defenseless against missiles

[Bayou Bum]

If you want to be completely free of any temptation of receiving government aid, just go through immigration .

I've actually thought about that. I've wondered if I would be better off trying to be an illegal immigrant. I could avoid lots of taxes. I would have to find a community that had favorable laws for illegals. I don't think I would like having to rely on the ER for the majority of my health care. Most things would be more difficult but can be overcome and there are some benefits. Unfortunately, non Hispanic illegal immigrants do not have as many benefits.

[I_luv_saber]

I've actually thought about that. I've wondered if I would be better off trying to be an illegal immigrant. I could avoid lots of taxes. I would have to find a community that had favorable laws for illegals. I don't think I would like having to rely on the ER for the majority of my health care. Most things would be more difficult but can be overcome and there are some benefits. Unfortunately, non Hispanic illegal immigrants do not have as many benefits.

... Actually, I was referring to legal immigration. You have to sign an agreement that you will not seek or receive any government aid whatsoever, to the point of having to take out a loan or bond from the government if you get in dire straits (that is, of course, until you've fully integrated).

Truthfully, I have no problem with it. Fair enough. Just want to make sure you aren't going to be living on the government's dime. Actually, the qualifications are not hard to meet (125% of the poverty limit in your area) or unreasonable. It's just the process itself is far too convoluted.

[Gav]

I thought this was a discussion about voting machines and the companies that make them?

[jessicasimpson]

I thought this was a discussion about voting machines and the companies that make them?

No this is the missles thread, it is about medical stuff

[Bayou Bum]

No this is the missles thread, it is about medical stuff

Yes, if you want to defend against deadly missiles, use a condom!

[erik_blank]

No this is the missles thread, it is about medical stuff

If you want to talk about Voting machines, please see the thread on greenhouse gasses...

[migopod]

If you want to talk about Voting machines, please see the thread on greenhouse gasses...

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we succumb to thread drift.

[Gav]

No this is the missles thread, it is about medical stuff

Ooops. My bad. Still we're a long way from the cancellation of the ground based (doesn't work anyway) anti-missile system.

[migopod]

Ooops. My bad. Still we're a long way from the cancellation of the ground based (doesn't work anyway) anti-missile system.

As a brief un-drift:

So over the weekend Iran test fired Shahab-3 missiles and Sajjil rockets, which are medium-range weapons for which the Bush missile defence shield would have been completely useless. The Obama plan shifts focus to sea-based platforms specifically designed to thwart short and medium range missiles, such as the ones that Iran just tested.

Is the policy shift away from ineffective defence against the wrong threat towards a more reliable system that aims to counter the actual existing threat still making the US and our Allies weaker?

[Hauptman]

Yes, if you want to defend against deadly missiles, use a condom!

Ok, that was funny.

[keith]

Is the policy shift away from ineffective defence against the wrong threat towards a more reliable system that aims to counter the actual existing threat still making the US and our Allies weaker?

It is this kind of irrational fixation that has doomed american socialists to the sidelines for so long.

[Hauptman]

As a brief un-drift:

So over the weekend Iran test fired Shahab-3 missiles and Sajjil rockets, which are medium-range weapons for which the Bush missile defence shield would have been completely useless. The Obama plan shifts focus to sea-based platforms specifically designed to thwart short and medium range missiles, such as the ones that Iran just tested.

Is the policy shift away from ineffective defence against the wrong threat towards a more reliable system that aims to counter the actual existing threat still making the US and our Allies weaker?

I was curious about this too. My impression is that there has been a major shift to cruise-type missiles for anything not inter-continental.

There isn't any counter to a cruise missile, is there? I honestly don't know much about that.

[jessicasimpson]

Ooops. My bad. Still we're a long way from the cancellation of the ground based (doesn't work anyway) anti-missile system.

That is a totally partisan attack on republicans!

[jessicasimpson]

Is the policy shift away from ineffective defence against the wrong threat towards a more reliable system that aims to counter the actual existing threat still making the US and our Allies weaker?

