Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch

jangobongo writes "The US missile defense system suffered a serious setback today, just 2 weeks before it was scheduled to be activated. A target ICBM was launched from Alaska, but crashed harmlessly into the ocean as the interceptor missile based on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean shut itself down due to an unknown "anomaly". The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

Comments

Is it worth it?

[Thunderstruck]

I read this article, and all I can think is, "Gosh, that target ICBM must be expensive."

Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program leading up to this test. Just let me worry about this ICBM lying on the bottom of the ocean.

Re:Is it worth it?

[pHatidic]

Spoiler twice encoded in ROT13 below for extra security:

$85 million

Re:Is it worth it?

[Hawkxor]

It was just that test that cost 85 million. The actual program costs many orders of magnitude more. Also, the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

Re:Is it worth it?

[bstadil]

Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program

What about the $200B we are pissing away in Iraq? Makes you feel good?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Jace of Fuse!]

the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

The ICBM isn't the dummy that worries me about this failure...

Re:Is it worth it?

[rufey]

Not to mention that the taxpayer money we are paying US contractors to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure is going toward rebuilding infrastructure that was destroyed by the US military, using taxpayer money.

So US citizens paid for destroying Iraq and then are paying for rebuilding it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That's almost entirely wrong. Sure, in the invasion we destroyed things like bridges. But the vast majority of the work going on in Iraq is on things like the electricity grid and the water network, infrastructures that crumbled under Saddam's woeful misrule. Not to mention building things like schools and hospitals which Saddam let literally fall apart over the past two decades. He decided he would rather spend the country's treasury on war with Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Bahrain, Qatar and the United States than on things like roads and power plants.

Somebody's going to have to chip in and bring Iraq into the 21st century. Why us? Because we can. No other reason at all.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how many of these things the US military has just sitting around? It's actually cheaper to shoot a few off, because then we don't have to pay maintainance and storage costs on them.

Not to say the program isn't a waste of money... :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[driftingwalrus]

Even a dummy ICBM isn't free.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AvitarX]

The power and serew wern't THAT bad before we went in. They are actually collapsing due to the lack of any real rule Suddam or otherwise.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Waffle Iron]

Somebody's going to have to chip in and bring Iraq into the 21st century. Why us? Because we can. No other reason at all.

That's total bullcrap. You do things like climb Mt. Everest because "you can". You don't send countless billions of dollars to a hostile country when you're already trillions in debt.

The reason we're dumping all of this money into Iraq is to save face. Our leaders made a colossal mistake. They invaded a country on based on inaccurate or fabricated pretenses (don't give me any revisionist reasons; I remember full well exactly what reasons were given prior to the invasion), and now they're trying to cover their asses.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahhaaha.

Have you ever been in the middle of a war zone? Much of the fighting has taken place in cities with marines moving door to door to secure the city. Do you understand what happens when you hit a brick or adobe building with a mortar, grenade, or even small arms fire? Things get blown up. We bomb the cities from ships forty miles away, or bombers a few miles above the city. Some of these explosives are bigger than you are. Saying most of the damage wasn't our fault is quite an assumption.

Why us? Not because we can, but because we told the UN to fuck off and invaded on our own terms. Strangely, we can't even supply our troops with enough armor!

Regardless, we should address the problems at home before we go invading other countries. But the US Government will never pass up a chance for war when it gets it. War means more money for the friends of those in power.

Re:Is it worth it?

[tylernt]

Wish I had mod points, this is actually insightful in sick and frankly, depressing way.

Re:Is it worth it?

[king-manic]

Face has nothign to do with it. They are planning to control the oil by controlling the countries that produce it. They already control Canada and Venezuela politically/economically which makes up 66% of the worlds oil (unfortunatly expensive to extract). their now aiming for the last 30$ which they do not control as directly as they like.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Superfarstucker]

I think its fair to point out that the majority of the U.S. public voted for the man who engineered said destroying and rebuilding in light of this. The 200 billion in 20 months or ~ $2300/sec doesn't bother me so much as the 100,000 + killed in a region with 22 million residents. Apparently apathy is the best way to approach the physical rather than fiscal losses at home and abroad.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mr100percent]

Go tell an Iraqi that. Try telling Riverbend and she'll burst out laughing. Iraq wasn't the slum you picture it as. Pre-Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was a pretty well-off country, with education and good healthcare. The war, the First Persian Gulf war, the years of sanctions, pushed Iraq into a nasty decline, but there was still plenty of electricity and oil. Now, for the first time ever in Iraq, there is an Oil shortage and a gas crisis within Iraq.

Iraq had water and electricity fine before the US invasion. Saddam Hussein's government didn't let schools and hospitals fall apart. The schools were running fine, albeit under Ba'ath rulership, and the hospitals crumbled under UN and US sanctions, regardless of what the Iraqi government tried to do. The hospitals would never get their medication until Saddam Hussein was overthrown, that was the whole point of the sanctions, to encourage that to happen.

Your last sentence is wrong, and sorta chilling if you think about history of the last 100 years. Italian fascists claimed that reason for invading Libya, and France had that attitude when they ruled Algeria, and the UK had that in mind when they controlled Iraq. I could go on with a list of others.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Have you ever been in the middle of a war zone?

The phrase "war zone" doesn't really have any meaning. It's just an expression that people who've never left home use in order to sound worldly.

I was in Iraq for nine months from the summer of 2003 to the spring of 2004. Does that count?

Much of the fighting has taken place in cities with marines moving door to door to secure the city.

Very little of the fighting has been like that. That kind of work took place almost exclusively in Fallujah, last month.

We bomb the cities from ships forty miles away

No, we used only PGMs in the Iraqi conurbations. We never "bombed the cities." We used regular, unguided munitions dropped from B-52s to destroy the terrorist camps northeast of Baghdad, but those were dozens of miles away from any built-up areas. There was nothing to pound but dirt and terrorist camps.

we told the UN to fuck off

Um. You're very confused. The UN Security Council, in the person of permanent member France, told us to fuck off, not the other way around.

And yes, we invaded on our own terms. That's the only way an invasion happens. You don't invade on anybody else's terms.

Strangely, we can't even supply our troops with enough armor!

Take a look at the loss figures and explain to me, please, how the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare can be characterized by the phrase "not enough armor."

Regardless, we should address the problems at home before we go invading other countries.

Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles. We failed to invade Afghanistan when the Taliban set up a veritable terrorist ivy league, choosing instead to (again) fire cruise missiles.

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most successful military campaign"? Dude, we're suffering massive losses against perhaps the most outmatched force in history!

During the '70s and '80s, we fucked with things in the Middle East where we didn't need to be fucking with them. That's where September 11th came from, us not minding our own fucking business.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Go tell an Iraqi that.

Um. How do you think I know what I know? The Iraqis I met there told me.

Pre-Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was a pretty well-off country

Yes, that's correct.

The war, the First Persian Gulf war, the years of sanctions, pushed Iraq into a nasty decline

Um. You seem to have lost a decade there.

History lesson: Saddam seized absolute power over Iraq in 1979. (Prior to '79 there were limits on his power that he chose to respect.) The next year, he launched the devastating war with Iran over the Shat-al-Arab. The following 8 years destroyed the country's economy as Saddam funneled every penny of the nation's treasury into his military and his palaces. Schools and roads and water pipes and power lines and electric plants literally fell apart.

In 1988, Saddam grudgingly accepted a cease-fire with Iran and decided to be a Muslim --though Shia make up a tiny minority of the world's Muslims, they make up 60% of the population of Iraq, and Saddam decided to be more openly supportive of Islam in an effort to placate them after nearly a decade of total war.

In 1990, desperate for additional oil revenues and enraged that the Kuwaitis were selling their oil at a lower price than Saddam was willing to take for his oil, he sent his army over the border and declared that Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq. Only then were Iraq's oil exports shut down and import sanctions put in place.

See? A whole decade of history, forgotten.

Now, for the first time ever in Iraq, there is an Oil shortage and a gas crisis within Iraq.

In Iraq, gasoline is literally cheaper than bottled water, because it's subsidized by the Coalition. When I was last there in the spring, it was going for about a nickel per gallon.

Iraq had water and electricity fine before the US invasion.

In some places, the water and power systems were well maintained. In Mesopotamia, they were crumbling. (It's a Sunni-Shia thing.)

Saddam Hussein's government didn't let schools and hospitals fall apart.

Again, not correct.

The schools were running fine

Wow. That's so wrong. Most of the schools weren't running at all. They had just been abandoned when Saddam stopped paying the teachers' salaries.

the hospitals crumbled under UN and US sanctions, regardless of what the Iraqi government tried to do

Have you not been reading the newspapers for, oh, the last year or so? You are aware, are you not, that Saddam skimmed billions -- at least $20 billion, and maybe more --through illegal trading under the oil-for-food program. Where did that money go? To schools? To hospitals? To repairing the country's crumbling infrastructure? No, it went into Saddam's pockets, into his palaces and into his military.

The hospitals would never get their medication

Sounds like you didn't know that no sanctions ever restricted the importation of medicines. Saddam was free to buy all the medicines he wanted. He chose not to buy medicines. He chose instead to use the revenues from oil sold through oil-for-food to line his pockets and those of his Mukhabarat and Fedayeen.

I could go on with a list of others.

I have no doubt. You could continue coughing up absurdly inapplicable analogies all day.

Re:Is it worth it?

[PsiPsiStar]

I was agreeing with you till that last part. Bush was warned that Al Queada was planning to attack the US using airplanes. He did nothing. Woulda been nice if Clinton had gotten OBL in Sudan, but that wasn't the only reason we got hit.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home.

Errr Hello ?... what does September 11 have to do with Iraq Invasion ?

Re:Is it worth it?

[rsheridan6]

Bullshit.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had basic infrastructure.

Paul Sherlock, water and sanitation coordinator for Iraq under the U.N. Children's Fund -- Unicef -- told AlertNet: "Under Saddam Hussein's regime they had security, power and water in their taps almost every day. So if they compare what they had this time last year, they think if he could keep these things running, why can't the Americans, with all their resources, do it too?

Here's another one:

Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.

Note that the second quote is from October 2003, but remains just as true today.

I'm not going to cite these because anyone can find them on google in 2 minutes. That's how long it took to disprove your lies.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the loss figures and explain to me, please, how the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare can be characterized by the phrase "not enough armor."

I guess you only count people who've died, what about the tens upon thousands who've been wounded. Coming home with half the limbs they started out with.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/

Re:Is it worth it?

[miu]

Most people understand that Saddam was a gangster and villain - so are the leaders of many of the nations of the world.

Iraq shouldn't have been our war, it is now so we need to do a good job with it - but there is no reason for Americans to foot the bill in lives and dollars for Iraq's problems. Gulf War I was completely justified but GW2 was waged under false pretenses and with false cost estimates.

Re:Is it worth it?

[dustinbarbour]

WTF, dude? Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing? All GWB said was that he wants a missile defense system and pushed to have the money appropriated. he has absolutely nothig to do with the thing failing. Get your head out of your ass.

And Slashdot moderators give him +4: Insightful. Seriously.. WTF?

And to the parent of this whole thread.. Money gets spent to advance our society along. Money is spent in research and development. That is what happens. Nothing comes out of the blocks working 100%. Yeah, missiles are expensive when compared to the salaries of men. Compare that to the money appropriated to national defense and its but a drop.. not even a drop. More like a bit of mist. Why don't you complain that NASA spent billions of dollars only to have a few rockets explode on the launch pad? How about the money "wasted" in developing the nuclear weapon? How about the money "wasted" on SCRAM jet technology? Remember one fo them blowing up?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles. We failed to invade Afghanistan when the Taliban set up a veritable terrorist ivy league, choosing instead to (again) fire cruise missiles.

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home.

Hold up there tiger, correlation not causation.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. Your reading comprehension skills are poor at best, because he wasn't saying it had anything to do with it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, in the invasion we destroyed things like bridges. But the vast majority of the work going on in Iraq is on things like the electricity grid and the water network, infrastructures that crumbled under Saddam's woeful misrule. Not to mention building things like schools and hospitals which Saddam let literally fall apart over the past two decades.

Saddam's woeful misrule maybe, but also UN sanctions and US embargos.

He decided he would rather spend the country's treasury on war with Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Bahrain, Qatar and the United States than on things like roads and power plants.

I never knew Iraq went to war with America. I thought it was the other way around...

Oh and he did spend his money on a power plant - just that Israel blew it up.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why us? Because we can. No other reason at all.

What about the many US companies that will "help" to reconstruct Iraq and get PAID for it?

Are people from Iraq so stupid they just can't liberate themselve? They had to call 1-800-WASHINGTON for democracy delivery.

Please don't take it as anti-US statement... but blow up bridges, kill your own boys, kill Iraqis... and then you go build theirs schools?

I just don't get...

Sorry about being off topic.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Um. You're very confused. The UN Security
> Council, in the person of permanent member
> France, told us to fuck off, not the other
> way around.

Sure, after Bush swaggared in there and whipped his dick out. I'd have told him to fuck off too. What was that he said, something about the UN being irrelevant? Then when he came crawling back "um, we broke Iraq, can you help us out." I'd have told him to fuck off again.

> Take a look at the loss figures and explain to
> me, please, how the most successful military
> campaign in the history of warfare can be
> characterized by the phrase "not enough armor."

How about "the bad guys ran away". The US ran in and said "Boo" and the Iraqis ran off and turned into guerilla force.

Take a look at the US's objectives. Sure, they got Saddam, w00t. Have they "liberated" Iraq? Uh, don't think so. How is that "successful"?

> We go invading other countries to prevent
> problems at home.

Yeah, those Vietnamese terrorists are a bitch, no? How about them Saudis?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the majority of the U.S. public voted for the man who. . ."

Well, close. A slight majority of people who actually got off their asses and went to the polls voted for Bush. However... you're right on the money with the appropriate term apathy. Come on... what is it... around 10% of 18-29 year olds voted? For shame. Then they just go to coffee houses and bitch about Bush. I mean, if both candidates suck at least go third party or something.

I mean... gee. Half an hour of your time, mostly spent talking to one of your neighbors or something. I remember being amazed at the number of hot chicks in my neighborhood.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what would you say to river? is she better off?

Of course not!

The blog above exposes your post for what it truely is. MORE BULLSHIT!

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

>But the vast majority of the work going on in >Iraq is on things like the electricity grid and >the water network, infrastructures that crumbled >under Saddam's woeful misrule.

And which is continuing to crumble under US rule.

> Not to mention building things like schools and > hospitals which Saddam let literally fall apart > over the past two decades.

And which the United States are literally bombing apart. Just look at Fallujah.

>Somebody's going to have to chip in and bring >Iraq into the 21st century. Why us? Because we >can. No other reason at all

Its pretty obvious with over 100,000 civilians dead in Iraq (so far) that you are not capable of bringing Iraq to a being a peaceful place. At least not under Bush's rule.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

Not to mention that the taxpayer money we are paying US contractors to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure is going toward rebuilding infrastructure that was destroyed by the US military, using taxpayer money.
So we are creating jobs and wealth.

We are paying military folks salaries (the majority of the budget). They will spend this money in the US. On US products. Stimulating the economy.

We are paying for defense programs. To US companies. Who pay US employees, who buy food and cars for their families. In the US.

We are paying for US Contractors. Who are US companies. With US employees. All of this money "wasting" in Iraq is going to US interests, people, and companies. To be spend back in the US on labor, raw materials and taxes. I fail to see the problem here. Sounds like a good way to stimulate the economy to me.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

You had some great points, up until here:

Take a look at the loss figures and explain to me, please, how the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare can be characterized by the phrase "not enough armor."

The initial invasion was the most successful military campaign in history. The current occupation is rapidly turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire. The number of new U.S. troops killed has been growing each month, and the number of seriously wounded has been growing even more, and there's no end in sight to the instability. Does that sound like a war we're winning?

Plus, even if the total numbers are low for a war, the fact is that troops are being sent on dangerous missions without enough armor, and that if they all had armor, fewer troops would have died. You can't contest those facts, and therefore the original statement that "we can't even supply our troops with enough armor" is true.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Znork]

"How about the money "wasted" on SCRAM jet technology?"

SCRAM jet technology actually has uses. Missile defense systems on the other hand, for all their marketability, are trivial to beat. I can think of at least four methods to render them useless offhand, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

But while they're useless against an enemy, they're excellent for transferring taxpayer money into desired pockets. Guess why monkeyman and his merry band of chimps like them?

A wasted ICBM is just a christmas bonus for the contractors.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

You let Clinton completely off the hook.

What should Bush had done after the August 6th briefing? Please, I am interested in your answer, what with all the foreign policy and military experience you must have.

Keeping in mind the August memo was really really vague in it's warnings.

UBL wanted to attack America! Wow. News flash.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

"We can't even supply our troops with enough armor"

Yes, it is true that a Humvee is not a tank. We all know this.

You can blame President Clinton for ordering too many Humvees, and not enough Bradlee's.

Yes, if we had more armor, fewer troops would have died. But we didn't.

You go to war with the Army you have. That's the facts of life. You change and adapt as things move along.

Just because the situation isn't perfect, doesn't mean you don't go at all.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vulcann]

No, we used only PGMs in the Iraqi conurbations. We never "bombed the cities." We used regular, unguided munitions dropped from B-52s to destroy the terrorist camps northeast of Baghdad, but those were dozens of miles away from any built-up areas....

Its interesting that you use the term "terrorist". In the context of Iraq, these are people who believe the Americans have no business being there and want to get them out. How does that make them terrorists ? If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!

Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles...

We failed to invade Sudan, we invaded Afghanisan, we invaded Iraq, we invaded so and so.... Wow. Who the flying fuck gives America the right to invade whoever it pleases the world over ? Is it just me or have you noticed that it seems to be the only country large scale invading the ass out of the world ? Dont give me that bullcrap about "to prevent problems at home". Iraq had no means of doing the US any harm. All the charges against it were trumped up right down to the laughable WMD threat. The world over people knew that was horseshit and thats why any self respecting country (which wont get squeezed by the US) in the UN told you to fuck off! France got noticed only because it had veto and gave enough of a shit to say something about it...

