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.

 

Poll Reveals 83 Percent Of Floridians Want Missile Defense Protection

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Missile Defense = Pork, plain and simple.


Of course it is. But thats missing the point. How much of that R&D will make its way into the public sector evetually? Quite a bit over the long run. Who knows what breakthrough we will eventully discover as we make this shield a more integrated part of our defence network.




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

No one in their right mind would nuke the US with an ICBM.


Ahh...finally someone said it so how about if we get a idiot like Crazy Kium of north Korea or what id we get someone like hitler in cahrge of country that has ICBM's. What if a missile gets fired at the US should we be caught of guard not with the ABM we would be able to destroy the missile. Isn't the motto of this site to deny ignorance. That means don't overlook anything or disregard something as it will never happen. Cuz don't forget Murphy's law anything that can go wrong will. Ok the law just sounded kool to type


[edit on 28-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a florida poll? that makes me laugh, are we floridians worried about castro firing a missile at us again or will the target of the defense missiles be against the boatloads of haitians or cubans?

and why wasn't i polled for this question, if they had actually polled intelligent floridians that number might show otherwise.

while a defense shield sounds all fine and dandy, i don't think it is practical or necessary especially since the Bush administration is doing such a spectacular job of spending the $$$ needed for such a plan and ridding the world of threats like Saddam and his wmds (sarcasm)



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Not everyone is as gung-ho as you about this missile shield, WestPoint.
Some people have very genuine concerns as to whether this type of system will actually work.

www.signonsandiego.com...

Defense system set to debut this year
By Otto Kreisher
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
May 14, 2004

WASHINGTON The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to begin operations late this year appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said yesterday.

A team of physicists from the Union of Concerned Scientists said the missile defense system being installed in California and Alaska has never been tested in realistic trials and will be missing components necessary to counter an actual missile attack.

"The administration's claims that the defense (system) will be highly effective are false and irresponsible," said Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of the group's Global Security Program.

Two senior Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a House member who is a physicist with a background in arms control endorsed the group's critical report and said the rush to deploy the untested missile defense system has more to do with politics than national security.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has conceded that developmental testing will continue long after the system becomes operational in September, with installation of at least five interceptor missiles at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Nonetheless, Kadish said that when those initial missiles are in place, "if a warhead is shot at the 50 United States, we'll be able to shoot back."

Gronlund and Philip Coyle, the Defense Department's top weapons tester from 1994 to 2001, said Kadish's claim assumes an effectiveness that has never been demonstrated in more than two decades of research and testing and more than $70 billion in spending.

"The ability to protect the whole United States is based on computer simulation that assumes everything works perfectly," Coyle told a news briefing. "They haven't been able to protect Kwajalein," he added, referring to the Pacific atoll that is part of the missile test range.


The program has survived, with multiple modifications, through three subsequent administrations, despite widespread opposition and repeated test failures.

On Dec. 17, 2002, President Bush ordered the Defense Department to deploy an operational defense this year.

In a detailed report released yesterday, the scientists noted there has never been an integrated test of all the components of what is supposed to be the operational defense system.

In fact, they said, the planned three-stage interceptor rocket and the ground and space-based missile-tracking radars still are being developed. And all of the intercept flight tests have been "highly scripted" events that did not include the decoys expected with an actual enemy missile.

Asked if the missile defense system would ever be effective, Coyle noted that his successor in the testing office, Thomas Christie, recently said the tests so far have provided "no basis to judge that the system has any capability."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely the money spent on this unproven system would be better spent on prevention of terrorist acts in the US.

This system would not have stopped 9/11 from happening...it does nothing except prevent a missile attack from a nation state. An attack of that nature can be stopped by the use of nuclear deterrance, as was proved for over 45 years during the Cold War.

zero lift



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Can't everyone see that this is just another attempt by the Bush administration to keep disenfrachising the voters?!!!!

Patriots are necessary to keep minorities/gays/women away!!!



