-
Senior Member
Array 
 Originally Posted by Fechter1  Right, that's exactly what we're talking about. Which makes the proposed missile shield in eastern Europe somewhat less than an effective defense.
The difficulty is getting a capable interceptor vehicle close enough to the launch site to have a chance at interception during boost phase. You'd fast detection as well as a fast interceptor, able to catch up to the outbound ballistic from possibly hundreds of miles out, less if you're fortunate enough to be able to base the interceptor in the path of the ballistic. In the case of a ballistic threat to Europe from Iran, that'd mean eastern Turkey, or southern Russia (which had been proposed by Russia, but nixed by the GWB admin). Holy crap! I re-railed a thread!
So given that Iran's current missile capability looks like short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles at present, their target selection is pretty limited to places like Israel and US bases in the greater middle east, not at present to Europe, so missile defence systems in astern Europe would indeed have been useless against the current threat.
So far with respect to any long-range ICBM development (they have put a satellite in orbit recently with a multi-stage beastie, so it's an eventual possibility), they're still pretty limited to to liquid-fuelled contraptions, which provides the US with ample time to detect fuelling operations well in advance of a launch and send in any number of precision munitions in our arsenal before the launch occurs.
In the mean time stationing warships with anti-missile systems that are more effective against the existing threat just outside Iranian territorial waters sounds like a good plan.
Given that this plan got unanimous buy-in from the JCS and SecDef Gates, I'm still surprised that there's any opposition from the right, or I would be, if there wasn't a general tendancy for the current right-wing to politicize absolutely any issue recently. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
~
^[:wq
-
Senior Member
Array
Originally Posted by chase Why do you trust him? It seems suspicious that someone from the Bush administration would serve under the guy who's entire being is "anti-Bush." He's obviously just pandering to whoever will give him power and saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. Maybe because he puts national security above partisan politics?
Just maybe. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
~
^[:wq
-
Senior Member
Array 
Originally Posted by chase Why do you trust him? It seems suspicious that someone from the Bush administration would serve under the guy who's entire being is "anti-Bush." He's obviously just pandering to whoever will give him power and saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. Gates is more of a Bush Sr. man than a Bush Jr. man (not that I liked either Bush, but there was at least a bit of a distinction there in terms of competence level). He was brought in as an act of desperation towards the end of the Bush Jr. administration to try and bail them out of the mess they'd gotten themselves into wrt Iraq & Afghanistan. So to try and identify Gates as being integrally part and parcel of the Bush Jr. administration isn't accurate. As far as Obama being "the guy who's entire being is "anti-Bush" -- 
-
Originally Posted by tchwojko You certainly put a lot of words into my mouth. I'd rather you responded to what I actually said, instead of what you believe I think. (That darn "belief" thing getting in the way again.) Sorry. Next time I will try to use little words and keep it short for you!
-
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum Sorry. Next time I will try to use little words and keep it short for you! I'd be happier if you actually responded to what I wrote instead of the straw men you're fond of speaking with.
-
Originally Posted by tchwojko I'd be happier if you actually responded to what I wrote instead of the straw men you're fond of speaking with. Which post are you wanting me to respond to? Below are the last several posts you have made. Please let me know what I am to respond to so I can oblige.
#236 You certainly put a lot of words into my mouth. I'd rather you responded to what I actually said, instead of what you believe I think. (That darn "belief" thing getting in the way again.)
#226 No, I think thread-drift = liberal arts degree.
#225 You can use the information available and reason, and make informed decisions. Then you avoid the whole "belief" problem.
#133 That is what is driving me nuts about many in the Republican party right now. Claiming to represent (and uphold) certain values, but not following through either in their public or personal responsibilities.
#113 Here's the simplified version for chase:
#63 "More"? Is there any evidence for a baseline to compare against?
-
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum Which post are you wanting me to respond to? Below are the last several posts you have made. Please let me know what I am to respond to so I can oblige. Again, you're misconstruing what I wrote. If you choose to respond to my posts, then respond to what is written, and not what you make up.
-
Originally Posted by tchwojko Again, you're misconstruing what I wrote. If you choose to respond to my posts, then respond to what is written, and not what you make up. That's funny. I thought you were serious for a while.
-
Can I get SETI's help? I haven't found anything here yet.
-
Originally Posted by tchwojko Can I get SETI's help? I haven't found anything here yet. You have to look beyond your sphincter.
-
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum You have to look beyond your sphincter. You're still projecting your ideas into my posts.
-
Moderator
Array 
Whoa there children. Play nice.
-
Senior Member
Array 
Originally Posted by Gav Whoa there children. Play nice. You sould like Chef "There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
-
Originally Posted by Gav Whoa there children. Play nice. Sorry if I offended.
-
Originally Posted by Gav Whoa there children. Play nice. Yes sir. 
-
Senior Member
Array 
Originally Posted by jessicasimpson You sould like Chef Better not make fun of Scientology, then.... "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
-
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum A belief is using the information available and making an informed decision. Most beliefs are probably not chosen.
Infering knowledge, i.e. a justified, true belief based on accepted open source information is not a poor alternative.
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum But if you don't have a top secret clearance and know the capability of the system, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Based on your logic, which is probably why I disagree with you most of the time, I would be for deploying the system and think Obama was a fool for his actions. I know someone who worked on the guidance system, knows the capabilities and claims openly that it is a mistake not to deploy it, and I trust his opinion much more than Obama's political pandering. But I do not know it as fact, and neither do you or anyone else on this board. Are you saying there are unknown unknowns which means noone can, or rather, -should- attempt to infer any conclusions regarding any subject which may require a security clearance?
Which company did your friend work for, out of interest? Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et al have good business to be selling on their kit to other states. Janes 'Missiles and Rockets, 2009-2010' is a bit of a shopping catalog.
Missile tests are difficult to keep secret. Governments know when other governments fire/test missiles. The information is necessarily disseminated for partly political reasons to just get it out in the open and avoid the potential manipulation of the first to access the media.
Also, it is interesting to note that the PAC-3 (current missile used in Patriot system and selected for MEADS and specifically the seaborne element) is not part of the Israelis' system of choice.
If any component of the patriot system has been upgraded, especially guidance systems for the initial ground intercept location or onboard missile guidance system, then this will have been tested and joined the information already in the public domain.
Promises were what kept Israel out of the war in Kuwait, but did not keep Iraq's missiles out of Israel.
-
Last edited by Bayou Bum; 10-28-2009 at 07:26 AM.
-
Senior Member
Array
Originally Posted by Bayou Bum Links saying the system does not work please. The links you provided say the system works, and is better "There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
-
Moderator
Array
Originally Posted by jessicasimpson You sould like Chef I'm insulted that I got compared with ReverseLunge.
Last edited by Gav; 10-29-2009 at 01:18 PM.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules |