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home....

You're thinking is laughably simple. What did Sept 11th involve ? Aircraft and a bunch of seriously pissed off fanatics. Period. If you invade every country out there you will multiply the pissed off fanatics five times over. Wiping out "terrorists" in Iraq will only fuel more violence. America has a rich diversity of people and the more countries you invade the larger percentage of you're local populace you're going to have pissed off at you. Yeah thats solving problems at home...sure! --you see where I'm going here ? --mayhem at home! Militancy never solved anything unless it was absolutely necessary.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

What's the cost of a missile compared to the cost of bringing a warhead to Las Vegas on a truck?

This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future, and even if it did work it'd be trivial to defeat and confuse with new missiles. People working for the Pentagon call this "Job Security".

Personaly I think it'd be cheaper and at least as useful to buy everyone in the U.S.A. Alex Chiu's Immortality Rings. Scientists say it doesn't work, but then scientists say there's such thing as Global Warming, so what the hell do they know? They obviously don't care about American lives.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

But the vast majority of the work going on in Iraq is on things like the electricity grid and the water network, infrastructures that crumbled under Saddam's woeful misrule.

Don't look now, but the electricity grid and the water network and the rest of Iraq would have been working just fine if we hadn't levied crippling economic sanctions on Iraq after we bombed those very same systems in 1991.

Saddam ... decided he would rather spend the country's treasury on war with ... the United States

I see now the beauty of your logic. When Saddam spends his money on wars, rather than infrastructure improvements, that's foolish. But when Bush spends the country's treasury on war with Iraq, a few months after an "impossible" blackout shuts down the East Coast, that's the right thing to do.

You've been drinking the neocon Kool Aid, Twirlip.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

Bah. Botched my bold tags. Sorry.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

What is your source for the 100,000+ killed figure?

The numbers that I have seen are much much lower.

Please, enlighten me.

Re:Is it worth it?

[packeteer]

Money gets spent to advance our society along

funny... I dont ever remember missiles advancing any societies along. I dont think GWD was blamed for the failure of this program. I would however hold someone doubly resonsible when they make sure a bad idea gets money put into it and then it doens;t even work.

P.S. Your sig is pretty telling about you.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good way to stimulate the economy to me.

So did Hitler.

Re:Is it worth it?

[redbeard_ak]

um, tell me exactly how Iraq was related to September 11th?

Oh, right. It wasn't.

Petty that so many Bush voters thought so. Sorry that's a pdf, but questions 13, 14 and 16 explain a lot about why people supported this war and voted for Bush.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rocketry -> Ballistic Missiles -> Space Program -> Sattelites -> accurate weather forecasts, worldwide near instantanious communications, super accurate maps, monitoring of the biosphere, GPS, and eventually getting off this rock. I could also add things like photovoltaics or semiconductors in general, aluminum cans, ablative ceramics, and other more or less ancillary benefits, but do I really have to?

It's hard to say what the technical developments spawned by this program will eventually become. It's clear the accelerated deployment is premature. And while his sig might not be particularly endearing, imagine how your ignorance looks. I know it's a big world, it's only the internet, and it's so easy and even expected to be flip, but at some point it's worth understanding the world one lives in so one can avoid stumbling completely blind into an uncertain future.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

OK, that doesn't even make sense.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jrumney]

Plus, even if the total numbers are low for a war

The numbers killed are "low" because current medical technology is better at keeping patients alive than in any previous war. If you count the injured as well as the dead, the US casualties in Iraq in the last year are comparable to 5 years of Vietnam.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware the Armed Forces only sends troops into combat if they have an IQ less than 90? So you can sound all high and mighty as you like, but your commanding officer knows you are an idiot :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat.

Scientists said that humans flying would never be possible.

Scientists said going to the Moon would never happen.

Scientists said that we could never be able to eradicate Smallpox.

Scientists say a lot of things aren't possible. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Re:Is it worth it?

[PylonHead]

Yea, you're right.

Let's ignore the scientists, and trust the politicians.

Re:Is it worth it?

[bigmouth_strikes]

Dude, you've been watching Fox News again haven't you ?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

Are you arguing for or against my idea of buying Alex Chiu Immortality rings for all U.S. Citizens? I can't tell.

Anyway, By the time those goals were even close to being within our grasp knowledgeable scientists knew it. The fact of the matter is that the Missile Defense Program is an engineering program with the science not backing it up. The moon shot worked because the science behind it was well understood and because there was generally understood theory that showed it was possible. If Kennedy had asked NASA to build him a warp drive instead, it would have just been a money hole.

" In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat. "
Name one.

Re:Is it worth it?

[1u3hr]

Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing? All GWB said was that he wants a missile defense system and pushed to have the money appropriated. he has absolutely nothig to do with the thing failing.

GWB didn't cause the missile to fail; however he ignored the advice given by every competent scientist that the system can never work no matter how much money is pissed away on it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you count the injured as well as the dead, the US casualties in Iraq in the last year are comparable to 5 years of Vietnam.

Vietnam: 58,169 killed, 304,000 wounded
Iraq: 1299 killed, 9556 wounded (4615 of those were wounded and returned to action within 72 hours)

Sounds about the same

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

When does it become worth it for us to spend the money on a warp drive project?

Scramjet is a start. It's incrimental jumps in technology, not revolutionary leaps.

This is a silly conversation, just because it is scientifically hard to do, does not mean we shouldn't try. That is my point.

There is plenty of waste in the Government (just look at Medicare fraud, and the UN. Yikes. At least this has the possibility of a valuable return.

Re:Is it worth it?

[citog]

Bet their spelling is fucked now as well :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[1u3hr]

You can blame President Clinton for ordering too many Humvees, and not enough Bradlee's.

Clinton wasn't planning to invade Iraq. He kept a lid on Saddam without committing ground troops and had no reason to believe that would change.

Yes, if we had more armor, fewer troops would have died. But we didn't. You go to war with the Army you have.

If you choose to go to war, you have no one to blame but yourself if your army is not up to it. Invading Iraq wasn't a military necessity, and even if you think it was, Rumsfeld et al had over a year to plan it, and build or fit more armor, amongst other things (like training prison guards, getting people who can speak Iraqi, etc).

Re:Is it worth it?

[Jace of Fuse!]

Actually, there are a few funny things about my parent comment.

I actually do like to see money spent on research, even if the immediate benefits aren't obvious. The "Dummy" comment was just an obvious cheap jab that was too hard to pass up and was really just meant to be funny. SOME of the moderators did get that.

I was also wondering how long it would take before someone brought GWB into this, and it didn't take long. Heh.

Bravo on the research, really. But the politicians are still dummies.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you felt you needed to qualify your statement with "AMERICAN lives" implies that non-american lives can easily have a value associated with them. Care to share your valuation of the the lives of everyone I know and care about?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you in the military? Are you in government? Do you know anything of what you talk about? Or do you just get your talking points from the NYTimes

Re:Is it worth it?

[philipgar]

No;
The entire point of a military is rarely to advance society. A militaries purpose is to destroy, and I've never known destruction to advance society. However it has been proven thousands of times that a lack of a military will cause society to degress. Not due to a social collapse, but due to an outside force. Frances society had some major set backs in WWI and WWII... not because of their advanced military but their lack of an adequate one.

There are plenty of examples. There are also examples of countries failing duing to spending too much on their military (it was one of the downfalls of the USSR, and I still thank Reagan for leading them to their doom). However we're not spending anywhere near the amount that led to the USSRs doom (percentage of GDP wise).

If spending money on a purely defensive weapon isn't worth it, I don't know what to say. The fact that 1 nuclear missile can cause millions of deaths, not to mention 100s of billions of dollars in damages seems like a good incentive. Even if it doesn't work right. What if it merely causes a missile to go off course? Well maybe the deathtoll might be merely in the 100s of thousands

Before cursing the military for existing, think what we'd be like without one. I'm personally a supporter of missile defense systems. Sure they may not work right even in 20 years, but maybe by then we'll have a chance.

Phil

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now, for the first time ever in Iraq, there is an Oil shortage and a gas crisis within Iraq.

In Iraq, gasoline is literally cheaper than bottled water, because it's subsidized by the Coalition. When I was last there in the spring, it was going for about a nickel per gallon.

. . .

Have you not been reading the newspapers for, oh, the last year or so?

Talk about irony. Have you not been reading the newspapers for, oh, the last month or so? The way Iraq was in the spring is not the way Iraq is now. In the spring, they still had the oil reserves that had been extracted under Saddam. So they had oil.

Now they've exhausted those reserves. Unfortunately, our glorious American know-how and world-leading engineering skills have so far failed to get extraction back up to full speed; not much is coming out, and everything that does is being exported straight away to pay for reconstruction, i.e. we're taking it all AND all the profits. There isn't any left for the Iraqis to use.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home.

What the fuck does September 11 have to do with Iraq? Nothing, that's what.

Re:Is it worth it?

[NuShrike]

Sure.. let's rebuild another country while letting our own country slowly fall apart at the same time.

It's not like our country is trillions in debt, has been cutting money to education, have people searching "years" for a job, nor any other serious problems.

I'm not against rebuild Iraq, but why JUST us? And why at a rate larger than what we're spending at home?

We invaded Iraq because we can.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole notion of terrorist is to the 2000's what communist was to the 1950's.

When something or other isn't quite the way it should be it's always because the communists.. err.. terrorists have done something evil.
You got no healthcare? It's the evil terrorists fault! They make us spend all our money on the military.
You got no privacy? It's the evil terrorists fault! We must make sure you're not a terrorist.

Mainly the terrorist thing is for the US government to justify it's increasing military budget, as was communists the reason in the 50's.

Re:Is it worth it?

[vought]

What should Bush had done after the August 6th briefing?

How about staying in the fucking office and working, rather than taking a month-long fucking vacation?

Jesus H. Christ, man. Shut off the Rush and Hannity and get relative.

Bush holds the record for the most days spent "at leisure" by a President - that is, outside the White House - while our country had a P-3 Orion forced down, was attacked by OBL, started one war, started another on overwhlmingly false pretenses, and now we have YET ANOTHER FAILURE (in this not-ready-for-prime-time system called missile defense). And people still find a way to defend the man and his actions. This, truly is not the United States I grew up in.

Keeping in mind the August memo was really really vague in it's warnings.

Yeah, like this line: "bin Laden wanted to follow the example of the World Trade Center attack by Ramzi Yusef..."

Or maybe this very vague line:
"bin Laden wanted to hijack U.S. aircraft to gain the release of..."

Or maybe this is the vague part:"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks including recent surveilance of federal buildings in New York."

Now, I know Bush isn't a mind reader, but when someone tells you that it maybe, might rain, do you grab your umbrella as you leave the house?

Keep in mind that this "test" employed no decoy warheads and that the test ICBM had a freaking HOMING BEACON on it! That's how we build a missle defense system - hey wait, can we get a set of $50 Million training wheels for this piece of shit?

Re:Is it worth it?

[vought]

(it was one of the downfalls of the USSR, and I still thank Reagan for leading them to their doom).

Phil, better ask a history professor what really led to the downfall of the Soviet Union - it wasn't that they were outspent so much as people saw what the west was enjoying and they wanted it. Jeans, Rock and Roll, you name it - cultural and social pressures were far more erosive to the Soviet Union than any amount of super-spending we could ever have done.

Crediting Reagan with the downfall of the Union by simply writing bigger and more checks is a popular myth among talk radio wonks who are afraid to speak about the advanced concepts (social justice, cultural change) that scare them the most.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq had water and electricity fine before the US invasion.

If you lived in a Ba'athist neighborhood.

If you weren't so lucky, you didn't have electricity at all. Not "spotty electricity", which even the good neighborhoods had (about 20 hours a day of electricity), they had NONE. And I wouldn't exactly call their water 'fine' either...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lally Singh]

I think the blame lies with him for pushing the development *AFTER* the technology was proven infeasible,

Re:Is it worth it?

[jrumney]

I just found the same article on a different site. It seems the original article I saw was playing silly games with percentages and misrepresenting if they were talking about absolute numbers.

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!

If I carbombed civilian targets because the Russian military targets were too well fortified... yeah. I'd be a terrorist. I like to think that, instead of killing my own countrymen, I'd use sniper tactics against military officers instead.

I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

taking a month-long fucking vacation?

Please site your source, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not applicable.

From 59 Deceits in F911: Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for 'Working Vacation'," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.

Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas...

Interestingly, as detailed in Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life, in November 1995. when President Clinton learned that Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot, Clinton went out to the White House lawn and hit golf balls while he waited to learn if Rabin would live. That Clinton played golf after learning of a terrible crime in Israel obviously does not mean that he did not care about the crime.


As per your quote, about the rain here is a more equivalent analogy:

"Somewhere in the United States it may rain in the near future."

Also, what should he have done about the memo? What could he possibly have done? (Well he shouldn't have gone on vacation for one thing is not an acceptable answer)

BTW, this is why it is a missile defense test, so that we can fix the issues before we go live. I don't see what the issue is here.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Shag]

If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist"

By current standards and definitions (willful destruction of government party, etc), the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, you know. And of course those colonists refused to follow the rules of warfare, as well - hiding behind trees and rock walls instead of marching in ranks! Definitely terrorist guerrilas!

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

American taxpayer money to protect American's.

When your country forks over some cash or land or something else strategic, you can be protected too.

In the end I don't really care a whole lot about people in other countries unless if affects my interests. I'm sure they can defend themselves. They don't need us, we're the Great Satan remember.

Allahu Ackbar!

In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm...

Re:Is it worth it?

[blackberryoctopus]

I think this comment elucidates a serious flaw in the prevalent thinking within society: quantifiabilty pervades all thought in our technological world. How is it even reasonable to put a price tag on a weapon that would destroy all forms of life in its wake, not to mention all financial institutions that created it. What it cost is irrelevant? Cost is an absurdity in this context, as it is in most cases. Yet, we seem to quantify most everything around us. However, you do touch upon an important point that does break from that sort of rationality in your point about the fate of that ICBM at the bottom of the ocean. Certainly the decision to leave such a thing at the bottom of the sea for all eternity is another irrational absurdity of our modern times.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mikael_j]

Um. You're very confused. The UN Security Council, in the person of permanent member France, told us to fuck off, not the other way around. And yes, we invaded on our own terms. That's the only way an invasion happens. You don't invade on anybody else's terms.

Uhm, did you pay any attention to what was going on at the time? The rest of the world (there is such a thing you know..) wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time before deciding on whether or not to invade. What happened instead was that the US decided that since the rest of the UN didn't agree with them they would just ignore the UN and go forward with the invasion of a sovereign nation on their own (ok, there are a few other countries in the "coalition of willing" but most of them just have a couple of hundred soldiers there to make themselves look good in the eyes of the US).

/Mikael

Re:Is it worth it?

[SkunkPussy]

That's almost entirely wrong. Sure, in the invasion we destroyed things like bridges. But the vast majority of the work going on in Iraq is on things like the electricity grid and the water network, infrastructures that crumbled under Saddam's woeful misrule.

Baghdad had power and water up until the US invaded. Since then they have had intermittent power and water.
Saddam actually kept his country in a fairly decent position compared to other middle eastern countries - women were fairly empowered, hospital provision was good, education was good.
At the moment all of these are completely FUCKED along with the utilities and the US-led consortium is losing the battle to win hearts and minds by taking so long to restore basic standards of life.
It is no wonder that much of the population is at least sympathetic to the insurgents/rebels/freedom fighters, when the standard of living over the last 2 years has degraded completely.
If the US had straight away started improving quality of life then they would probably have the majority of the Iraq-ni-push [for anybody listening to radio 1 around 10am yesterday] population on their side.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

Also, the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

You mean no worries about radioactive contamination. Solid fuel rockets are not exactly "environmentally friendly".

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

We failed to invade Sudan, we invaded Afghanisan, we invaded Iraq, we invaded so and so.... Wow. Who the flying fuck gives America the right to invade whoever it pleases the world over ?

It's not who, it's what. What being the world's most advanced military and a massive industrial base. It's called power, go look it up in the dictionary and quit whining about it, would you rather it was Russia or China doing the invading? Because somebody's going to do it...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Sherlock, water and sanitation coordinator for Iraq under the U.N. Children's Fund -- Unicef -- told AlertNet: "Under Saddam Hussein's regime they had security, power and water in their taps almost every day.

I love the "security" bit. Who do you think is providing the *lack* of security right now? Iraqis are blowing the shit out of other Iraqis and their infrastructure. Whose fault is that? Hint: it makes senses for guerilla/resistance forces to attack the occupying power, but not civillians, aid workers, basic infrastructure, etc.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

What's the cost of a missile compared to the cost of bringing a warhead to Las Vegas on a truck?

Especially considering that it has been historically more difficult to build a working long range rocket than a working fission bomb.

This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future, and even if it did work it'd be trivial to defeat and confuse with new missiles.

e.g. SLBMs, low flying cruise missiles or trucks...

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

But while they're useless against an enemy, they're excellent for transferring taxpayer money into desired pockets.

Whilst ensuring that there is less money to pay for things which might actually be of use to the taxpayers who contributed the money in the first place.

Guess why monkeyman and his merry band of chimps like them?

As well as drawing attention away from matters like US foreign policy creating enemies in the first place. Sometimes with no obvious benefit for anyone...

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

Not to mention that the taxpayer money we are paying US contractors to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure is going toward rebuilding infrastructure that was destroyed by the US military, using taxpayer money.

Remembering that quite a lot of that money appears to be going as backhanders to corrupt contractors too.
IIRC there was a case of the bid for rebuilding one bridge which an Iraqi engineer estimated would more than cover rebuilding every bridge in the country.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not remain "just as true today" you stupid cunt.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

The war, the First Persian Gulf war, the years of sanctions, pushed Iraq into a nasty decline, but there was still plenty of electricity and oil.

Probably an excess of oil and petroleum products, since the sanctions made it difficult to sell. The sanctions also made it difficult to repair anything damaged in GW1, due to the restrictions on importing spare parts.

Re:Is it worth it?

[hedge_death_shootout]

Iraq wasn't the slum you picture it as.