Maybe the new system is being built in the wrong congressional district. That could be the whole problem

[Purple Fencer]

I was curious about this too. My impression is that there has been a major shift to cruise-type missiles for anything not inter-continental.

There isn't any counter to a cruise missile, is there? I honestly don't know much about that.

They can -- and have -- been shot down. They only go in the mid hundred of miles per hour in flight...slow from a military standpoint. They also fly low, which makes them open to skilled groundfire.

A ballistic missile, however, flies MUCH faster...that's one of the factors that makes them difficult to hit. The best time would be during the launch/boost phase, when they're relatively slow...FAR easier to take a shot then rather than in the final phase when they're screaming at target at high speed.

[erik_blank]

They can -- and have -- been shot down. They only go in the mid hundred of miles per hour in flight...slow from a military standpoint. They also fly low, which makes them open to skilled groundfire.

A ballistic missile, however, flies MUCH faster...that's one of the factors that makes them difficult to hit. The best time would be during the launch/boost phase, when they're relatively slow...FAR easier to take a shot then rather than in the final phase when they're screaming at target at high speed.

of course they are also rather small, and so not all that easy to see either on radar or by eyeball... that of course is why they were made in the first place..

[Hauptman]

of course they are also rather small, and so not all that easy to see either on radar or by eyeball... that of course is why they were made in the first place..

I decided to read up a bit on it and it appears that cruise missles can run anywhere from 100 mph up to mach 3 depending on the design.

And the big problem with tracking them is coordinating all of the tracking information down the line. Apparently the biggest problem is confusing them with other air traffic. We seemed to have shot down some friendly aircraft during the first Gulf War while chasing after some of Saddam's missiles. And we got lucky with others that just happened to miss their targets all on their own.

While we seem to have put a lot into ballistic missile defense, we don't seem to have a coordinated answer for cruise type missiles. In fact, there is a wide range in terms of how to even define what constitutes a cruise missile.

[Fechter1]

While we seem to have put a lot into ballistic missile defense, we don't seem to have a coordinated answer for cruise type missiles. In fact, there is a wide range in terms of how to even define what constitutes a cruise missile.

The main identifying characteristic of a cruise missile I think is the ability to navigate via waypoints. I.e. they do not follow a predictable trajectory like regular direct-path missiles. And that is the main difficulty of interception at this time.

The problem with hitting ballistic inbounds is generally the speed of the final phase (reentry for ICBMs). Some ballistic missiles (especially the ICBMs) can actually travel faster than the explosion speed of any interceptors, which means that the interceptor missile must be targetted at a point in the descending trajectory, ahead of the target, and explode there, placing the fragmentation cone in the target's path.

[erik_blank]

The main identifying characteristic of a cruise missile I think is the ability to navigate via waypoints. I.e. they do not follow a predictable trajectory like regular direct-path missiles. And that is the main difficulty of interception at this time.

The problem with hitting ballistic inbounds is generally the speed of the final phase (reentry for ICBMs). Some ballistic missiles (especially the ICBMs) can actually travel faster than the explosion speed of any interceptors, which means that the interceptor missile must be targetted at a point in the descending trajectory, ahead of the target, and explode there, placing the fragmentation cone in the target's path.

Add in the fact that the delivery vehicles often have multiple decoy warheads that will deploy in an attempt to foil ABM systems and even if you have a decent missle, you now have the headache of trying to decipher which of the 3 or 4 dozen incoming chunks of debris is actually the warhead. Another reason that getting the D@mn thing during launch phase is so much easier...

[Hauptman]

Add in the fact that the delivery vehicles often have multiple decoy warheads that will deploy in an attempt to foil ABM systems and even if you have a decent missle, you now have the headache of trying to decipher which of the 3 or 4 dozen incoming chunks of debris is actually the warhead. Another reason that getting the D@mn thing during launch phase is so much easier...

So what does all of this say to the realistic view of missile defense? Certainly we're farther along than when Reagan first started touting it, but is it really effective and/or worth the money to deploy?