambled over Washington right after the Pentagon got hit, and he was quoted as saying "You know, I'm thinking Russian cruise missile threat from the sea...." That just goes to show how seriously the US takes that threat, even if it isn't from Russia.


Excuse me for saying, but do you know what it means in my opinion?

That the USA has spend BILLIONS on facing the wrong enemy, thats what.
All those billions spend on fancy but unworkable space toys have been for naught!

400+ billions a year and the US army can't even stop an insurgency with 20,000 men and a budget of less then a tenth of a percentage of the US defense budget.
- US soldiers still need to buy their own armor...
- Your allies are leaving
- There ain't no National guards when they are needed
- 70% of all containers still enter USA harbors without being checked.
- Private citizens need to patrol the borders


You have learned nothing of 'nam, you have learned nothing from 9/11.


Wake up USA!
A spacecannon will not stop the next terrorist strike and neither will a bigger and/or more powerfull carrier.

Spend those billions on city cops, on improving harbor an airport security and I will agree with you that the USA has become safer.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Have they figured out how to actually shoot down an incoming rocket without a built in homing beacon? Kind of a bummer if people do not follow along and install those homing beacons.

It does not make sense, saturating an area with tiny rockets to shoot down another incoming rockets. I can think of a few other ways.. but that would be cheating.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I once again see people attacking the BMD projects because they've been conductiong highly controlled testing regiems.

First, when you are trying to develope a weapon system to take on the greatest technichal challenge in history, you want to be VERY precise in taking readings on every available bit of data. (Hence the daytime launches, and beacons in the target missiles)

Second, Those beacons were not being read by the interceptors, they were being read by tracking stations responsible for recording all the data. This would be like putting a new sniper rifle in a mount, and saying it's hitting the target 3 miles away was rigged, because you had a camera right there to record the bullet strike.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
id be surprised if usa and europe doesnt have laser defence shields in operation already in secret WAKE up its 2006, what new tech have we seen from militarys pretty much nothing YET lots of MONEY is spent each and every year????

maybe we got ionic enery shields an weapons ie HARRP arrays all round Allied countrys, i dont see any HARRPS in RUSSIA or enemy countrys??



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
..The MDS is an easily foilable, unworkable and unneded plan, it can be foiled, by the "rouge" nation firing, a load of dummy missiles, the MDS could not specify the actual ICBM and it would reach its target as intended, anyway, hardly and nations HAVE ICBM's, and those, dont have the resources to use them with a 100% succes ratio. The danger of nuclear attack is only hightened by the MDS, and is worse off, as at the moment IT DOES NOT WORK, and billions of american taxpayers dollars are being spent on it. We are better of Without it, full stop



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   


The danger of nuclear attack is only hightened by the MDS, and is worse off, as at the moment IT DOES NOT WORK, and billions of american taxpayers dollars are being spent on it. We are better of Without it, full stop


How is America in MORE danger with a mds? Even if it doesn't have a 100% success rate, I'd take a 10 percent chance over a 0 percent chance any day.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I think a mds is worthless. just think about it. Like it was said earlier bio weapons can easily be used in country, just look at the anthrax attacks. How would a mds help there? I think the next nuclear attack if its not done by us will be in the form on a suite case nuke. Also, the russians have designed a plasma screen stealth sheild that is very small, cheap, and can be attached to any current plane, and im sure they will start putting it on there icbms before too long. How are we going to shoot down a missle that we cant see.

www.mosnews.com...

I still think we should take the warnings of Dr. Warnher Von Braun / Dr. Carol Rosin serious and say no to space based weapons for everyone. Considering only a handful of countries have space programs and can afford them I think this should be easily monitored and regulated.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join