It's true - it was a happy land. They had happy children flying kites and happy men drinking in happy cafes.

(BTW, the 500,000 children that were once claimed to have died due to sanctions - erase that fact, it's no longer useful and couldnt have happened in the actual Happy Iraq that is what Iraq actually was in fact, honest)

I saw it on Fahrenheit 9/11 so it must be true.

Even the dead tens of thousands lying in their mass graves grinned happily.

Now the CIA are dressing up as religious fanatics and Baathists and blowing up children and infrastructure - no more happiness. :-(

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.

I dislike Bush like the rest of us, but come on, he said "major combat operations." Arguably that's false too, but please don't lie like he did to prove a point.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mpe]

When Saddam spends his money on wars, rather than infrastructure improvements, that's foolish. But when Bush spends the country's treasury on war with Iraq, a few months after an "impossible" blackout shuts down the East Coast, that's the right thing to do.

As well as "rolling blackouts" on the other side of the country.

Re:Is it worth it?

[hedge_death_shootout]

Im not an American, but didn't the Boston Tea Party consist of tipping some tea into the harbour?
I'd like to see the current realistic definition of 'Terrorism' that encompases that, not including legalistic definitions twisted to fit.

Talk about hyperbole, sheesh.

Re:Is it worth it?

[escallywag]

If spending money on a purely defensive weapon isn't worth it,...

In nuclear strategic doctrine an effective missile defense system isn't a defensive weapon because it upsets the MAD balance and it allows for the US to launch nuclear first strikes with impunity... Which off course is a neocon wet dream...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq had no means of doing the US any harm

You've got to be fucking kidding....

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

You, like so many others, misunderstand the reason for this technology. It may never work, but the more important point is that we can use it as a bargaining chip.

More precisely, the threat of the US having nukes while being protected against other countries nukes is terrifying to the other countries. It may not work now, but unless they give us what we want from them, we threaten to continue development until it does work.

Much more effective than actually using the thing, you see.

Re:Is it worth it?

[tha_mink]

I think that the point is, even if the thing doesn't work right out of the gate, the fact that the technology is being created to complete the task is the science. Who knows what technology might come out of it for the private sector. Remember, GPS was a military project too and that's working out pretty good for the private sector no?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

5 years of Vietnam

Vietnam: 58,169 killed, 304,000 wounded

From 1961 to 1965, only 1800 were killed, 7300 wounded. You're quoting figures for the whole 18 year conflict.

Re:Is it worth it?

[tha_mink]

You, like so many others, misunderstand the reason for this technology. It may never work, but the more important point is that we can use it as a bargaining chip. More precisely, the threat of the US having nukes while being protected against other countries nukes is terrifying to the other countries. It may not work now, but unless they give us what we want from them, we threaten to continue development until it does work.

Yes. I believe Ron Reagan called that "...defeating mutually assured destruction".

Re:Is it worth it?

[evilplushtoy]

Careful. Think about what you just said. Immoral leaders is one thing, but gangsters and villains? I think you'd find yourself hard-pressed not to be guilty of similar "villainy" if you were in the same circumstances. How easy it is to pass judgement on less-than-complete information given to you by the media? Everyone's strong opinions on this war, either pro or con, are based on vastly incomplete information. We don't have the facts in front of us that decision makers around the world had. We have the facts the media decided to give us to frame a story that sold headlines. This is a paean to the subjectivity of truth.

Re:Is it worth it?

[q-the-impaler]

Since we're talking about "American money", I think it is safe to qualify the statement with "American Lives."

As an aside, Canada and Mexico are American too. I wish people would adopt USian or something more clarifying.

Re:Is it worth it?

[bofkentucky]

Dr's Goddard and Von Braun would disagree, defense spending on their pipe dreams made everything from satalite coms to the voyager and pioneer probes possible. The Chinese space program is totaly dependant on ICBM bodies for their heavy lift capabilities, swap out on the payload and you have a good Apollo or Soyuz class lifter.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AKnightCowboy]

Saddam Hussein's government didn't let schools and hospitals fall apart. The schools were running fine, albeit under Ba'ath rulership, and the hospitals crumbled under UN and US sanctions, regardless of what the Iraqi government tried to do.

So, in essence, Saddam was a pretty nice guy... riiiight. Before you go blaming The US for the situation, why don't you put the blame where it really belongs, the fucking insurgents setting off bombs every day while we're trying to help these people? It's rather difficult to restore order when you have a group of dissidents set on causing chaos to make the US look bad.

Re:Is it worth it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat.

There wern't any scientists in 1500, not in the modern sense anyway. The scientific method dates from a century or two later.

Scientists said going to the Moon would never happen.

Which scientists? When? Names and dates please.

Scientists said that we could never be able to eradicate Smallpox.

Again, which scientists? When?

Scientists say a lot of things aren't possible. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

No, actual scientists rarely say something is impossible (unless it actually is :-), they might say something is very difficult, and they might be very skeptical about your chances of succeeding. But that is a completely different thing.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Note the distinction between missiles and nukes.

Find a missile defense system that can find which truck on the freeway is carrying a nuke, and then destroy it, and maybe your argument would work.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"e.g. SLBMs, low flying cruise missiles or trucks..."

Why would you expect it to defeat these threats? It wasn't designed to defeat them. You wouldn't expect a calculator to do the job of a blender would you? Well, maybe you would...

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Well it's probably cheaper to fire it than it is to keep it stored.

Re:Is it worth it?

[MouseR]

You still think it was a mistake?

C'mon. Watch something else than CNN and Fox News. Read around the world's new site. You'll get some more light.

The war on Iraq wasn't a mistake. It's a calculated coup to redirect millions of dollars into both ailing companies and their pollitical ties they have with current "rulers" or America (and I use the term Rulers non trivialy).

Who cares about those 200 billion. They get millions out of it for themselves. And they dont give a phoque about the soldier's lives. That's what they enlisted for.

Except maybe for the national guards.

And that 70-year old retiree that got drafted back in.

Here are a few interesting addresses for your perusal:

http://worldnews.com/
http://news.google.com/?n ed=us&topic=w

And for a nearly-as-slanted-but-opposite look on news:
http://www.aljazeera.com/home.asp
They, at least, will show you the real photos of what's going on in Iraq.

I bet you havent seen those pictures on CNN:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/mi dd le_east_full_story.asp?service_id=2188

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"Find a missile defense system that can find which truck on the freeway is carrying a nuke, and then destroy it, and maybe your argument would work."

What does that have to do with anything? Those threats aren't what this system is designed for. Do you really expect ONE system to do everything? You deal with those problems with a DIFFERENT system.

Please try to think before you post instead of regurgitating other's pointless ramblings. I can tell you're a slashbot, but it's not too late to use your reasoning abilities.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

During the '70s and '80s, we fucked with things in the Middle East where we didn't need to be fucking with them.

It's not as if the US has stopped doing this. Even with the likes of unconditional support for Israel which dosn't appear to be in the interests of the US at all.

That's where September 11th came from, us not minding our own fucking business.

The US also messed around with South and Central American countries. There is even another "September 11th" in 1973...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they have a plan to fix the many many many holes in the missile defense system, then it should be scrapped. They have no such plans. They are lucky if they can get it to work under ideal circumstances. Guess what would happen when an extra factor or two are introduced. It's a money pit, plain and simple. There is no chance of it being effective against any threat we face today or that we anticipate anytime in the future.

Re:Is it worth it?

[joss]

Where the fuck is Insurgia anyway, and why doesnt the US just close the border to stop all the insurgents getting in ?

Oh wait, what's that.. the insurgents are actually Iraqis fighting against foreign occupiers. Geez, how many bombs do we have to drop on these people before they realise we're their friends ?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

You are evil. Like "the Author of Lies", you throw out the excluded middle, in your fallacy defending these useless wastes of money. You try the playground denial tactic of painting your team, the Republicans, as "falsely accused as evil", when none of the comments here had done so. You come up with "steal from poor blacks and old people" out of the depths of your own guilty, greedy conscience. And you kick it all off with a false "amen" - just the kind of behavior that is not just bad, but *evil*, in the context of American religion - hypocritically invoking religion and the poor to defend your pet project. Which is a part of the killing machine.

You defend the government technology programmes as tech hothouses. Where are you when people propose the government invest in wireless networks, rather than bombs? Elsewhere, you probably scream about welfare and communism, while you hunger for more useless corporate welfare. How about some body armor for our troops, who you no doubt "support" with flags and stickers? How about spending $85M on a covert operation to hunt and kill terrorists in Pakistan? They've already spent over $100B on Star Wars, and all it does is suck more money, and justify laxity in the diplomacy and human military/intelligence preparedness that actually defends us.

You are not qualified to talk about "Science" when you conflate it with expensive engineering boondoggles that make us less safe, in the name of "defense". You are qualified to talk only about your selfserving greed, your thirst for bigger bombs, your profligate waste of the people's tax money on corporate welfare. You can talk about evil, because that's what you know.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mmkkbb]

you can say USAn or Merkin. the latter seems more popular with most non-USAns I know, probably because it's a word for a pubic wig.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"I dont ever remember missiles advancing any societies along"

Wernher von Braun, the moon, does any of this ring a bell?

Oh wait it was the 60's, no wonder you don't remember.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ccarson]

There wern't any scientists in 1500, not in the modern sense anyway. The scientific method dates from a century or two later.

Maybe so but the common belief was that the world was flat. It is now well established that the Earth is sphere like. The point of the earlier post was that skeptisism with regard to advances in humananity have been overcome with success in the past.

Scientists said going to the Moon would never happen. Which scientists? When? Names and dates please

Don't quote me on this but I do recall reading in, "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale Carnigie that a prominant scientist in the earlier 1920's was quoted as saying (paraphrasing), "I'd bet my life savings that humans will never reach the moon."

The point to take from this discussion is that pessimism is a waste of energy. With regard to the missile defense shield, I'm for it because as an Electrical Engineer I think it can work. It may not be easy and mistakes are bound to happen but the rest of the world isn't civilized enough yet. We must protect ourselves from faulty governments and radical terrorists until they can evolve to become stable.

Re:Is it worth it?

[mintrepublic]

As much as people hate to think about it, America does what it does foreign-policy wise to look out for America's interests. No more, no less. It's not our job to look out for the rest of the world, or make it a better place for them. No, it is in our best interests to see democracy and lower tensions in the Middle East because we don't want all that tension spilling over into our country and because we eventually want cheap oil and more trading partners.

We define terrorist as we please. It doesn't matter if we used some of the same tactics before, because then it was on our side. Do you see where I'm going with all of this? The world isn't fair, especially when dealing with other countries. If none of them are looking out for us before them, then why should we give that to them?

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"popular myth among talk radio wonks"

Don't forget Gorbachev. He is the one who credited Reagan with outspending the USSR, and defeating communism.

Of course, what would the LEADER OF THE USSR know about it. The right-wing conspiracy got him too I guess.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

My point is that any nuclear attack using missiles is suicidal, and your country is going to shoot back, quite possibly before the first missiles hit.

Face it, no-one is going to launch missiles at you.

The reason I said it like I did was because you said that the USA would use it so that they have NUKES and are able to use them, and their enemies do not. In reality this would not be the case, because their are many other attack vectors which an ICBM shield cannot stop (truck, boat, cruise missile, plane, etc).

How about we just agree that as far as things have been going, the whole program is a waste of money?

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"I think the blame lies with him for pushing the development *AFTER* the technology was proven infeasible"

What proof? You can't mean a bunch of scientists arguing about whether it might work, can you? That's proof to you? How sad. Since there are scientists on both sides of the debate (as always) I can't see how their OPINIONS constitute any kind of evidence at all.

Re:Is it worth it?

[j.bellone]

The majority of the bonds issued are sold to people, organizations and companies within the US. But yes; you can definately bet on the demise of Social Security, but not for those reasons.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

You still didn't address my point. How can a system designed to stop one thing be expected to stop something entirely different? It can't. By nukes, I meant ICBM's (my fault for assuming we were talking about ICBM's when the whole discussion was about ICBM's and the system is designed for ICBM's). Metal detectors can't stop plastic shivs. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.

"How about we just agree that as far as things have been going, the whole program is a waste of money?"

How about this instead. We agree that you will find a way to criticize this system, even if it were to save you personally from a nuclear attack some day. I think that's closer to the truth.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Kombat]

[US politicians] already control Canada

Excuse me? You think so? Tell me then, why is Canada's Prime Minister, Paul Martin, refusing to go along with your cockamamy "Missile Defense Shield" program? He (finally) took a stand on the issue last week, and announced that Canada will not put any money into the system, nor will they allow American missiles to be launched from Canadian soil.

Also, if Canada is merely a US lapdog, then why did Canada refuse to commit troops to the War on Islam^H^H^H^H^HIraq? This decision was extremely unpopular with Bush, by the way, which is the reason the US is stubbornly refusing to allow Canadian beef to cross the US border even today, almost 2 years after a single case of BSE was found in a dead cow's corpse in western Canada. The US has also tried to bully Canada with punishing tariffs on softwood lumber. Rather than give in, Canada instead fought back in international forums, and the US has repeatedly, by many jurisdictions, been ordered to drop the tariffs, and the US is finally, slowly complying.

And FYI, Canada has more oil than the Middle East, when you factor in the reserves saturating the tar sands, and above the permafrost. These deposits have been economically unfeasible to collect, until the world oil prices rose as they have recently. Make no mistake that as the political unrest in the middle east worsens, and their oil reserves dwindle, Canada will be the next energy superpower of the world, and it will be the US that will be the one begging for it the most.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ringmir]

First, this is not a direct reply to the actual post I "replied" to. This is in reply to the tone of the entire conversation up to this point.

Now then...I work on the missile defense project (read that comment as a statement of bias if you are so inclined, I will try to remain objective), A lot of your comments here are way off base. Understandably off base, since the media and folks not working on this stuff don't get most of the important information. I don't work on the existing system scheduled to go live, so I have no idea what happened on this last flight test. The thing is, they have these flight tests to make sure things work. They spent your money already, my money already, getting that system put together. I for one, hope that they spend whatever they need to spend to make sure that it now works properly.

Also, do you really think the government would just lob a big empty ICBM into space for target practice and not try to do more with it if they could? When they do one of these flight tests, they cram it full of experiments. The target ICBM is chock full of neat stuff, and they direct every available sensor to watch it and collect data. All of that is extremely useful information that gets folded into later revisions of the system. That data allows people working on future concepts to test those ideas on real data coming off real sensors, data that might be seen during a given scenario.

The "test" was not a failure. One part of the test was a failure, the fact that the interceptor failed to launch. (A significant part, admittedly. But you can be fairly sure you'll never know why. I will probably never know why.) The test was still extremely useful in that other experiments were conducted and data was recorded. They have tests like this with some frequency, tests in which they don't fire any interceptors. So in reality, this test was not so unlike any of those other tests. The costs were certainly similar. The point the media makes clear is "Oh no! The interceptor didn't fire! The government is wasting our money!" In all honesty, if some reason was detected by the missile that it shouldn't launch, I'm pretty glad we didn't shoot it off into nowhere land and thus add it to the cost of the mission.

There is a serious problem in this country where people who know nothing about a given subject feel they are experts on it because of what they read in the news. Sometimes you can really learn that much about a given issue from the news. Other times, you make yourself sound like an opinionated idiot to people who really have a clue. In this case, given that almost all of the interesting details are classified, people should probably relax a bit and have more faith in the government. I'm not trying to call people opinionated idiots here, because that would just be rude. But really , would you rather they didn't test the system? And that when someone did launch a nuke at us we found whatever this last problem was? No...clearly not. You may wish they didn't build the system, but given that they did (and continue to), they should certainly test it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[OhHellWithIt]

Also, the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

I suppose that in the eventual of an actual ICBM, the test would have worked? At least, that's what I think the administration wants us to believe. The Washington Post article this morning said the decision on whether or not to declare the system operational would be made independently of the test results.

Every time I think of this anti-missile thing, I am reminded of a humorous short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Unfortunately, I cannot give the title here because of an Anglo-Saxonism in it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[null-loop]

And let's not forget the estimated 1 - 1.5 Million who have died in Iraq before this war. Admittedly we have to blame the whole of the UN Security Council for this, probably the reason that no one ever seems to mention it. 500,000+ children dying, women bleeding to death after C-sections, Doctors having to choose which child gets oxygen and which dies (because the electricty supply is shot and there's not enough power to produce all the O2 needed).

What's happening now is merely the end of a very, very long game in which the people of Iraq have been the losers. And Americans wonder why they didn't greet you with open arms when you arrived?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Gori]

Well, as Orwell said, we must have constant war to keep the economy and social order going....

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

I said as far as things have been going. "As far as things have been going" != "some day".

I'll stop criticising it when you have an effective missile defence system which could save me from a nuclear attack. So far this has not been the case.

The whole point of the post was really that ABM systems are not an effective bargaining chip when many other methods of attack are avilable.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Zonnald]

Hmmm, suicide never been a tactic of the terrorist now has it?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the real reasons behind the Iraq invasion were always to bring democracy to the middle east. If you look at the op-ed pieces of all the neocons in the run-up to the war, this was always the primary reason. However, the American public, and Congress, would certainly not have accepted that as a reason to go to war, hence the publicly pushed reasons were that Iraq was an immediate threat.

I remember very clearly reading a Wolfowitz op-ed piece from that time and thinking that if I bought the premise (that it would actually bring democracy to Iraq and thereafter the rest of the middle east) I might actually have supported the war. Of course, as everyone is painfully aware now, it is REALLY HARD to bring democracy at the point of a gun.

Re:Is it worth it?

[oingoboingo]

You cannot put a price on American lives.

The leaders of several Iraqi-based terrorist organisations don't seem to have any difficulty calculating cash rewards for the successful termination of American lives. Where there's a supply and a demand, there's a market.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Zonnald]

How do we get the effective missile defence system with out spending money and effort to develop one?

Re:Is it worth it?

[geoffspear]

That's a horrible analogy. The same GPS satellites used by the military are used by civilians for the exact same purpose.

Are you suggesting that the military is going to let civilians launch their interceptor missiles to shoot stuff down?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndrewRUK]

You cannot put a price on American lives.