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Not to long ago there was a warning from some commitee that terrorists might be able to conceal a SCUD on a barge and launch it from the barge while off the coast. So lets figure do we let hundreds maybe even thousands die because we were to stingy with our money and unprepared, or do we quit whining about the money and prepare ourselves, better safe than sorry. 9/11 and Pearl Harbor happened because we weren't prepared. Personally I don't like the concept of the US caught with its pants down again. And what if were caught in another cold war. Russia is starting to make a comeback, China is developing rapidly. And look at Iran they have a nuclear program going. Pakistan and India have successfully tested nuclear devices. As westpoint said theres a half insane man in control of North Korea which has its own nuclear program and possibly the capabilities to hit the western part of the US. Sure Flordia doesn't need protection but a lot of the US does. When it comes to nuclear weapons its a good idea to stick with Murphy's law.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
A. It's a bull# poll. I could make a poll asking, "Do you think that everyone in America should have universal Health Care?". If you ask that question in FL, I'd wager support would be around 90%. Of course, at this point you haven't proposed how to pay for it or anything, you're just asking a general question.... See my point?

B. There is good reason to think that such a shield already exists (see the recently announced THELs, and the numerous classified military satellites going up almost daily, in the 80's under Reagan)...



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
And what if were caught in another cold war. Russia is starting to make a comeback, China is developing rapidly. And look at Iran they have a nuclear program going. Pakistan and India have successfully tested nuclear devices. As westpoint said theres a half insane man in control of North Korea which has its own nuclear program and possibly the capabilities to hit the western part of the US. Sure Flordia doesn't need protection but a lot of the US does. When it comes to nuclear weapons its a good idea to stick with Murphy's law.


I can understand your concerns but a missile shield is ineffective against a nation with ICBMs. One or two, from North Korea, sure. But not 30-40 or even hundreds from China or Pakistan & Iran.

And if North Korea, Iran or whoever wants to hit the USA with a nuclear bomb he won't put it on a ICBM and let it fly for more than half an hour before it hits. Even without missile shield a single or two ICBMs can be intercepted.
So the terrorists will stick to land deployment of such a bomb and the big countries like China would strike too massive for the shield anyway.

Summary: No use.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Sure it wont shield against 100's of ICBM's but one or two will do and its good to have unless you want to be caught off guard and half your country is missing. Plus if the military had stopped every project that had a rocky start we would still be riding hoses and throwing rocks at each other give it time people things get better Its like you expect a 1 month old horse to win a race give it time.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
True. If some fancy laser satellites(MEL in space) will develop better and better I would take a guess this to be the weapon of warfare and defense for the 21st century.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
I can understand your concerns but a missile shield is ineffective against a nation with ICBMs. One or two, from North Korea, sure. But not 30-40 or even hundreds from China or Pakistan & Iran.

And if North Korea, Iran or whoever wants to hit the USA with a nuclear bomb he won't put it on a ICBM and let it fly for more than half an hour before it hits. Even without missile shield a single or two ICBMs can be intercepted.
So the terrorists will stick to land deployment of such a bomb and the big countries like China would strike too massive for the shield anyway.

Summary: No use.

Yes there is use. The shield is still for the most part in development. They constantly improve on it. Look at the nuclear bomb, at first people thought that each country might have only one or two. But now look, a few major powers have enough nuclear weaponry to end all life on earth. People though guns were impractical because they gave you only one inaccurate shot at close range. They were just a gimmick compared to the longbow. But now there capable of hitting targets from a good kilometer away. They fire hundreds of rounds per minute. So basically sure we can't protect ourselves from mass attack right now but thats because the system is reletivly new.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Now look, we got through the Cold War where Kruschev was screaming 'we will bury you!' while pounding a desk at the UN with his shoe, and he had nukes. Now we're supposed to build a huge, useless missile defense shield because we're scared of #ing North Korea? Whoever attacks us gets wasted by our nukes - that's the way it's always been, that's the way that ensures peace, but unfortunately it's not a thing that's bringing the Mil-Ind money these days.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Uhh..it would protect against rouge nations firing an ICBM at the Us. N.Korea or maybe Iran plus it will defend to a certain degree an attack form any nation upon the United States. Really? since when are you concerned about the cost if its being set up to protect you life? No this system would be nation wide not just in Florida, partially every state might have a system. Also there are ways to prevent this system form shooting down regular airplanes read some of the links i provided. Have nuclear missiles been launched accidentally by the US no the same type of systems will be made to prevent this from happening with the ABM lasers and missiles.





