Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We can hit a distant asteroid by a probe that flew for 15 years, and that was with 20 year old technology. The only way to solve the technical challenges, is to address them. We certainly can. The only legitimate argument might be its not worthwhile, but saying it can't be done when looked at in light of the challenges we have solved, is silly.

In that case, let's spend the money instead on ant-sized robots that will detect the thoughts of people who want to do us harm -- you know, like North Koreans, or terrorists -- and kill them by burrowing up from their nostrils.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In that case, let's spend the money instead on ant-sized robots that will detect the thoughts of people who want to do us harm -- you know, like North Koreans, or terrorists -- and kill them by burrowing up from their nostrils.

Not a real world solution. you guys would scream profiling because more Muslims would be identified/eliminated than Quakers. Your "rights of accused" arguments make it tough to be proactive. We have to wait for the next M. Atta to hijack the plane before we can really arrest him, or Amnesty Int'l will be calling for Bush to be indicted. SDI blows up the missile after it is launced so it is in that small window where you'll let us operate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not a real world solution. you guys would scream profiling because more Muslims would be identified/eliminated than Quakers. Your "rights of accused" arguments make it tough to be proactive. We have to wait for the next M. Atta to hijack the plane before we can really arrest him, or Amnesty Int'l will be calling for Bush to be indicted. SDI blows up the missile after it is launced so it is in that small window where you'll let us operate.

Good point, but you forgot to add that deep down, we lefties really sympathize with Islamic terrorists.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point, but you forgot to add that deep down, we lefties really sympathize with Islamic terrorists.

One good thing, pretty soon the glaciers will all melt, and "ground based" missile attacks will be unfeasible.

Originally posted by Spanky
And are you saying that the Patriot missile doesn't work?

It sure is handy for knocking out British warplanes. I'm sure Michael McKevitt would have been an ardent supporter.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point, but you forgot to add that deep down, we lefties really sympathize with Islamic terrorists.

Ty, I think the right's frustration with lefties is the left's inability to offer a coherent alternative plan. We got whacked by terrorists. We'll continue to get whacked by terrorists. All the left does is criticize how we respond to the whackings, but it disappears when anyone asks it to offer an alternative.

The sole alternatives formulated, opaquely at best, by the left are:

1. Treat it like a law enforcement issue.

This half-worked in Europe for years. But these AQers are no basque separatists. Police action isn't going to stop suicide bombers.

2. Negotiate.

Impossible. You can't negotiate with a 1000 headed hydra like radical Islam.

3. Put all our money into domestic security.

The most coherent argument, but also unrealistic. Simply can't be done in a global economy. Only works where coupled with prevantative action.

Its real easy to criticize the War on Terror. Criticisms of Iraq are valid; it was a terribly thought out and terribly executed mess. BUT, something must be done. And the egghead left which couches its criticisms in the language of European defeatist faux intellectualism does itself no favors. Until it formulates a REAL alternative response, including nasty preventative measures (widespread assasinations of Imams, etc... - things the left will never do), it just looks like a bunch of people spewing foreign policy arguments written by inexperienced professors. The left needs to get real in both the content and delivery of its criticisms. At the moment, it comes off as nothing more than a pack of pseudo-intellectuals bitching and whining, but offering no Plan B.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We can hit a distant asteroid by a probe that flew for 15 years, and that was with 20 year old technology. The only way to solve the technical challenges, is to address them. We certainly can. The only legitimate argument might be its not worthwhile, but saying it can't be done when looked at in light of the challenges we have solved, is silly.

I have no dog in this hunt, since it's not an area I have studied either professionally or as a hobby. With that disclaimer, I went looking for impartial analyses of the technical challenges involved in knocking down a missile. I think that the Patriot is not the system that will be involved, since my understanding is that it is intended as a terminal phase defense system and by then you can pretty much kiss your ass goodbye - the Army's inflation of the Patriot's performance in Gulf War I are well known, and my (very brief) hunt for analyses of Patriot performance since then don't indicate that much has changed. To defend against Korean missiles, I think we need to review the missile defense programs that are directed to a longer-range (spatially, not temporally) threat.

Here is what seems to be to me at least an impartial analysis of the history and current status of the US national missile defense (NMD) systems, prepared by former military officers employed by the Center for Defense Information in Washington. They seem to be idealogically neutral at first glance. I haven't read the whole thing, but one thing that stands out is the point that the greatest challenge to a successful system is discrimination - finding the warhead amongst a sea of decoys. Enjoy.

I got this report via another website here, which seems to be completely pro-Star Wars and NMD. They provide an overview that purports to be "An explanation of what ballistic missiles are, how to defend against them, and the fundamental issues which drive the debate over whether or not to defend America". So, Spanky and Hank, no accusations of another lefty trying to cite to a lefty, please.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Here is what seems to be to me at least an impartial analysis of the history and current status of the US national missile defense (NMD) systems, prepared by former military officers employed by the Center for Defense Information in Washington. They seem to be idealogically neutral at first glance. I haven't read the whole thing, but one thing that stands out is the point that the greatest challenge to a successful system is discrimination - finding the warhead amongst a sea of decoys. Enjoy.