Oh, really?
how much would you be willing for your taxes (or the cost of your new car) to rise by to prevent 100 of the 42,643 annual deaths on US roads? (Figure for 2003, source.) 500 of them? 1000? 10,000? Unless your answer is "unlimited", you've just put a price on American lives.
Or, consider that courts award compensation in wrongful death suits. That is, by its very nature, putting a price of people's lives.

Just because you don't like to think you put a price on people's lives, doesn't mean you (or rather, your society) doesn't do it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[garver]

I can think of at least four methods to render them useless offhand, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

I find it fascinating how you can claim ignorance on a topic and yet imply you have a clue, belittling those that do, all in the same sentence. I bow before you.

Re:Is it worth it?

[patches]

I personally like to look at the accomplishments of the system rather then just complaining about oh they failed a test see we wasted millions of dollars in this system....

COnsidering before we started development of this system there were physisists that were saying that it was a waste of time that we could never develope a system of missle intercept based on the hit to kill principle, and that sending a missle up to hit another incomming ICBM was impossible. And you know what, they might have just failed a test, but there were missles that they intercepted, and I think that is a pretty good first step.

You act like we have to be able to develope a system flawlessly the first time or it is just a waste of money....

Re:Is it worth it?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Head up your ass these last few months, eh?

After actually reading the article in the lancet - the only ones that have their "Head up your ass these last few months, eh? " are the ones who quote the 100,000 dead. The methods used for sampling and extrapolation have a error range of 8,000 to 100,000 - Yet - I don't see anyone using the low range number when quoting the article. And gosh knows we can't be intellectually honest in our quest to demonize the war in Iraq.

I know this'll get modded as flamebait or something - but I encourage you to read the actual article before blindly accepting the 100,000 dead quote.

Here's a quote from it Evidence suggests that the mortality rate was higher across Iraq after the war than before, even excluding Falluja. We estimate that there were 98000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja. In our Falluja sample, we recorded 53 deaths when only 14 were expected under the national pre-war rate. This indicates a point estimate of about 200000 excess deaths in the 3% of Iraq represented by this cluster. However, the uncertainty in this value is substantial and implies additional deaths above those measured in the rest of the country.

So mod away - I just wanted to clear this up.

Re:Is it worth it?

[geoffspear]

Right.... we all forgot that our society now lives on the Moon.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

It's a waste of money when the main attack vector is probably going to be a truck.

Re:Is it worth it?

[the_mad_poster]

Actually, Philip Coyle, the man who used to be in charge of weapons testing, specifically pinned the blame for this failure on Bush last night. See, everyone who worked on this knew it didn't work. That's why Clinton decided against going forward with it - he wanted to wait for more testing to occur and let his predecessor decide on its fate based on the results.

Bush, however, didn't just call for more testing, he called for implementation. Back in 2002, he promised to have the beginnings of the system - the system everyone (except him, apparently) knows doesn't work right - in place by the end of this year. As a result, testing halted while production pieces were rolled out. Now, we see that not only do the revised test systems not work, the production pieces that are already in place almost certainly don't work (actually, this is pretty much a forgone conclusion because they never DID work and now they STILL DON'T work).

So, yes, this is directly Bush's fault because he halted development in favor of putting a known-useless system into production. If you are a Bush supporter, I fully expect a bizarre, otherwordly excuse that only a mentally retard lemur would believe to now emanate from your general direction.

Re:Is it worth it?

[patches]

Actually I think you are forgetting one ally the US has in the Iraq war that I would suspect is footing a higher bill in lives in this war... That ally would be the Iraqi people....

But lets just look at what we do have...

Less then 2000 american soldiers dead in over a year of fighting. I will admit that any loss of life is awful but in a war that has waged for over a year we have only lost 2000 soldiers. All the critics said that this was going to be another Vietnam quagmire, but next month Iraq will probably have free elections, one of the most brutal, blood thirsty dictators has been removed from power, Iraqis are being trained for their military and police force. Hardly a quagmire I think.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Duhavid]

Depends on the players...

Yes, for China, Russia, et al to launch, that would be suicidal.

North Korea, on the other hand, is potentially a bit different.

A: How can China know that any nukes sent by us in retaliation for an NK first strike are not aimed at them?

B: Will they care? Nukes detonating in NK are sure to cause Chinese problems, them being close geographically.

And NK is working on missiles with the range to hit continental US targets. Then there is the latest brewhaha about enriching Uranium.

C: I am not sure that NK leadership cares about the counterstrike.

I think having something to swat those missiles is a good thing, not a waste of money. And no, it will not work against those other attack vectors. And it is not designed to.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Xthlc]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had basic infrastructure.

. . . in Baghdad.

Saddam's government struggled to keep their utilities running, both before and after 1991. The typical solution to a generator failure at the height of summer was to make sure power was running to Baghdad and Tikrit, and let everyone else sweat it out.

Iraq's utility problems are due to two things: first, because the Americans try to distribute utilities fairly among the Iraqi population, Baghdadis perceive that those services are much worse than under Saddam. Second, because the Americans are having so much trouble providing adequate security for workers and equipment, it is nearly impossible to improve the current situation.

I'm not going to cite these because anyone can find them on google in 2 minutes. That's how long it took to disprove your lies.

And all it took was a 2-minute post by somebody who's actually been there and worked with Civil Affairs, to prove that anyone with an axe to grind can selectively quote without attribution from Google.

Re:Is it worth it?

[0311]

What makes them terrorists is the fact that they are targeting civilians. If the [insert foreign power here] invaded and I blew up my own countrymen and countrywomen I would also be a terrorist. In the news I read that more Iraqis are killed by Iraqi 'insurgents' with bombs and assassinations than are Americans. That makes them terrorists. Duh.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

A: China probably knows that North Korea has launched nukes.
B: Overall, the wind usually goes to the east, or at least it does in Australia, and I would imagine it does in the rest of the world
C: Good point

You may want to see the post that I was replying to. It should explain my point a bit more.

Re:Is it worth it?

[_iris]

What is truely absurd is that we spend more than we do on the military, all social programs other than Social Security, all regulatory enforcement (including the FBI) combined on 1 year's interest on the federal debt.

Why the government social programs vs trusting in individual philanthropy is even a debate in this country is just silly. The only thing more absurd is why _any_ of the previous half century's budgets have been signed by any President much less made it out of the Congress.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people stopped trying when some short-sighted pessimist said it couldn't be done, there wouldn't be a wheel... or man made fire.

Re:Is it worth it?

[miu]

Any leader who tortures, imprisons, murders and banishes to stay in power is a thug.

We were lied to about many things, but reputable organizations (other than news agencies) make no bones about there being evidence that Saddam tortured people who displeased him. Civil rights violations on a pretty large scale are being used as an excuse after the WOMD fell through - but I believe that Saddam was a bad leader on a fairly large scale.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology developed in parallel to the development of the interceptor missiles will eventually make its way to private industry.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

so we did it because it was the right thing to do.

this isnt high school, its not a global popularity contest, we dont give a fuck what some random countries think about.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Hatta]

And the countless numbers of civillian casualties written off so callously as "collateral damage", what does that make the US?

Re:Is it worth it?

[HMA2000]

YET ANOTHER FAILURE (in this not-ready-for-prime-time system called missile defense). And people still find a way to defend the man and his actions. This, truly is not the United States I grew up in.

You're a moron. You are an over reactionary, hyper polarized shrieking moron. First of all, the funding for this project doesn't come from the white house it comes congress. Second, this program was in place long before Bush got into office (in fact you could say it goes back to the early Reagan years in which case this IS the America you grew up in.) Third, the idea that Bush was responsible for the failure of the missile is ABSURD.

Do you even listen your shrieking? I mean that in all seriousness. We all know you hate GWB, that's great, good for you. But dang, it seems like all the ultra left can talk about these days are everything America has done wrong in the past 50 years and how it is all the "neocon's" fault. It's tiresome, and in many cases (including this one) it is full of half truths and ridiculous propoganda.

And the left wonders why they can't win elections.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Fishstick]

well, if you ask Chevy Chase...

Re:Is it worth it?

[White Shade]

what I tend to wonder about is whether the government had to send notice to the Russians and various other people so their missile launch detection systems didn't go off and think they were under attack :D

Re:Is it worth it?

[skavj_binsk]

From

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/politics/16missi le.html

Before Wednesday's test, the Missile Defense Agency had conducted eight tests with interceptor vehicles, scoring hits in five under carefully controlled conditions. Some critics of the agency, which has spent more than $80 billion since 1985, say the entire test program is unrealistic and that the tests have been scripted.

The entire NASA program got 16 billion for next year.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he may have heard that Republicans steal from blacks and old people from someone with an evil conscience, the ACLU perhaps, maybe MoveOn.org?

Re:Is it worth it?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Ahh, thank you for the explanation. I try to avoid being snarky unless I note snarkiness. Keeps others from doing as I did and thinking you were flamebaiting.

Carry on! //salutes and falls over sideways

Re:Is it worth it?

[hutchy]

I would think that in order to be qualified to be a human being, you could not put a price on anyone`s life. If you believe otherwise, I think you should delete youself from the human race!

Re:Is it worth it?

[salesgeek]

Iraq had water and electricity fine before the US invasion. Saddam Hussein's government didn't let schools and hospitals fall apart. The schools were running fine, albeit under Ba'ath rulership, and the hospitals crumbled under UN and US sanctions, regardless of what the Iraqi government tried to do. The hospitals would never get their medication until Saddam Hussein was overthrown, that was the whole point of the sanctions, to encourage that to happen.

This is propaganda of the worst sort. I'm sure that the hospitals, schools and so on would be a lot better off had Saddam not stolen $20 BILLION DOLLARS of UN Oil for Food Money. Medications were not on the list of sanctioned items, and in fact a substantial ammount of international aid went to buy Meds.

Saddam Hussein and his Baathist cronnies hold exclusive blame for the current misfortune that has befallen Iraq. Had Hussein:

A) Not invaded Kuwait
B) Not swiped $20 Billion
C) Not spent all his cash on the Military
D) Complied with UN orders
E) Had the best interests of his people in mind when he made decisions
F) Complied with international pressure
g) Not been a crook

the following things would have been possible:

1. Lifting the sanctions and eventually removal of the pariah stamp.
2. No Gulf wars vs. the US and allies.
3. Schools and hospitals would be good to go.
4. There would be fewer mass graves
5. Chemical weapons would not have been used agains Saddam's own people

And so on.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pompus assfuck.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

No, Anonymous projecting Coward, he probably heard it from some rightwing echo chamber like (Murdoch's) Bill Kristol on (Murdoch's) FoxNews, quoting (Murdoch's) NY Post, in the form of a reptillian "denial" of invented "charges" from American organizations like the ones that you just trumped up. "Evil"? Why do you hate America, Anonymous evil Coward?

Re:Is it worth it?

[j-turkey]

Why would you expect it to defeat these threats? It wasn't designed to defeat them. You wouldn't expect a calculator to do the job of a blender would you? Well, maybe you would...

I think that the point is that SLBMs (whatever those are), low flying cruise missiles, or trucks (imo, especially trucks) seem to be a more likely delivery method of WMD's to the US. Do we throw billions at a very remote threat, or do something about a more likely threat? Which seems more effective, actually screening incoming international cargo for "bad things" or building a missile defense system that may or may not work, for an attack which is far from imminent?

I'm not going to say that I don't like a warm and fuzzy feeling of protection for every forseeable threat...but we have a finite amount of resources to develop such systems. I'd prefer having a system that:

A. Works

and

B. Addresses the most realistic threat(s) first.

This system does neither...it just lets some of sleep better...beleiving that we're safer, but does little to actually protect us from a credible threat.

If 9/11 really changed everything, we should have acted like it and reprioritized this, allowing for a better use of our limited defense/security resources.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

we dont give a fuck what some random countries think about.

Hmm...ever wonder why the terrorists hate us so much?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hate America. I don't like cultural marxists trying to take something back that was never theirs in the first place.

Re:Is it worth it?

[plog]

Tell me then, why is Canada's Prime Minister, Paul Martin, refusing to go along with your cockamamy "Missile Defense Shield" program?

For once, the popular opinion was louder than corporate appeals and backroom deals. Political will on this is wobbling, though.

Major threats to Canadian (especially regional) sovereignty: NAFTA, FTAA, Foreign ownership of Canadian businesses (mainly USA), trade barriers like beef and lumber and border crossings, preferential or punishment-based awarding of contracts (such as in Iraq), integration of the two militaries (look at how Canada is buying expeditionary equipment for "policing" abroad, rather than defense equipment like tanks), and of course Bay Street - Wall Street alliances, and their effect on politicians. If all that fails, there's always Fort Drum to worry about... 6 hours to Ottawa via tank.

You're going to see a great deal of pressure around various resource and commercial issues in the next few years: water (especially Great Lakes and the Great Plains), oil (as a US security issue, general feeling is that they have a bloody right to it and will likely start patrolling pipelines), and the building pressure to unify the currency.

Importantly, while Canada in general is not a US lapdog, it's pretty safe to say that Alberta is--our very own 'red state.'

Re:Is it worth it?

[Opie812]

As an aside, Canada and Mexico are American too.

Screw you. I ain't no stinkin' American. I resent being called that.

I wish people would adopt USian or something more clarifying.

Try these out for size:
North American for US, Mexico, Canadian.
Canadian for a Canadian
Mexican for a Mexican
American for somebody from the USA.

Seems pretty clear to me.

For your added convenience, you can call people South America, South American. To claify it even further, there are Brazillians, Chileans, and a whole bunch of others too!

Crystal clear to me.

Re:Is it worth it?

[corbettw]

This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future

Hmm, so all those rocket scientists and computer scientists, especially the ones with Ph.D.s, who are working on this project, they're not real scientists? Sounds like your definition of "real scientist" is "any scientist who agrees with my political leanings."

As for the system being trivial to defeat with new missile, well, duh, it's called the march of technology. The answer isn't to keep your head in the sand and say "this works for now", but to keep pushing ahead of the competition, forcing them to play catch-up with us. By the time someone has come up with a new missile that'll get past this system (once the system is working, that is), then we'll be ready to move on to its successor.

It's just like anti-anti-ship missile tech. Interceptor missiles worked great, until the French developed the Exocet. Sea skimming missiles come in too low to be stopped by most interceptor missiles. So the US developed the Close-In Weapon System (CIWS, "R2D2 with a hard-on"), designed specifically to track and destroy sea skimmers. And on it goes, as different groups seek technological advantages over the other. Work that is accomplished by scientists, real scientists, using science.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

What? America was never mine? I'm a "marxist"? Fuck you, Anonymous fascist Coward. My America is big enough to include even scumbags like you, who are working in denial to destroy it. But don't expect me to tolerate your insane nonsense when you spout it in public. I'd call you out as a John Bircher, but you probably don't even know what that is, to be embarassed that we noticed. ANONYMOUS COWARD, talking big behind an anonymous post on Slashdot.

Re:Is it worth it?

[TopShelf]

Admittedly we have to blame the whole of the UN Security Council for this,

No, blame Saddam Hussein and his government. It certainly looked like those presidential palaces and other havens of the elite didn't suffer due to sanctions. The manner in which they allocated scarce resources within their own country is the true culprit there...

Re:Is it worth it?

[scotch]

Not according to Fox News and the Whitehouse. Suicide Bombers are now called "Homicide Bombers" in Newspeak.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Nexus7]

Lipstick on a pig huh?

A bargaining chip with whom?

NK? Well, the media tells us KIJ II is a lunatic, so he isn't going to be rational about it. So a bargaining chip is worthless.

China? We already give them spy planes and satellite launch rockets to disassemble and study, and we run a huge trade deficit with them.. they've every reason to not attack us (goose.. golden egg).

Russia? We've already looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul. A soul brother wouldn't attack us. Besides, didn't we already "defeat" the "Evil Empire?"

India? I doubt they give a fuck about the US.

Iran? Once they get their heads out of their religion, they might be remotely dangerous, but as of now, they're not, and they're not talking anyway.

Israel? Why, we already give them all they money they want.

And Russia and Israel already have missile defense systems. Not experimental ones, but ones being marketed.

The post you replied to didn't misunderstand, it understood too well. You're the one who's believing the people you shouldn't be.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

we put a price on american lives everyday, it is called econ 101.

example: there is a somewhat dangerous intersection where someone is killed once every year or two. do they put a stop light in, which would stop this from occuring. no because that would cost several hundred thousand dollars. you have now put a price tag on those lives, the cost of putting the traffic lights in is more than the cost of the lives that would be saved.

(this isnt an absolute example because the deaths could still happen, but im sure you know of a dangerous intersection that should have a light and would solve problems)

Re:Is it worth it?

[NoOneInParticular]

If spending money on a purely defensive weapon isn't worth it, I don't know what to say

It all depends on the amount of money involved and the likelihood of actually getting defended. In this particular case, with huge costs and a very slim chance of getting the shield working in the next 30 years, it would probably be more cost-efficient to establish world peace in that time.

Oh, and btw, this might look like a purely defensive weapon, but if implemented can be used easily for offensive purposes: "Hey China, give us all your base or we're gonna throw nukes at ya! No, you can't throw back: shields up for greater justice!". No need to argue that the US wouldn't do such a thing, it is the possibility that it can that will make for instance China very wary.
In any case, once it looks like it's working, expect global tension to skyrocket again and possibly a preemptive strike from one of the non-shielded.

Re:Is it worth it?

[corbettw]

As an aside, Canada and Mexico are American too.

Well, not yet you're not. But give it time. NAFTA was only phase one.

Oh, and for those who get upset with calling Americans "American", remember that only the United States of America uses "America" in the long form of the country name. Just like the citzens of the United Mexican States are typically called Mexicans, and the citizens of the (former) Dominion of Canada were called Canadians. You might live on the North American continent, but you are not an American.

Seriously, when someone talks about "death to America", do you honestly think they're talking about you?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

havent you learned anything, EVERYTHING is GWB's fault including the cloudy weather today.

you got cut off on the way to work, DAMNIT GWB and your Iraq invasion.

ever actaully listen to a rabid anti bush person, they blame literally everything on that man, without even realizing that the president doesnt have all that much power.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Nexus7]

Gorby credited Reagan with out-spending the USSR?