I am convined if a nation wanted to launch a premptive nuclear attack against the US they would have already done so. The cost to maintain these systems is astronomical and there are far more problems than preparing a defense against a highly unlikely scenerio. A missile defense program is an easy sell to the ignorant and scared but in reality it is just not practical.
ALSO if a foreign nation were to launch ICBM as a suprise our folks at NORAD would pick this up immediatly and have armed fighter jets in the air ready to shoot these things down.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by jrod]

[edit on 28-7-2004 by jrod]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
They have to scare people to sell this useless piece of billion-dollar crap. That's the sad thing, morons actually believe that ICBMs and threat of nuclear attack is a new thing and politicians don't do anything to remind them of how we've dealt with it without problems since the Soviets set off their bomb.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
well whats the difference between iran and north korea having ICBM's vs the soviet union with them? the threat is the same so why is it not needed when they will be a threat to us? what is a soviet ICBM dangerous but an iranian one not?

where is your peoples logic? these are very real threats from iran and north korea and the system is being designed for this threat specifically, not for the kind of attack china or russia can muster, its a limited system for a limited purpose, it would violate the abm treaty if it was any different than what has been planned for it.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
well whats the difference between iran and north korea having ICBM's vs the soviet union with them? the threat is the same so why is it not needed when they will be a threat to us? what is a soviet ICBM dangerous but an iranian one not?

where is your peoples logic? these are very real threats from iran and north korea and the system is being designed for this threat specifically, not for the kind of attack china or russia can muster, its a limited system for a limited purpose, it would violate the abm treaty if it was any different than what has been planned for it.


Um... the US missile defense plan does violate the 1972 ABM treaty.

MAD would work perfectly for NK and Iran just as it did the USSR.

www.clw.org...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
True. If some fancy laser satellites(MEL in space) will develop better and better I would take a guess this to be the weapon of warfare and defense for the 21st century.



Nope, at this point in time we could only put a chemical laser in space because a solid state (electricity only) laser would need more power then any solar panal could produce. A chemical Laser can only shoot 10 - 20 times before its spent, and we do not yet have the technology to go to space to fill er' up, cause obliviously the shuttle couldn't do it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Um... the US missile defense plan does violate the 1972 ABM treaty.

MAD would work perfectly for NK and Iran just as it did the USSR.


No it does not genius its an defensive weapon system
!
Plus Iran and north Korea both have leaders that have a logic where they think I will go down but I want to take as many people with me so mad doesn't work against people who don't care about their people and who are suicidal like Kim or the mullahs the USSR was different they had a lot to loose Kim has nothing to loose but he wants to make a name for himself.


[edit on 29-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Ok West... but isn't it odd that once we stopped stockpiling nukes we had to focus on another bloated project - missile defense?

The US being scared of Iran or North Korea is like an elephant running from a mouse. They could barely dent this country with their stockpile yet we could absolutely kill everyone in their country.

I say we stand with our stockpile, use MAD, stay with the ABM treaty, and use those billions to save something critical to our country, namely the national debt.

Don't let Kim Jong-Il's hair scare you.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Nope, at this point in time we could only put a chemical laser in space because a solid state (electricity only) laser would need more power then any solar panal could produce. A chemical Laser can only shoot 10 - 20 times before its spent, and we do not yet have the technology to go to space to fill er' up, cause obliviously the shuttle couldn't do it.


I know
As I said: if they develop better and better.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join