I got this report via another website here, which seems to be completely pro-Star Wars and NMD. They provide an overview that purports to be "An explanation of what ballistic missiles are, how to defend against them, and the fundamental issues which drive the debate over whether or not to defend America". So, Spanky and Hank, no accusations of another lefty trying to cite to a lefty, please.

Where on the missilethreat.com site did you find the report you linked to? Was it cited in something, or something they recommended as background reading? Because CDI, the author of the report you cite to, does not appear to be impartial based on their website (www.cdi.org).

ETA oh, I found a link to it in the "Missile Defense Debate" section of their "Major Reports" page. One of about 20.

Personally I think we spend too much, and not necessarily rationally. Testing schedules get shoved around for political reasons, and I think this increases the spending. I understand why, but it's unfortunate.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where on the missilethreat.com site did you find the report you linked to? Was it cited in something, or something they recommended as background reading? Because CDI, the author of the report you cite to, does not appear to be impartial based on their website (www.cdi.org).

ETA oh, I found a link to it in the "Missile Defense Debate" section of their "Major Reports" page. One of about 20.

Personally I think we spend too much, and not necessarily rationally. Testing schedules get shoved around for political reasons, and I think this increases the spending. I understand why, but it's unfortunate.

It's also under "Reports and Analyses", on the right-hand side column.

I don't really understand why you don't think they are impartial. I based it on perusing the publication, which was short on rhetoric. From their website:

• "The Center for Defense Information is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.
  
  CDI has evolved into one of the foremost organizations in the nation conducting security-related research – and is unique among major think tanks in its policy of total independence from vested interests.
  
  The Board of Directors and staff include retired military officers, former U.S. government officials, and civilians expert in a wide range of domestic and international security, defense and military arenas."

I understand that Republicans think reducing unilateral military responses and increasing international cooporation are French-like ideals, but they at least seem to be striving to be fair.

Oh, now I see what you mean - that bit about advocating "prudent spending". I understand that we all agree that prudence in government spending should not apply to missile defense, and that anyone who thinks it should is a moron.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
It's also under "Reports and Analyses", on the right-hand side column.

I don't really understand why you don't think they are impartial. I based it on perusing the publication, which was short on rhetoric. From their website:

• "The Center for Defense Information is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.
  
  CDI has evolved into one of the foremost organizations in the nation conducting security-related research – and is unique among major think tanks in its policy of total independence from vested interests.
  
  The Board of Directors and staff include retired military officers, former U.S. government officials, and civilians expert in a wide range of domestic and international security, defense and military arenas."

I understand that Republicans think reducing unilateral military responses and increasing international cooporation are French-like ideals, but they at least seem to be striving to be fair.

Oh, now I see what you mean - that bit about advocating "prudent spending". I understand that we all agree that prudence in government spending should not apply to missile defense, and that anyone who thinks it should is a moron.

Congrats, you non-chromatic bastard. You killed the board!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Congrats, you non-chromatic bastard. You killed the board!

Non-chromatic? Moi? Just because I interject some educational materials into the discussion for others to read and digest in order to bring some informed background into the discuss....



Oh.

Now I see.

Oh.

Humm. Well. I feel terrible.

My bad.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
It's also under "Reports and Analyses", on the right-hand side column.

I don't really understand why you don't think they are impartial. I based it on perusing the publication, which was short on rhetoric. From their website:

• "The Center for Defense Information is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.
  
  CDI has evolved into one of the foremost organizations in the nation conducting security-related research – and is unique among major think tanks in its policy of total independence from vested interests.
  
  The Board of Directors and staff include retired military officers, former U.S. government officials, and civilians expert in a wide range of domestic and international security, defense and military arenas."

I understand that Republicans think reducing unilateral military responses and increasing international cooporation are French-like ideals, but they at least seem to be striving to be fair.

Oh, now I see what you mean - that bit about advocating "prudent spending". I understand that we all agree that prudence in government spending should not apply to missile defense, and that anyone who thinks it should is a moron.

I looked at CDI's website. I think they are trying to be fair, but nonetheless have an underlying agenda. Also, the report in question was cosponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists (or whatever) -- again, I like that group and agree with them, but I think they have a definite anti-war bent. I think that they characterize "vested interests" as the armed forces, the dept of defense, and all businesses connected with the military -- i.e., their definition of vested interests only includes people who would be expected to be pro-arms, not people who would be expected to be anti-arms.

A bunch of right-leaning places characterize themselves as independent from vested interests . . .

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We can hit a distant asteroid by a probe that flew for 15 years, and that was with 20 year old technology. The only way to solve the technical challenges, is to address them. We certainly can. The only legitimate argument might be its not worthwhile, but saying it can't be done when looked at in light of the challenges we have solved, is silly.

Excellent point, Hank.

Actually, the basic technologies have been around for a while. Many a gunfight in the Old West was one not by the gunfighter with the quicker draw, but the one who was able to shoot down his enemy's bullets.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Excellent point, Hank.

Actually, the basic technologies have been around for a while. Many a gunfight in the Old West was one not by the gunfighter with the quicker draw, but the one who was able to shoot down his enemy's bullets.

Fortunately, technology has since accelerated and enhanced this skill.