Well, he's the one to talk. He saw the $$$ signs before anybody else. He now spends his days on the speech circuit (inspirational management organizational type BS) and makes big time $$$ off that. Sure he'll say that, he say anything that make MBA type know nothings fell all warm and invite him back...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you're right. I didn't know who that was, but I do now.

My America is big enough for the cultural marxists, just so long as they don't try to make policy decisions for the entire population using between 2 and 10 percent to do it.

Way to be tolerant of dissenting opinion in true leftist fashion.

Ugh... again with the anonymous stuff.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

I asked for a source for 100,000+ and you DID NOT give me one. Yeah, and some democrat threw out the number of 500,000 iraqi children dead. Doesn't mean it happened.

I guess I should have been more specific and said a valid and proven source that is anywhere close to 100,000.

NGO's are useless anyway.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Fgarb]

What bothers me is: Where did QA fail so badly?

What went so wrong that by the time they were ready to try a launch over an actual ocean
(ie, have the missile be non-recoverable), that
there was a catastrophic failure so bad that
they can't tell where the glitch was?

I understand that with any test, there's a chance of failure. But it seems that those guys on TV building pumpkin-chuckers with junkyard parts would do a better job of working tests, or at least failures that tell you what went wrong.

Re:Is it worth it?

[MoP030]

Had Hussein:

Not invaded Kuwait

Not swiped $20 Billion

Not spent his cash on the Military

Complied with UN orders

Had the best interests of his people in mind when he made decisions

Complied with international pressure

Not been a crook i would say then he would have been a better leader than GWB

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

Hang on cowboy, number one, $1.85 trillion dollars is held by foreign countries not $2t. Big difference.

Number two, that $85b held by Caribbean Banks is most like offshore tax havens held by Americans.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm says that $3.1t is held by intragovernmental organizations. Because the Government IS the American Public, we own that too.

It also says that debt held by the public (ie everyone else not the Gov) is $4.44t. Subtract $1.85t that foreign gov's own and you get $2.59t.

Add that to what's held by the Government and you get $5.69 trillion dollars held by Americans.

Therefore, the grandparent poster is correct. The majority of the bonds issued are sold to people, organizations (including governmental ones) and companies within the US.

Done and done.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Scott7477]

I have seen numerous posts on /. where the ability of the NSA or other government agencies to monitor our activities/communication at an extremely detailed level is taken for granted. EG,
"I don't need anyone to send this message to the Feds, since they're reading it right now on Echelon."

How is monitoring/filtering volumes of communication/satellite recon easier than tracking large metallic objects speeding through space and hitting same with essentially a large bullet?

The technical knowledge that is being gained from this program is certainly going to filter out to the mainstream tech world eventually and will be useful. Suppose, for example that a small asteroid-like object about the size of an ICBM were approaching the earth from space and the calculated impact point was somewhere in the US.
The object detection, identification and destruction technology needed to remove the threat from the asteroid is no different than what is being researched through the US ABM programs.

Anyhow, when it comes to spending US tax dollars to defend us against threats the position of the left wing (and seemingly a majority of slashdot posters) is that if the threat is from space they want to spend freely but if the spending has to be done by the US military the response is negative.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I estimate about 6.50 USD. Except for the French, they are only worth a wheat penny.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

thanks, it was a hypothetical argument.

He took it a little too literally.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

You are still posting ridiculous attacks from an anonymous account. That's unacceptable - you're not only anonymous, you're indistinguishable from the many other shades of anonymous, rude posters I have to see responding to my posts.

You have the right to your "opinion" - you don't have the right to spout opinionated bullshit at me unopposed. I don't have to pretend you're anything but a full-of-shit coward, or tolerate your nonsense, especially when directed at me. You're hiding behind your anonymous posts, just like you hide behind your childish "marxist" labels and made-up statistics about imagined threats from "cultural marxists". You are a cowardly jerk, and can't influence me with your totally wrong labels, or your onesided demands for tolerance.

Now you know "who" I am, from my Slashdot ID. Start posting with one, to differentiate yourself from the even worse examples of demented posters, and you might get a little respect. If you post something respectful, though disagreeable, that is. Until then, you're just a collosal error.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the gamblers and tourists... will anyone really miss Vegas? :-D

Re:Is it worth it?

[Dr Caleb]

Importantly, while Canada in general is not a US lapdog, it's pretty safe to say that Alberta is--our very own 'red state.'

Speak for your self, bitch. As an Albertan, I am Canadian first. We may be more conservative that the rest of Canada, but we are far from being Republican.

Peter Loughheed may have sold us out, and Steven Harper may want to continue that, but we see what NAFTA, Mad Cow, Softwood Lumber, live Hog and Wheat tarrifs have done, and we are not impressed.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Duhavid]

I agree that China will know that North Korea had launched. Knowing that will not make the missiles aimed back in their general direction seem much less menacing, even with our assurances. And this all assumes accuracy of our missiles. An effective missile defence system makes the requirement of a counter strike optional on our part, and makes a first strike on their part much less attractive.

On wind direction, I dont know, but I think there will be greater problems than just the fallout pattern. There will be the initial damage ( to a country nominally an Ally of China's ), refugees, and probably other things I have not thought of. I cant help but imagine that a response will not be one or two missiles, but an attempt to ensure no further missiles are launched or possible of launching in the future.

Thanks for reading my post. I did read yours, I dont agree that this is a bargaining chip. :-)

Re:Is it worth it?

[danielobvt]

Just let it go.... The term has been associated so long with the citizens of the USA you just need to let it go (instead of trying to make up silly alternate names). The only people who seem to care about it are the Canadians and Mexicans, and if you ever called them an American they would be quick (almost tripping over themselves in their verbal defense) to point out where they are from.

Re:Is it worth it?

[fatboy]

My point is that any nuclear attack using missiles is suicidal, and your country is going to shoot back, quite possibly before the first missiles hit.

Face it, no-one is going to launch missiles at you.
No country would protect and train people that would fly planes into our buildings either? Right? Afghanistan did.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

I don't like corporate welfare sir. I do not like personal welfare.

The troops have plenty of body armor, just ask them. There could be more up-armored Humvees, but there aren't. We are building them as fast as possible. (The hold up is the armor itself, not the assembling plant, BTW).

You know that the black ops budget is massive right? Many billions of dollars are spent without any meaningful oversight. I am sure that your $85 million for covert ops in Pakistan is there for the spending.

Also, how does a missile defense shield make us LESS safe?

Re:Is it worth it?

[smithmc]

Its interesting that you use the term "terrorist". In the context of Iraq, these are people who believe the Americans have no business being there and want to get them out. How does that make them terrorists ? If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!

A terrorist is a person who uses terror tactics against civilians to get governments to do what he wants. Shooting back at an invading force is not terrorism. Setting off a car bomb on a busy street is terrorism.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Goldmund]

I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist. Where does that leave the US's policy of Total War during the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? What about the nuclear weapons used against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are the pilots and crew of Bock's Car and the Enola Gay terrorists? What about the Tiger Squads in Vietnam or the soldiers who massacred Vietnamese civilians at Mai Lai?

Re:Is it worth it?

[mcc]

WTF, dude? Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing?

If it weren't for GWB, this system in its current form wouldn't exist. Therefore yes, I don't see how anyone else could be blamed for it failing.

It is not so much that GWB is blamed for this particular test failing. It is definitely that GWB is to blame for the entire current existence of this ineffective system at a time where there are many desperately more important needs for that money, and GWB is the one directly to blame due to the single-minded and careless way in which he has railroaded the program into its current point.

If Dennis Kucinch became president and spent $10 billion on Universal Meditative Anti-Terrorism Field research, we would most definitely blame him when 4 years later there was no sign it works.

Why don't you complain that NASA spent billions of dollars only to have a few rockets explode on the launch pad?

Because NASA occasionally produces worthwhile things. Disasters are a minority, not a rule, and when the hardware works it has a productive effect. When efficacy declines, as it has somewhat in the last few years, the question becomes "how can we improve the safety and reliability of the program?" and not "will the program ever do anything?"

When someone spends several times the lifetime budget of NASA on a program which has no indication of working and whose only discernible effect if it does work seems to have been to inspire Russia to believe it is in an arms race and vastly upgrade its nuclear weapons arsenal, something is wrong. Spending money on research and development is only a goal as good as the research and development it produces. It is not an end unto itself.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Don't forget that this was a project begun during the Reagan administration. It has continued development through GHWB and Clinton. It has failed every test were there wasn't a homing beacon or GPS attached to the rocket being shot down. I'm sure our enemies are going to put a homing beacon and GPS on their ICBMs. GWB knew of these failures and decided to spend money on them anyway.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

I must point you to http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132945&cid=111 03155.

He made my point for me. A study with an error range of that much is meaningless. I have heard of this study, and I knew that it was meaningless. 100k is just a nice round number.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Respectful?
anonymous, rude posters.. "opinion".. opinionated bullshit.. full-of-shit coward.. tolerate your nonsense.. childish.. cowardly jerk.. totally wrong.. collosal error.

All that in just over 8 lines of text. I think that says enough. You seem to be more concerned with the anonymous issue than the actual issue, and the fact that you feel like you're being "attacked" somehow by me.

My onesided demands for tolerance... You're the one that said you didn't have to tolerate me.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, how does a missile defense shield make us LESS safe?

When the money used on it could be more effectively spent on more modern threats, such as port security to keep out briefcase nukes. We have a finite budget for defense, $100B on missilie defense is $100B that could have a much greater impact elsewhere.

Re:Is it worth it?

[gorgon]

In the 1500s neither scientists nor other educated people believed the Earth was flat. This is a myth. It had been proven long before that the earth was round. Here are some links to get you started or do a search yourself.

Re:Is it worth it?

[linhux]

But what is worth pointing out here, is that in all those cases, it was scientists who proved them wrong eventually. That's what scientists do, they prove other scientists wrong.

I think I had a point here somewhere, but I lost it. :-)

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

Read that Slate article as well, not exactly a right-wing rag that.

Anyone who cites that study is being intellectually dishonest to make a political point. You seem like a smart guy, you should know this.

Your stat teacher would be heartbroken.

Re:Is it worth it?

[LetterJ]

"The scientific method dates from a century or two later."

Oh, come on. Do you really think that little of your ancestors? The scientific method may not have been applied to what we think of in a modern sense as "science", but the idea of, "I think that if I do x, y will result" followed by doing so and changing x until y DID result happened over and over and over before 1500.

Re:Is it worth it?

[burbankmarc]

Like the parent poster said, when you target your COUNTRY MEN then you are a terrorist.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is exactly his point, this missile defence system can't stop the likely threats.

Spend your money where it will matter. Countries are never going to send a missle against the US, they would be immediatly blasted with so many missiles they would be a big hole in the ground.

Terrorists would love to but they don't have the money. They will use other, smaller, weaponry they can afford/build.

Your missile sheild protects against things that aren't likely. ICBMs have been around for years and you've never been hit, what makes it any more likely now?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

I dunno, when Rumsfeld asked them about armor last week, he got an earful. And that's just what has leaked out of the Pentagon/media compliance with the official story that we're doing a good job in Iraq. How many of the 10s of thousands of gravely injured American soldiers would have been safer with more body armor? Which these troops have been writing home to their parents to provide?

And why are we now 2.5 years into a "cakewalk" in Iraq, at a cost of over $200B, plus the rest of the Pentagon's annual $500B budget, without basics like enough armor for Humvees and other troop carriers? While spending time and money on Star Wars, while missiles are no longer as effective a threat as a suitcase, truck, or shipping container, instead of supporting our troops with supplies?

The massive black ops budget *needs* oversight. It needs to be spent on covert ops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to actually infiltrate and destroy the networks of terrorists we've created with past massive, unaccountable covert ops budgets. The problem here isn't really money, as the ever-generous American people have gone trillions of dollars in debt, spending the money on defense contractors without results, while our own economy makes us less able to afford taxes. The problem is the priorities of the government, locked in a deathspiral with the problematic priorities of the public, kept in ignorant counterproductivity through the media.

A missile defense shield makes us less safe, as I pointed out, because it fools us into thinking we're safe, when we're not. So a suitcase bomb, or truck/ship bomb, gets through our missile defense shield. Or an actual missile, because the same defense contractors who've rigged these demos for decades will just get even more contracts when the shield fails, and we gear up for a full-on war in retaliation. And because the shield justifies neglect of diplomacy, right up the alley of the UN-hating Bush crew. And because it drains resources from other reliable defense systems, like joint troop exercises with allies. And because it prevents us from engaging desperate enemies in mutually constructive development, before they have nothing to lose, by threatening them, rather than reassuring them that we can work together peacefully for mutual benefit in an increasingly smaller world.

But, of course, if you're more interested in the gear that comes with expensive defense tech boondoggles, peace isn't so compelling. Endless war, except when it boils over to nuclear/bio/chem apocalypse in the hands of those competent only to rig government procurement, or demented enough to get rich while pushing the world ever closer to armed mutual destruction. If you like that, you'll love Star Wars - love it to death.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Why do all Bush backers have to invoke Bill Clinton to justify what GW has or hasn't done? I though the point of GW's Presidency was he was going to bring "respect" and "honor" back to the White House. What Clinton did is irrelevant to any issue involving GW. His presidency should stand on it's own.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Marc2k]

the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare

I'm praying to god that either: a.) you're a troll, or b.) you're not yet of voting aga, and an out of control, fiery short bus full of special kids plows you over while you're walking to the comic book store.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

That's right. I don't respect you, I don't tolerate you, I don't pretend to. I posted a sensible, polite post, however strongly opposed, in response to a sick one, and I get some rightwing nonsense propaganda. Which is escalated by a response to me with some even more obnoxious nonsense. All from Anonymous Cowards, which I don't care to consider might be a group of obnoxious twits. Even when I have the courtesy to respond to your disingenuous complaints of my distaste for rude anonymous criticism. I have too much self respect to remain respectful in the face of that. You're an obnoxious, anonymous, wrongheaded asshole. You get nothing from me, whether you like it or not.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

Fair enough. I asked, and you delivered.

I was intending for VALID numbers, but hey who needs them?

Way to get off on a technicality. You must be a lawyer.

Re:Is it worth it?

[kid_wonder]

Terrorism is defined by the victors - or those with the most media coverage.

Re:Is it worth it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

but the idea of, "I think that if I do x, y will result" followed by doing so and changing x until y DID result happened over and over and over before 1500.

Probably not as much as you think, actually. The idea of actually testing an idea by performing a controlled experiment really dates from around Galileo's time, not much before.

Of course, trial-and-error experimentation existed forever, if you include evolution then LITERALLY forever ;) but that form of experimentation is to science as a million monkeys are to computer programming.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

This has nothing to do with my point.

43's actions DO stand on their own. Just trying to give it some context.

It would be like saying, boy Dubya sure does fly around a lot doesn't he?

Well yes, because all Presidents fly around a lot.

Re:Is it worth it?

[MutantHamster]

In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat. Funny, because about 2500 years before that scientists in Greece also figured out the world was round. In fact, I recall the Church saying that the Earth was flat more than anything else, sure you're not thinking of them?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Then use Reagan, Nixon, Bush I or Ford as an example.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

HERE COME THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. My God, you are a leftist. HAHAHA

If you go anymore left you might fall off the chart.

Re:Is it worth it?

[plog]

Speak for your self, bitch.

Hey, I'm part Albertan, so lay off with your embarrasing pseudo-ebonics. I live in BC and S. Ontario too, and socialize across class and ethnic lines, so I have perspective.

We may be more conservative that [sic] the rest of Canada, but we are far from being Republican.

En masse, yes. On the surface. There are significant demographics in AB that are indistinguishable from moral-majority style Republicans apart from accent, and it isn't just rural-urban dynamics--it's noticeable in Calgary / Edmonton too. These attitudes are largely theocratic authoritarian in nature and range from foreign policy to policing the bedroom. They wield great power in Alberta and move mindshare on politics into red-state territory.

Peter Loughheed may have sold us out, and Steven Harper may want to continue that, but we see what NAFTA, Mad Cow, Softwood Lumber, live Hog and Wheat tarrifs have done, and we are not impressed.

Full agreement there. I didn't say that there was a significant movement to become an annex (though it's about the only place in Canada where one can hear such things). These are only commercial issues, which will likely fade; the underlying political and moral values will persist. Albertans are the friendliest canadians one-on-one, in keeping with the wild west feeling. I prefer the on-your-sleeve prejudice of AB over Ontario's cool politeness with an undercurrent of class/race/culture nastiness any day. Still, those 'conservative' values you refer to undoubtedly have more in common with Montana and Texas than coastal BC.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

And so in your myopic world the fact that no threats CURRENTLY exist means they never will? How does that make sense.

Leave this to the adults please, I hear your xbox calling.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

Jesus, why? Using Clinton as an example does not take away anything from my point.

In fact, it adds to it because Clinton is such a golden boy in the eyes of many democrats.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

so the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists? cool.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"Do we throw billions at a very remote threat"

When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it.

As far as the rest, why can't several different systems be developed to counter different threats? Why do you insist it has to "Address the most realistic threat(s) first"? You don't think we can do two things at once?

Of course you do, you just wanted to bolster your argument by drawing a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible to develop a system to counter credible threats, and a different system to counte ICBM's. They are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Gauchito]

Would you set up explosives by the roadside, then, to blow up passing military vehicles? Attack military convoys? Fire mortars at military bases? Ambush patrols?

Those acts get labelled as terrorist when they happen to american troops in Iraq, but they seem like legitimate resistance to me.

Don't think Zarqawi's group represents the resistance in Iraq. They are opportunistic interveners in Iraq, nothing more. Hell, they are trying very hard to get the Sunni's and Shia's to beat each other to a bloody pulp! Those guys are the terrorists.

There are many "insurgencies" in Iraq, not just one, not just terrorists. But they all get treated the same way by both the military (understandable, of course, they are the ones doing most of the dying on the American side) but, more importantly, by the public.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because everyone posts their real name along with their id. You are a right wing nutjob, and I wish your mom had aborted you.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"Countries are never going to send a missle against the US"

You can't say that. You have no fucking idea what another country will do in 20 years. If you disagree, make a reasonable argument, but don't lie, or make shit up.

Re:Is it worth it?

[igny]

Quoting Stalin: 1 death is a tradegy, a million deaths is a statistics.

People are usually willing to pay a lot to prevent tradegies. Would they pay a lot to bring down a statistics? Yes with a but.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

No, but what about all the tech that came from the program to get us to the moon, smartass. You can't say that didn't advance our society, but I'm sure you'll try.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that means we can exclude the Palestinians, the IRA and many other groups as well. How about those who are 'seperatists', like ETA, or the Tamil Tigers? How do you define 'countrymen'.

JHC, what I wouldn't give to have a thinking mind to argue against.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

First I'm a marxist, then I'm rightwing. You can't even read your own posts, let alone mine. You are the nut job, with your demented abortion fantasies. But at least that kind of childish outburst indicates you are posting from your parent's basement. Either you'll grow up, or you're beneath contempt.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

Of course, when proven wrong the standard tack is to attack the messenger. It must not be true because Gorby was bought and sold. How sad that you can't admit you're wrong about something, but have to make up grand conspiracy theories to justify your beliefs.

Amazingly, I let facts justify my beliefs. Trust me, you should try it, people will have more respect for you if you do.

Re:Is it worth it?

[drMental]

In another study by Bindem Kilem & Rappem, a well known Scientific NGO who specialize in unbiased statistics, a far different number has been reported. The study was conducted between April and August of 2004 in which 10,000 people where polled on how many people they personally knew who had been killed by hostile actions by the imperialists. The average number being 1.86. This number was then fed into a sophisticated computer system that multiplied the number with the population of Iraq. The study concluded that closer to 41 million of Iraq's 22 million population had suffered death at the hands of the evil Americans.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

Everything you said is true. However, none of it proves the technology infeasible. In fact, there is no proof that the tech is "infeasible" only that it currently doesn't work. So what? Many advances in technology failed repeatedly before we got it right. How many other technological advances would be squashed if we applied your standards?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Iraq was a haven for terrorists. Bush NEVER stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but that Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist organizations whose main goal is to kill Americans. It is amazing that we still have people in this society that have a hard time understanding these simple points. And you wonder why the democrats can't win an election?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Inn0vate]

hmm.. bad assumption. there are a large # of foriegn insurgents from iran, syria, etc. statements like yours indicate that you haven't paid attention to the all the facts.

Re:Is it worth it?

[SeattleGameboy]

He is the one who has mandated this schrade to be deployed before the end of the year. Would you hold a CEO responsible for marketing and selling a product that does not work even though he may not have personally developed it? Look, I think most people on this board would be fine with some small amount being spent on this Quixotic quest by "Hawks". What people object to is the all the lying ("this works") and the amount of money spent on something that ALL scientists agree is far from being useful.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"The whole point of the post was really that ABM systems are not an effective bargaining chip when many other methods of attack are avilable"

So you develop systems to counter those as well. This is not the defense version of a swiss-army knife, with one size fits all defensive action.

Unlike you, the people in charge of our defense program are perfectly capable of doing 2 things simultaneously. It's not an either or, regardless of how any times you attempt to reduce it to one.

"I'll stop criticising it when you have an effective missile defence system which could save me from a nuclear attack"

And how do you suggest we develop one without spending money and testing it?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Because George W. was supposed to be so much better than Clinton. When you have to use Clinton as an example it just proves that GW isn't any better at all.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're = you are
your = possessive

Basic grammar is a significant aid to credibility. [/gnazi]

Re:Is it worth it?

[Long-EZ]

I wish people would adopt USian or something more clarifying.

This looks like a good attempt at clarification.

Re:Is it worth it?

[king-manic]

I live in canada, when the Us says jump we say "no... err how high we'll do it later under the guise of something else". We didn't sign on for the missle defence butthen we spent millions on a advanced spy sat we're essentially leasing to them. For each public "no" we give them, we give them a consession in another area. We live with and deal with the giant everyday. To say we aren't heavy influenced/controlled by them is naive. I'm not just some snotty american under estimating canada. I'm a canadadian who doesn't buy into the government line that we're not "supporting" the US in everything.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

The problem is that GW wants to implement a program that doesn't work. It's not that he wants to spend more money on research, he wants to make it live right now. It's like trying to use an umbrella to protect yourself against an avalanche. It is by no means ready for prime time. It needs to work 100% to be effective and right now it's at 0%.

Re:Is it worth it?

[SeattleGameboy]

Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist organizations whose main goal is to kill Americans. Would you like to site the source for this idea of yours? It is a well known fact that Al Queda did not like the secular Iraqi government and had no real ties with Saddam. My source? Oh, just the 9/11 Commission Report...

Re:Is it worth it?

[upsidedown_duck]

This, truly is not the United States I grew up in.

Are you sure about this? The USA has gone through many trials during its lifetime: Revolutionary War, Civil War, other domestic wars (I'm not a historian), Slavery, Prohibition, "The 60's", the Cold War, etc. George Bush is just one more for the historians to debate (even GWB says this about himself).

The history of the USA isn't that different than most other countries. Basically, people suck until they can develop a system to kill eachother with lawyers. Then, they suck just a little bit less.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I was under the illusion that the president was still the president on the weekend, and still had the important job of LEADING THE NATION on both Saturday and Sunday.

Boy, is it a relief to know that Saturday is really for getting fucking wasted even if you're the president.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Job following the posts. I believe that other AC was directed at me.

I don't abort unborn babies or wish them to be anyway.

Make snap judgments about me, oh wise and tolerant one with the song in your heart about converting mainstream America. I hope it's not.. could it be... Gimn Sovetskogo soyuza?

Re:Is it worth it?

[upsidedown_duck]

... what does September 11 have to do with Iraq Invasion ?

It created the political opportunity to topple Saddam. They always wanted to do it, except now was there a global environment that allowed it: some political support at home, UN sanctions made a good excuse, left-overs from 1991, etc.

I generally stopped worrying about Iraq once I realized why that war exists. I'm 99% sure the USA won't pre-emptively do anything else world-wide, because the administration can't do so legally. The rest of the world would completely and whole-heartedly hate us if the administration attempted anything else. GWB's advisors know this, and I'd even bet that GWB knows this. Iraq is basically a rare opportunity to open up gigantic energy reserves. Let's hope, for everyone's sake, they pull it off (I hope their defensive excuses about armored vehicles are just a temporary set-back).

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

No, it doesn't. I did not say Clinton was bad. I did not say Bush was good. I merely said that Bush was not on vacation 42% of the time.

Stop projecting.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called a bluff. It only works if the people you play poker with believe it. After so many obvious failures, who's going to believe that bluff?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Mark Knoller, a veteran CBS Radio White House correspondent and unofficial chronicler of presidential trips, said in an interview that his numbers from the first eight months of 2001 show that Bush spent all or part of 50 days at his Texas ranch; all or part of 40 days at Camp David, the presidential retreat in rural Maryland; and all or part of four days at his family's vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. That works out to nearly 39 percent of his first eight months in the White House. The Washington Post says 42%, which is what Michael Moore quoted and showed in F 9/11.

Re:Is it worth it?

[j-turkey]

As far as the rest, why can't several different systems be developed to counter different threats?...Of course you do, you just wanted to bolster your argument by drawing a false dichotomy.

That's a great question, and I'll turn it around, why can't we? (You know, since we aren't). And it's not a false dichotomy, because we're doing one and not another. We are in trouble with our current budget defecit, and we do have finite resources. Scanning all cargo at our ports is simply too expensive, so we do it selectively. A weak security model, given our current concerns and threat probability.

When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it.

So where are the plans for an anti-meteor and anti-mega-tsunami system? Or since those are remote threats (when that threat is total destruction of the US), they're on the far back burner, if they even exist...This is the crux of what I'm saying. Prioritize based on probability of need for such systems. We need to protect our ports, because it's the easiest way to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into our country. We're not doing this...instead, we're protecting ourselves from incoming ICBM's, which are a lesser threat than WMD delivered via other methods. It doesn't necessarily have to be one and not the other...but that's what we're doing. If funding is an issue, I say that we should scale back the program addressing the lesser threat, and focus funding on the more imminent threat...but you are right, in that they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, for the likelihood that Bush's imagined enemies can manufacture missiles far faster than the U.S. can develop, test and manufacture a defense system. An arms race between the U.S. and the rest of the world can only lead to disaster, either economically or some worse scenario.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"It needs to work 100% to be effective and right now it's at 0%."

Does any tech work 100% of the time? I can't think of any. If you can you're a better man than I. Regardless, even if it was 100% effective, you'd still find something to complain about. You're a classic "hater".

Let's be honest, you hate W and you're looking for something to rant about. Stop trying to make it look like a justified cause.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

Who's this "me" to whom you refer in your anonymous post? All you Anonymous Cowards look alike to me, whether you're sympathetic, or hostile. I assume the lowest common denominator, out of convenience. I have no incentive to act otherwise, anonymichik. I might be wise, and versed in the ways of acceptance, but this "tolerance" is too little, too late - and too much to ask of intolerable behavior.

Re:Is it worth it?

[WaltFrench]

Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing?

Yes.

Without the Administration's obscene rush to "protect" us with this wildly expensive, unlikely technology, we could have listened to the guys screaming, "the terrorists are coming at us with low tech weapons." Rummy's obsession with rogue states, instead of stateless terror, could almost be said to have cost us 9/11.

Almost any decision-making activity, including defense, requires a "pruning algorithm" of pursuing possible activities long enough to determine whether the likelihood of success is worth the subsequent search cost, and pruning the further branches (what-ifs) when the outlook is dim. The administration explicitly over-rode complaints about the feasibility and cost of this monstrosity. Lousy decisions.

Yes, I'd be happy to have a missile defense system, even if never used because it discouraged any crazies who someday might otherwise have acquired a nuclear ICBM. However, we have lots of other ways to address that problem, much cheaper. Here again, the US is discarding its options by our non-credible justification of pre-emption and emphasis on new development of offensive nukes (bunker busters).

To the extent that Star Wars displaced cheaper defenses against more imminent threats -- as it clearly has, thanks to GWB/Rummy/Cheney's "leadership" -- and to the extent that it is part of a pattern of promotion nuclear options by countries that want to protect themselves against being the next Iraq, it is a tragedy and our leaders should be held responsible.

Once again, Yes, GWB et al are responsible for the broader, and specific failure. "A mistake" is the kindest possible explanation among many darker reasons. This test should not have taken place.

Re:Is it worth it?

[homer_ca]

If this scenario were to play out, I doubt they'd bother trucking it inland. It would be much, much easier to put it in a shipping container and detonate it in the harbor. The feds are aware of this scenario, and they are working to secure the ports, but they're not spending nearly enough.

IMO, this is a low probability scenario because fission nukes are still hard to obtain, and there are still plenty of low-tech ways to cause mayhem. I'm worried more about the 4 liquified natural gas (LNG) tanker offloading stations in the U.S. Worse case scenario is a total spill resulting in a suffocating gas cloud drifting onto the city killing tens of thousands. And these clowns want to build more of them off the coast of Boston and southern California.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

SO what you're saying is, after he invaded Kuwait, he was unacceptable as a leader of the Iraqi people. Then why not just take him out? Why make Iraq suffer for the next dozen years with a leader you steadfastly refuse to deal with?

And who the fuck are you to decide that a leader can't be a crook? That a country can't spend all their money on the military? Do you even know what military spending is in America? Hint: it's 20 times more than any other country on the planet.

Complied with International pressure? You mean the way the US has complied with international pressure on the land mine ban, and Kyoto?

At best you're extremely hypocritical to apply all these "conditions" to Iraq but not to your own government.

Also it's very misguided to blame the Baath party for anything that happened in Iraq. Bueraucrats were doing their job. Iraq's problems came from the top down, not from the "average joe" just trying to hold down a decent job, which REQUIRES joining the Baath party.

De-Baathification is of the biggest reasons Iraq is such a mess. Fire all the bueraucrats, and lo and behold, nothing works anymore. Shocker!

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, sounds almost as bad as the USA around the time of the Great Depression.

What's your point? Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lurker]

If you are a Bush supporter, I fully expect a bizarre, otherwordly excuse that only a mentally retard lemur would believe to now emanate from your general direction.

Mentally retarded lemurs everywhere are bristling at being compared to Bush supporters. Especially the ring-tailed lemurs, they hate that shit.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

If the elections next month are a complete fiasco, will you change your tune? What would it take for you to realize that Iraq is a mess, it's not getting better, it's getting worse every day.

A year ago there weren't car bombs every day. A year ago the number of US casualties wasn't going up every month.

Actually I think you are forgetting one ally the US has in the Iraq war that I would suspect is footing a higher bill in lives in this war... That ally would be the Iraqi people....
YOU FORGOT POLAND!

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I've got one of those ring things and I'm not dead.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time someone has come up with a new missile that'll get past this system (once the system is working, that is), then we'll be ready to move on to its successor.

hasn't putin already said that they have a weapons system that will defeat it?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Thanks. You are so correct, sir. And that makes it okey-dokey, then.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

Bush has tortured (abu ghraib). Bush has imprisoned (hundreds in America after 9/11). Some of those tortured have died (abu ghraib), that makes Bush a murderer. And lastly, many have been banished, many more have been deined entry to the US. (Cat Stevens probably the most famous).

I guess the difference is that Bush hasn't done these things to stay in power. He's done it as part of an open-ended undeclared war.

Is Bush a thug or not?

Saddam was a "bad leader," sure. Name one leader in the middle east who isn't. Hell even Ariel Shraon has done all the thug business you mentioned.

I believe that I don't really give a fuck how bad a leader Saddam was, he was never a threat, and this whole war is just an attempt to remake the hegemony of the middle east in our image.

I might even support the war if it were sold to me that way, but the lies of the neocons are just too much to stomach.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Dasch]

How about the money "wasted" in developing the nuclear weapon?

Wait, do you think the invention of the nuclear bomb was a step forward for humanity?!

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

If Iraq was a haven for terrorists, it's because we provided that haven. Remember the No-Fly Zones? Those made it impossible for Saddam to go into the north and the south and clear out the terrorists using airpower (which is the safe and effective way to kill people, as we all know.) He would have had to send in ground troops.

Because of the No-Fly Zones Iraq *became* a terrorist haven. The United States created (and indeed wanted) terrorism in Iraq. The hope was that they might overthrow Saddam. Looks like they had a different goal. Oops.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I continue to tolerate your intolerance of me by continuing to partake in whatever kind of dialogue we're having here without loading my posts with name calling or lowest common denominator assumptions, but whatever.

Re:Is it worth it?

[zardino]

Heh, these benevolent left wingers bug me. Listen to yourself man. Body armor? Why? I can defeat you with your own argument. Body armor is useless when you're dealing with roadside bombs and high power armor piercing bullets.

Your moral absolutism is worse than any American religion's. All over the bible you find cases of the good guy killing the bad guy in the name of God, for the good of the people. You also find stories where Jesus advocated a peaceful solution. The point is there is no one solution. When there is a fire raging in another country, you're concerned that our government isn't subsidizing the latest wireless technology, or that the rich are becoming too rich, or that corporations get too many benefits, but you can't complain that we aren't able to destroy a rogue nations nuclear enrichment reactor at the click of a button because we can already do that. But no, you wouldn't complain about that because you think Iran will fix itself. In an ideal world, we would not need an army, but this is not a perfect world.

In the same post, you denigrate any funding of "the killing machine", but then you advocate spending $85 on covert operations to hunt and kill terrorists in another country, who we are allied with, without any authorization from them.

The $100B we spent on star wars was what put the USSR in the crapper. Look what they tried to beat us with!

There are always people waiting around telling you you're going to fail. I argued with one last week. I told him someday I will be a millionaire, and he told me I was going to fail (mainly because of George Bush). Now he can sit around and wait for me to fail, and if I do, he can rub it in my face and feel all good about himself. Those same scientists told us we couldn't land on the moon, and that we were wasting there money, and they sat by and waited for the space program to fail. They crossed their fingers and wrote their novels about how they knew all along that we would fail, and when we succeeded, they went back into their caves and sat waiting for the next optimist to come along. Not only did the space program *not* fail, but when the Apollo 13 crew and support staff looked failure in the face, they rose to the challenge and overcame it. That's the definition of a hero. We're counting on the hero's to come through, the determined engineers, the optimists. Now sit there and tell me we're gonna fail, and that we're less safe, and call it "science".

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

The US targets civilians all the time. We've blown up suspected terrorists while they sleep, in their aparmtent building, with their entire family.

Of course the Pentagon would tell you that the target was the terrorist, not the civilians, and they'd technically be correct. Similarly, I think you'll find the attacks of the insurgents are not directed at civilians per se. Is the Iraqi National Guard a civilian entity? How about a police force which serves hand-in-hand with the foreign occupiers?

How about blowing up the military checkpoint at the entrance to the Green Zone? That seems like a legitimate military target to me.

How about blowing up a communications tower and transportation hub and center of commerce? Something like the World Trade Center. That too is a legitimate military target; at the Pentagon it's what they'd call a "dual use" facility. It serves both civilian and military/strategic functions. And therefore it's as legitimate a target as was the Yugoslav TV building or the bridge carrying the train full of civilians away from the fighting in Belgrade. Both of which we destroyed and killed civilians in doing so.

Re:Is it worth it?

[joss]

Sure there are. If only all those damn non-Iraqi's would stay out of Iraq where they don't belong, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The target missile crashed into the ocean.

That's tough to be a whale, these days.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Maniakes]

From 1961 to 1965, only 1800 were killed, 7300 wounded.

True perhaps (I'm too lazy to check your numbers), but misleading. When people think about the casualty rate in Vietnam, they think about the period of peak US involvement (1965-1973), not the period you cite when total US involvement was fewer than 20,000 "military advisors".

source

Re:Is it worth it?

[TGK]

While your point on the scientific infeasability of the ABM system is well taken, more significant is the game in which ABM is but a pawn.

Regan thought the ABM system would allow him to spend the Soviets into the ground. He was wrong about this, it turned out to be democratic pressures in Easter Europe that finally destroyed the Soviet Block, but the premise remains. The functionality of the ABM shield was irrelevant to Reagan's rational.

Bush has tried to follow in Reagan's footsteps with his own ABM program. Unlike Reagan, however, Bush lacks the subtlety that Reagan so masterfully employed.

Russia has responded to the ABM program as one would expect, by resurrecting a few of the technologies developed during the Reagan era. As it turns out, ABM technology enjoys a relationship with Ballistic Missiles akin to that between Code Breakers and Code Makers. In short, that it always requires more time/money/resources/intelligence to break codes than it does to make them and that it requires more time/money/resources/intelligence to shoot down missiles than it does to avoid an ABM system.

Russia is believed to be very close to completion of a new kind of ICBM, one that utilizes Russia's recently developed hypersonic cruise missile technology during reentry to maneuver around ABM systems which are fundamentally designed around a ballistic entry path.

Point being, we've spent billions on this, and Russia is going to render it little more effective than a paperweight in a few years time.

Re:Is it worth it?

[zardino]

Doc,

You are really blowing up about nothing. I'd point out that you throw the word "fascist" around, which doesn't always apply to a "right winger", in fact it rarely if ever does. Go fetch the definition of a fascist.

Now a *Marxist* is a pretty common term. If you believe that the proletariate needs to rise up and take control of that owned by the bourgeoisie (missile defense), which you have obviously stated, then you, sir, are a marxist. A more moderate term would be "socialist", but I think you are just as likely to blow up at that.

This from a non-anonymous poster. I have to create a new account every week though because my opinions usually don't go over well. I'm sure you can understand why Anonymous Coward posts as anonymous.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ccarson]

Controlled experiments date back to 580 BC as indicated here:

The first theoretical mathematician is held to be Thales of Miletus (c. 580 BC) who is believed to have proposed the first theorems in plane geometry. His disciple Pythagoras established geometry as a recognized science among the Greeks. Pythagoras began to insist that mathematical statements must be proved using a logical chain of reasoning starting from acceptable assumptions. Undoubtedly the impetus for this demand for logical proof came from the discovery by this group of the surprising fact that the square root of 2 is a number which cannot be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers. The use of logical reasoning, the methods of which were summarized by Aristotle, enabled Greek mathematicians to make general statements instead of merely solving individual problems as earlier mathematicians had done.

Also, according to Wikipedia the definition of science says:

Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature

One could argue, based on the current definition of science, that scientists existed as far back as 580 BC.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Kombat]

I live in canada, when the Us says jump we say "no... err how high we'll do it later under the guise of something else".

I'm a Canadian too, and you're wrong. Regardless of what the government says, you must look at what they actually do. It's a fact that we did not send troops to Iraq, even though the US wanted us to. It's a fact that we are decriminalizing marijuana, even though the US doesn't want us to. It's a fact that we are not participating in North American missile defense, even though the US wants us too. It's a fact that gay marriage is (well, will be soon enough) legal in Canada, even though Bush is strongly opposed.

Canada has defied the US on these major issues and more, proving that Canada does indeed act with its own sovereignty, rather than taking orders from Bush Inc.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

It has nothing to do with W. I thought it was stupid when Reagan proposed it. When you're talking about nuclear missiles, even if it's 80% effective it isn't enough. Even if we stop every one of them and launch our own counterattack, the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lally Singh]

To start, MIT's research on the project would be investigated for research fraud if the Pentagon hadn't classified the data.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

From 1956 to 1961 we had even lower casualties! Quote numbers when it was a real war, LBJ and after.

Re:Is it worth it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

What you are describing is formal proof, not controlled experimentation. The notion of proving a mathematical theorem is unrelated to the notion of testing a physical theory by performing an experiment. I have no doubt if you look hard enough you can find isolated examples of the latter streching back a long way, but I stress isolated. It took a surprisingly long time to come up with the procedure of testing a hypothesis by performing an experiment, rather than just philosophizing about it.

Anyway, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and even had a ballpark estimate of the radius IIRC. But this was in contrast to the attitudes of other greeks. Aristotle, IIRC, said something along the lines of it being futile to try to figure out how the world works by observing it, the only way is to deduce everything by pure reasoning. Indeed, that notion was only really killed off with quantum mechanics (and possibly not even then, for some radical philosophers).

I'm not sure I agree with Wikipedia's defintion of science, BTW. I would want to add something about prediction and verifiability.

Re:Is it worth it?

[anagama]

• How about this instead. We agree that you will find a way to criticize this system, even if it were to save you personally from a nuclear attack some day. I think that's closer to the truth.

You're falling into the trap again - failing to distinguish between ICBMs and "nuclear attacks". A nuclear attack does not require ICBMs. In fact, I'd bet that attack by ICBM is the least likely form of nuclear attack. The missle defense system not only fails to stop boats, trucks, mules, backpacks, or any other non-rocket based delivery method - it also fails to stop rockets.

• How can a system designed to stop one thing be expected to stop something entirely different? By nukes, I meant ICBM's ...

One should question the wisdom of spending enormous sums of money on a system that intentionally is not designed to do anything but shoot down missles, when a terrorist nuclear attack is most likely NOT going to arrive on the tip of an ICBM. The missle defense system is costly yet worthless - worthless in the sense that even if it did function, it would be useless. Kind of like puting out slug bait to save your carrots when rabbits are eating them.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, he prepared *Sooooo* well for battling against Al-Qaeda. They haven't destroyed anything. The Bradlees are to protect troops in the field from terror attacks like roadside bombs. Wherever the terrorists would be fighting (and if not in Iraq, quite possibly in the US)

Re:Is it worth it?

[sshir]

Hmm, so all those rocket scientists and computer scientists, especially the ones with Ph.D.s, who are working on this project, they're not real scientists?

Very, very naive of you.

As long as money coming they will work on it. You need a bunch of new technologies to achieve even 1% effectiveness of a system like this. And if you're into new sensors and some data fusion stuff or missile construction or whatever - you really don't care if the entire thing works or not (as long as you're paid.)

And please don't start on "war moving the progress" flame. I'm sure there are threads on it too.

About the "march of technology": The whole point here is the amount of money and what are the real motives behind the development.
I.e. if you can develop an effective countermesure for a reasonable amount of money - good for you. If you can't even demonstrate an actually working prototype on a real test - then stop spending OUR money on deployment (WTF ?!)

The argument "better this than nothing" is flawed because "this" is not for free (certainly an understatement). And as such it should compete with other solutions to the problem. And as it been shown (boost phase etc.) it's really not up to the par (from the point of view of public safety for the money.) But it is from the point of view of corporate interests.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lally Singh]

Some more data behind my statement:

Philip Coyle:

The ground-based midcourse defense system, as it is now called, has not shown that it can hit anything other than missiles whose trajectory and targets have been preprogrammed by missile defense contractors to eliminate the surprise or uncertainty of battle. Nor has it proven that it can hit a tumbling target, perform at night, or find ways to counter the decoys and countermeasures that a real enemy would use to throw a defense off track. Tests so far have all been conducted at unrealistically low speeds and altitudes, and it is not clear that the system will be able to track and identify the warhead it is supposed to destroy.

Defense Tech:

collection of top physicists concluded that it was essentially impossible to knock down a missile in its "boost phase," right after it launches.

Slate:

In the past six years of flight tests, here is what the Pentagon's missile-defense agency has demonstrated: A missile can hit another missile in mid-air as long as a) the operators know exactly where the target missile has come from and where it's going; b) the target missile is flying at a slower-than-normal speed; c) it's transmitting a special beam that exaggerates its radar signature, thus making it easier to track; d) only one target missile has been launched; and e) the "attack" happens in daylight.

But hey, it's not like they aren't doing their best, testing it thoroughly, acting to develop a real system capable of doing real work:

Thomas P. Christie, director of the Pentagon's office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said a shortage of testing data would likely make it difficult for him to assess the system's effectiveness ahead of any deployment

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all those scientists working for the military contractors know something that the rest of the scientific world doesn't.

Re:Is it worth it?

[tha_mink]

That's a horrible analogy. The same GPS satellites used by the military are used by civilians for the exact same purpose.
Really? Exactly how many guided bombs have you dropped lately?

Re:Is it worth it?

[snuf23]

If only it were that simple. While I agree with you that the tactics used are terroristic there are logical reasons why when fighting back against occupation such tactics get employed.
Ok - so lets say the USA is invaded and the military loses. Now you have the resistance on one hand and those who are choosing to work with the invaders. Those fellow countrymen working with the invaders can now be the direct cause of the destruction of the resistance. Attacks against civilians who work with the invaders to dissuade people from doing that. From the point of the resistance those countrymen are now "traitors".
Do you think Germany could have occupied countries like France without help from French civilians?

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

"You know, since we aren't"

Lie. Office of Homeland Security, newly created security czar, airport checkpoints, increased security at ports, war in Iraq etc. All of these combat a different individual threat, but specifically DON"T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ICBM's. Did you deliberately ignore these examples? Probably, because you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it.

I'm done with you. You've lied and obfuscated because you have a dogma to protect. What is to be gained from having a discussion with you when you're going to make shit up?

Re:Is it worth it?

[lowvato]

He was making a valid point. We can spend billions developing a system that can detect an incoming threat and the enemy can spend nothing in comparison to change things so our system no longer is usefull. It is a fucking dumb idea and I think it is more about this regime bringing back everything that the Reagan administration was up to, handing out gobs of cash to gvt contractors, and talking like they are taking care of shit while they rape the country blind.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

You didn't answer my question. YOU insist it has to be 100% reliable, but fail to provide a single example of any technology that is 100% reliable. If you don't want your feet held to the fire, don't say stupid shit. "the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us" You say this authoritatively, as if it were fact. Find a source. You won't but that won't matter to you, because as I said, you're more interested in being a partisan than the truth. Interestingly, why didn't you say you hated it when Clinton supported it? I'm amazed at how many of you line up to suck his dick like that.

Re:Is it worth it?

[corbettw]

Very, very naive of you.

As long as money coming they will work on it.

Ah-ha! So any scientist who accepts money is not a real scientist. Gotcha.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AdrainB]

Have I ever said I supported Clinton? All I said is that conservatives always have to say, "What about Clinton?" when someone says something unkind about GW. As far as technology is concerned, my DVD player has worked 100% of the time I've tried to use it. If it worked like missile defense I would have thrown it away. This link http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/fallout/ frame.htm describes fallout from nulear testing has claimed about 15,000 American lives. If you want to see the estimated fallout from a nuclear war read, "The Medical Implications of Nuclear War" by the Institute of Medicine.

Re:Is it worth it?

[sshir]

Ah-ha! So any scientist who accepts money is not a real scientist. Gotcha.

I do not see your logic.

What I said, is that the project needs a lot of _REAL_ science to be done in order to be marginally effective. And that _real_ scientists who do the _real_ science there not exactly care much about the bang (erm...) for the buck ratio. That's what those who ordered the system (i.e. government) who should worry.

Re:Is it worth it?

[j-turkey]

Office of Homeland Security, newly created security czar, airport checkpoints, increased security at ports, war in Iraq etc.

I didn't cite those because I was only discussing one example -- you filled in the blanks with something that I never said, or even implied.

You've lied and obfuscated because you have a dogma to protect. What is to be gained from having a discussion with you when you're going to make shit up?

I have no dogma to protect. I actually try to be pretty open minded about this stuff (or at least understand things from all perspectices). I would have been glad to have a discussion with you, but you had to get childishly emotional and make some pretty wild accusations...either that or you actually believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. You lose...from your (over)reaction, it's clear to me that you are a single-minded asshole -- from this, I don't think that we would have been able to have a productive discussion had you not run your mouth. In any case, thank you for sparing my time by showing your true colors.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be important if we were afraid of the Russians shooting at us. We aren't. We are worried about third world proliferation of ICBM technology. This system is about raising the bar on the North Koreans not the Russians.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Shihar]

Perhaps your memory is short, but it was the US that but an embargo on Iraq such that Iraq couldn't sell its oil. People, get a fucking grip. There is no nation in the world that doesn't want to trade with the US. That is how the US dominates. Take the most nations most hostile to the US in the world. What do they all have in common? They all want to trade with the US and they are pissed off because the US doesn't want to trade back. Trade is the weapon the US wields that is far more powerful then its military.

Whenever the US brings out its military it is based upon some national security threat and/or over and ideological battle. If you don't think Iraq is an ideological battle, you need to take NeoCon for dummies 101. Like or hate the neocon philosophy, it has nothing to do with oil. It is about ideology pure and simple. The US can always trade for what it wants. The second the guns come out it is because it wants something that it can't trade for. The US can't buy a successful democratic Muslim nation in its war on Islamic fundamentalism, hence it brings out guns.

Iraq just happened to be the poor dumb bastards that fit with the NeoCon's plans. They had a vaguely plausible excuse WMDs, the government was wildly unpopular by its own people, they were sitting on enough wealth where they could conceivably be a rich and successful nation, and they were smack dab in the middle of the ideological war zone.

Look, I am not saying you have to like the Iraq war or NeoCons. I sure as shit don't. Just don't confuse their intentions. If you think they are sitting around stroking their evil beards looking for more oil to steal, you have absolutely no understanding of what their intentions are. Ignorance is a sure fire way to give them power to do as they please because you will misread their intentions and be surprised when they do something outside of your distorted world view. NeoCons believe that they can make a free market democracy at the point of a gun, and that it is worthwhile to do so. Japan after World War II is what NeoCons strive to create. This is the core of their belief. The oil is inconsequential. They would be just as happy to do the same thing they did to Iraq as they did to North Korea despite its paltry resources if they thought North Korea was as ripe as Iraq was (which it isn't).

Re:Is it worth it?

[SurgeonGeneral]

I'm sure you've already gotten enough flack for your message but I have to put my 2 cents .

People often profer lists such as this in order to prove that scientists are not always right. What you have forgotten, and what people need to remember, is that scientists are HUMAN BEINGS. They are not demigods that are even remotely expected to be infallible.

The fact is that scientists are never going to agree, and I'm sure there is a group of them out there that think a completely missle-proof sheild around the USA is indeed possible. However, there is a difference between believing that a project can work - which is not a fundemental PROOF that human beings can benefit from - and the QUEST FOR TRUTH, to be found in such things as gallileo's telescope or the modern equivilant, particle accelerators (i.e. billion dollar projects that are generally not publically funded and result in the ENTIRE WORLD benefiting from)

Now that said, you raise a point that really irks me.
In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat.
In the 1500s the West was undergoing the scientific revolution. That means science was being born. The people that practiced what we now call science generally believed that the things religious people said were false. One of those things that RELIGIOUS people said was that the world is flat, not scientists.

Oh ok, one more thing,
Scientists said that we could never be able to eradicate Smallpox.
Eradicate is a strong word - it means smallpox has completely disappeared. But lets just say thats your interpretation and that the scientists said the smallpox would not even be close to eliminated. Well then they still be right, because smallpox is a virus, and viruses MUTATE, and new strains of smallpox ARE CURRENTLY emerging.

Sorry to nitpick, but you are just way off there. Plus you are attacking scientists, a group of people which Slashdot is highly populated by. I dont expect your post to garner many points.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

Your understanding of my politics is even more limited than your understanding of geopolitics, so you think I'm a "left winger". Go ahead with your little labels - I will explain some things to you, and see if you understand any of this any better.

As to the body armor, I suppose you think we shouldn't equip our troops with it. "It won't always save them all, so we should never use it." *Yours* is the argument that defeats itself. In fact, your entire post has the circular ring of the "right wing" "conventional wisdom" that is never distracted by reality. These labels are themselves a big political problem these days, but you sure seem to have much in common with those who call themselves "the Right".

I don't know where this "moral absolutism" charge comes from. Again, you're looking a lot like a "right winger", trying to reduce my practical solutions to some "morality" mumbo jumbo. Who cares what "THE Bible" says? There are many bibles, they contradict themselves, each other, our experience, and our conscience. I'm talking about American policy, real actions of our country in a dangerous world.

That "fire" raging in "another country" is owned, operated and sustained by our American government. If you're talking about Iraq, we propped up Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, sold him chemical weapons and parts for his "world's biggest gun", while financing him with "loans" we let him steal, and keeping his oil customers safely extracting billions from the Iraqi people. While simultaneously doing the same thing in Iran. All in secret. The cynical cover story, that we were setting two enemies of America against each other for their mutual destruction, was belied by the results: Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iran started building a nuclear weapon and helped build some of the global terrorism networks that Osama capitalized on with his Qaeda virtual private network. The only benefit was to the Republican party, dealing with Iran to profit from their retention of the American hostages, helping Reagan win the election, then laundering money and suppying investment in the secret wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Not to mention the side business in drugs and weapons between South America and the US, later globalized. Those drug lords are the biggest terrorists in our hemisphere. So all these bad guys, enemies of Americans and everyone else in the world not on their payroll, were kindled into their threat by us. Then, after telling Saddam we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait, he did, we destroyed his army, and put Iraq under our heel for a decade. When that wasn't enough, we invaded, and now the country is, as you put it, on fire.

While around the corner, in Afghanistan, the jihadis we organized, trained, and produced propaganda for, took over the country under the leadership of the Taliban, invading from Pakistan. We organized them, too, in cooperation with Pakistan's secret police. While at least ignoring AQ Khan, as he built them a nuclear bomb, then shared it with Iran, Libya, North Korea, and others, probably including Saudi Arabia. Notice that we benevolently allowed Iran to get a bomb, from our "ally". While "we", the Republicans representing the oil companies, the arms dealers, and everyone else with a desk at BCCI, went to work capitalizing on all this armed tyranny by planning oil and gas pipelines across Central Asia, to be owned and marketed by Enron. When that deal with the Taliban collapsed, Enron was forced into the debt-hiding business, while they preyed on more vulnerable foes closer to home, like California, as their President VP Cheney instructed the Department of Energy to sit out their required role regulating interstate energy commerce. That didn't last long enough, and CA Governor Davis forced Enron to open its books, sinking them for good, and taking Houston and much of the stock market along with it. The arms/oil dealers (they have the same stock in trade, and customers, a closely combined industry) switched to their other options, more Star Wars (these days called a "missile defe

Re:Is it worth it?

[cheezedawg]

You just pulled all of that straight out of your butt. The US State Department placed Iraq in the list of Terrorist Supporting States in 1979. The cease-fire resolution from the Gulf War (UNSEC Resolution 687) specifically demanded that Iraq cease their support of terrorism as a condition of the cease-fire (this was passed in 1991- thats pre-No-Fly-Zone).

Saddam's Iraq has directly supported many major terrorist organizations throughout the years, including the Abu Nidal Organization, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Hamas, Carlos the Jackal, Ansar Al Islam, and the PKK. He established Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp southeast of Baghdad complete with biological weapons research, in the mid 1980's. Saddam's plan to attack the US run Radio Free Europe in Prague was foiled, as was his attempt to assassinate George HW Bush on a visit to Kuwait. The guy even went on TV and handed out checks to terrorist bombers, for cryin out loud.

Nothing you said is even remotely connected to the truth. It is amazing to me what lengths people will go to justify their irrational hatred of the United States.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

"When does it become worth it for us to spend the money on a warp drive project?"
After someone figures out how to make one work. Begining construction before you know how to build a thing is not a good plan.
Especialy when you're talking about a gazillion dollar program.

Doing research on (currently) impossible things, now for that you can make some strong arguments. But doing construction on (currently) impossible things is just an excuse to spend money.

The Missile defense program doesn't even work right in computer simulations. So, why are they building giant missiles?

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

"When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it."
I 'd like to know what NASA is doing about the possibility that the Sun will go Nova, a rouge black hole or neutron star will yank us out of orbit, or an asteroid will bring an alien bacteria to destroy all terrestrial life.

These are all possible methods of the total destruction of the United States. Why are we not spending billions to prevent or mitigate them?

Not to mention a global climate change brought about by global warming. America's economy is dependent on it's major ports and major cities. When the sea-level rises we could well be totally fucked. And that's before a world war breaks out. I wouldn't say this is the most likely scenario , but it's far more likely than a missile attack.

We could play this game all day. Everyone can think up dozens of ways that the U.S.A. could be totally destroyed.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

Look, I believe that a democratic government is the most efficient way for all the people, who have to live under one government for the country to have equality of opportunity and protection, to organize. I believe that though capitalism is the extraction of surplus value from producers with labor by managers with power, when that exchange is consensual it is good for everyone. I believe that people are the most important entities on the planet, though not to the exclusion of others, including animals, plant species, and corporations (organizations of other people). I believe that our current government puts corporations, without accountability, in the top of that order, destroying its viability. I believe that those corporations have inverted government's relation to monopoly, protecting it rather than destroying it, to exploit the people and perpetuate power of some people over everyone else. I believe that we are in a period of crisis, where corporate executives and owners have control of a government they are trying to destroy as they would any competitor, by fooling many Americans into working against their own self-interest, some of whom are crazy enough to be led by people who want an actual religious "judgement day", an apocalpse of war and chaos, possibly terminal.

I call corporate government "fascist": the human face on the corporate body. That's an accurate term, more consistent in the tradition of Mussolini, who really originated that form of actual government, than in the propaganda of a "mean person", or merely authoritarian thug. German "National Socialists" were exactly that kind of fraud: only those few controlling their "national society" benefitted from their "communal ownership" and "central planning". You can call me "marxist", but it doesn't account for my own clear-conscience capitalist success, my belief in competition, in the different values of labor according to their production, rather than the "needs" of the laborer. It doesn't account for my belief that any "end of history" is a fraud, a manmade myth that is only a nightmare if it comes true.

BTW, I don't understand why your unpopular opinions require you create a new account, or post anonymously. Why shouldn't I be able to know that the current disagreement is prefigured by another I've seen, related by your user ID? What do you get out of changing masks? Occasional anonymous posting might be appropriate when disclosing info without the possible liability of identification as a source later. But if that happens to you a lot, Slashdot is a poor place to publish - it really doesn't affect much.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

The point is that sending a shipping container to New York City could cost less than $10 grand.
Not only that with a little cleverness you could probably hide the origins of a shipping container.

A missile would cost a good deal more than that. America would almost certainly know you were building it. And launching it would be the same as putting up a giant "Bomb Me!" sign.

It'd be like giving our police officers magical armor that only defended them against crossbow bolts. Sure, a crossbow can certainly kill a man. And I certainly wouldn't want America's finest to be killed. But there's just no point investing big money in crossbow protection when there are so many easier ways to kill a cop.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I know a guy who died who wasn't wearing one of those rings! I think that proves it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

I believe Abu Nidal has struck out at the USA, 20 years ago, but I don't think those other groups have.

How do the training grounds at Salman Pak compare with School Of The Americas?

What was Rumsfeld doing shaking hands with the Known Terrorist Supporter Saddam Hussein in 1983?

Okay, enough rhetoric. Where the hell do you get the idea that I have an irrational hatred for the United States?

Are you denying that the No-Fly Zones offered a blanket of protection to the Kurds? (From Saddam I mean, the Turks were bombing the hell out of the Kurds, and did so with impunity because Iraq couldn't respond without opening a can of NATO whoopass.)

I accept that Saddam supported terrorism.

I've yet to see evidence that, after 1991, Saddam supported terrorism against the United States. Perhaps you know something the 9/11 Comission doesn't. Do tell.

I shouldn't need to point out to you that the purported attempted assassination on our 41st President is not an act of terror.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

Are you sure "hypothetical" is the word you're looking for?

If you're giving a list of real world examples to support your argument, they can't be "hypothetical" because then your whole point is lost.

This post is completely accurate because I checked it with God before posting it and he said it was cool. (Note: Hypothetical argument, so don't call me on this.)

Also, The Bible says I'm right. (Note : Also hypothetical, so don't bother looking this up.)

Re:Is it worth it?

[ifwm]

None of which proves anything. You know very well that your DVD player will fail, yet you try to use this as an example. No technology works 100% of the time. You know that, so why try to keep up this charade? Does it really hurt that much to admit you fucked up?

As far as the fallout goes, you didn't say it would kill some people you said

"the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us"

WILL. As in it's a fact (it's not and you know it) so why equivocate now? There's not one iota of causation anywhere in your link. Maybe you should have checked it out first.

You know, I don't mind having a discussion with people who disagree, but don't say something dumb then try to prop it up. It's obvious and sad, and I know you can do better.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reagan Gave Rock 'N Roll To The Russians"...

Good grief.

Even you can do better than that, surely??? Do you all really believe that all Soviet-controlled states listened to nothing but Tchaikovsky and Shostakovitch till the day the West rolled in?

Oh well. At least you're consistent. *Snort*

Re:Is it worth it?

[dcam]

As opposed to the lives of people in other nations?

Re:Is it worth it?

[intnsred]

How about the money "wasted" in developing the nuclear weapon?

The Manhattan Project wasted a lot of money. Sorry, I don't have the total amount handy.

One would wonder, what have those nukes done for us -- besides threaten the planet with extinction?

I do have number for current nuke spending handy though. To put it into a guns versus butter choice, more money is spent in the U.S. on nuclear weaponry in one year than was spent on housing from 1980-1992.

Re:Is it worth it?

[El Cabri]

"You cannot put a price on American lives."

Then how come the US govt does not pay for the health insurance of the 45 millions Americans who currently don't have any ? These people are much more at risk of dying from not getting the prescription drugs and medical attention they need then they are from a incoming ICBM.

Re:Is it worth it?

[xchino]

Uhm, no that would make you a cowardly murderer. Toerrorists dont kill civilians just because they're an easier target than military, they kill them to send a message of terror, "Yes, we will kill you too, you will never be safe. We will bring the war to your doorstep." The point being to terrorize the offending nations people. If they could as effectively get this message out by killing military personnel they would certainly do it.

Of course, your example makes the US one of the most notorious terrorist nations, we dropped atomic bombs on cities chock full of citizens. We weren't even outnumbered.

Targetting of civilians does not make you a terrorist. Using terror as a tactic for furthering your cause makes you a terrorist.

Re:Is it worth it?

[intnsred]

No country would protect and train people that would fly planes into our buildings either? Right? Afghanistan did.

Wrong. Afghanistan never trained the people who the US gov't claims attacked the WTC and Pentagon. In fact, if you recall (easily Googleable), the Taliban did agree to offer to turn over Bin Laden before the US attacked, only the US gov't kept adding demands which ultimately caused the Taliban to not agree to turn Bin Laden over.

Let's get this straight: the only thing the Taliban did was to give up some of their land to allow Islamic nationalists to be trained on their soil by the former US-supported rebel leader (Bin Laden). There has never been any evidence that the Taliban knew of the plot to attack the WTC and Pentagon (if you think that's wrong, please cite references).

There is, however, one country which DID provide bases and training (including training at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola Flordia) to some of the hijackers which are claimed to have attacked the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. That country was the United States.

Perhaps if US foreign policy was based on international law, the UN Charter, respect for human rights, and principles of democracy fewer people in the world would hate us.

Or, we can continue the real-politik, immoral, short-sighted polices of the past 50+ years which has caused untold suffering for millions.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

we use missiles all the time to watch TV and protect from terrorists and beat commies and intimidate frogs. Scramjets are a pet project of a few nerds that shows little sign of ever having any practical use.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Martin Blank]

It's not a possibility. It's a veritable certainty. We'll know about the launch from the thermal bloom detected by satellites. We'll be tracking it within seconds of launch from South Korea and Japan. We'll know its rough target area withing a few minutes. The interceptors will be launched, and before they even impact, one or more ICBMs and/or SLBMs will probably be on the way to the source.

I'm a big backer of a strong military, and I don't care for this. It's window dressing. This is designed to deal with inbounds from two countries, namely China and North Korea. Maybe Iran would be able to pull this off. All of those countries know that launching one at the US would probably result in a nuclear blanketing of their nation's military bases. North Korea's Kim may be crazy enough to do this in a last-gasp kind of thing, but the others are probably smart enough to not do it to begin with, rendering this system moot.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

This missile defense system does exactly that. See an Iranian arms dealer with ties to Hesbollah visits a hooker while brokering a deal for some more AK-74s in Hong Kong. The hooker turns out to be an informant for the Chinese Government and plants a tracking device on him. Tensions between the USA and China heat up over some sabre rattling maneuvers in the Formosa Straits. Because they are worried that America may arm the Taiwanese with Anti-ballistic missiles, they share some very interesting information learned from the prostitute concerning terrorist activities. A predator drone in the Yemeni desert takes out the accountant for an al Qeida splinter group and they are unable to bribe their way into a protected site in Azerbaijan where they were going to pick up nuclear material to build a dirty bomb to be carried to the USA.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation +4
70% Insightful
20% Overrated
10% Flamebait

I've got to wonder how the metamods will score the mod who scored my post "Flamebait". Such a bizarre mix clearly shows oversimplification problems in Slashdot's moderation system, and should at least be reported during metamoderation.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

In an entire post dedicated to repeated reference to the situation in Iraq... he manages to quote :

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home.

Is there some hidden subliminal real message here that I am supposed to look at, instead of what is specifically stated ?

Damn. I know people don't RTFA but at least read the post before shooting back a half-arsed reply :p

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

Yes, but the holy annointed True Scientists all agree. Any schism among True Scientists is a deception of the evil Christian Creationist Anti-Global Warming/Cooling Spotted Owl Hating Apostate Newtonian Euclidian Heathens.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

It has worked in the past. The trick is to try and get it to work more often. Saddam's AA guns have shot down cruise missiles. Our phalanx guns can shred incoming anti-ship missiles. Nike Ajax ABMs have been in production since the 70s. Patriot Missiles have been proven in combat. There have been successful tests and unsuccessful tests in the past few years. They're just trying to bring the success rate up and the range out.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

You've got to be kidding! Russia is believed to be what by whom?

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'm smart enough to know that scramjets will never work. At least never as economically as rockets. Scramjets will always be a waste of money, but researching them might lead to efficiencies in traditional jets.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

The idea of someone writing the idea down and and then printing multiple copies of it using a press with moveable type dates from around Galileo's time.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your own shallow understanding of diplomacy is reminiscent of one who has read a few too many spy novels and patriotic fictions about your fatherland. Leave this to individuals with experience in the situations it involves: not the foolish Texas oil business man your nation has elected its president by some value, but the bureaucrats who have had thirty years of experience with the realities you are playing with; not the foolish school marm or self-important specialist, but the actual diplomats and other graduates of your nation's foreign service training and instruction institutions. In sum, please leave this to the professionals who understand rather than the weekend adventurers who have read too much of the Clancy fool.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

You can still find isolated incidents of people who call themselves scientists using what was called the "Scientific Method" by some. It doesn't mean that you can trust anyone with a white smock and a pocket-protector.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

Well, many of Columbus' crew believed the Earth was flat (according to Columbus's own diaries.) Experienced mariners trained in Astronomy and Geography would count as educated people in my book. Even if they were superstitious, ignorant, and wrong.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fatherland is proud to have hit a missile that had a dedicated GPS relay to track its location during the test until it was destroyed? No other missiles have been successfully contacted, much less destroyed.

Re:Is it worth it?

[ahdeoz]

There is very little risk of a truck driving into the USA with a nuclear cargo. While it is possible to sneak a truck across the border, it is not easy. What is easy, is detecting nuclear material in sufficient quantity to do any harm. A few thousand geiger counters, a dozen sattelites, and some infra-red googles for border guards are all it would take to keep a truck with a nuclear bomb from entering the country. However, a supersonic, intercontinental missile is much harder to stop, and most nukes are currently attacked to just such devices.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Shag]

...didn't the Boston Tea Party consist of tipping some tea into the harbour? I'd like to see the current realistic definition of 'Terrorism' that encompases that, not including legalistic definitions twisted to fit.

Would a plain old boring dictionary definition suffice?

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I would say the Boston Tea Party constituted use of force by an organized group against property (or "proper tea") with the intention of intimidating or coercing a government, for ideological or political reasons.

You may feel differently.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dumbass. There is no such language as Iraqi. They speak Arabic.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the position of the left wing (and seemingly a majority of slashdot posters) is that if the threat is from space they want to spend freely but if the spending has to be done by the US military the response is negative."

Duh, mass. Meteors don't escalate conflicts.
We were the biggest nuclear power in the world,
close enough to parity with Russia that both
countries could skimp on further nuke development
and such. So, you know, they could make citizens'
lives a bit easier, instead. Well screw that,
right?!

Thanks to Bush's war profiteer buddies, Repunkan
warmongers, and y'all delusional lemmings,
other countries are scrambling to get weapons
tech so they're not bombed by an invulnerable,
corrupt US government. Which leads us to waste
more on the same kind of crap. It may never end,
but at least decent people are trying to slow
the process down.

They may suck ass too, but I don't blame foreign
governments for doing what we're trying to, so
that we remain near parity and MAD scenarios.

Bushites are just fscking idiots, sorry. You
pretend the sane and sensible position is just
"left wing" for no apparent reason except some
left==anti-defense stereotype and expect to be
taken seriously, huh...

Right.

Oh yeah, hitting an EXPLOSIVE with another missile
is just a BIT different than trying to shatter a
dense asteroid with a missile. You know, an anti
ICBM missile could blow the ICBM up, avoiding
impact, but just POSSIBLY the asteroid wouldn't
be filled with explosives and explode/disperse with no ground impact.

Mostly, seems like a waste to me.

Fuck, responding to this kind of nonsense makes my head hurt. Thanks a lot.

Re:Is it worth it?

[j-turkey]

A few thousand geiger counters, a dozen sattelites, and some infra-red googles for border guards are all it would take to keep a truck with a nuclear bomb from entering the country. However, a supersonic, intercontinental missile is much harder to stop, and most nukes are currently attacked to just such devices.

Agreed. And you make an excellent point about the border. Have we done just that? Or are we instead concentrating funds on ICBM's, and letting this other stuff fall by the wayside? And also important, is this all just political?

I don't know if it's leftover election rhetoric, partisan BS, or legitimate concern...however, what concerns me now is our port security. What does it take to do that at our ports? I assume that it's considerably more difficult than the borders, since we tend to import quite a few goods. If funding is holding it back, would it be reasonable to scale back what we put into our anti ballistic missile program, since it's not as imminent a threat as a WMD/terror situation (similar cost to the nation, just balancing the threat based on this)?

Re:Is it worth it?

[potat0man]

Canada will be the next energy superpower of the world, and it will be the US that will be the one begging for it the most.

You mean like how we beg the Iraqis?

Re:Is it worth it?

[demachina]

"Take a look at the loss figures and explain to me, please, how the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare can be characterized by the phrase "not enough armor."

I think you made the same mistake your dickhead of a commander in chief made when he declared mission accomplished when the war hadn't even really started.

I think the U.S. is about to cross the 1500 mark in dead, seriously wounded is what 6000 now and total wounded is around 10,000. Correct me if I'm wrong these numbers keep going up everyday, hard to keep track. We are well on our way to Vietnam class causalty figures. If we just had a draft there would be protests in the streets and on the campuses warming up.

There would be a lot more dead except for the one thing the U.S. military is doing very well in Iraq which is getting wounded soldiers to medical treatment so a lot of kids who would have died in earlier wars are wounded in this one. Of course it also means there are a LOT more kids are coming home missing limbs and with devastating burns. Of course if they hadn't been riding around in unarmored vehicles in a place laced with IED's maybe there wouldn't be so many of them either.

And of course there are the Iraqi civilian dead. Its so intriguing that the U.S. military, the CPA and the Iraqi puppet government suppress all reporting of how many Iraqi civilians have actually died. Maybe its not all that many, I just want to know why they suppress all reporting of them unless they were killed by insurgents. In Falluja apparently everyone who died was an "insurgent" whether they were or not. You sure like to rant about "terrorists" are "terrorists" because they kill innocent civilians. Well the U.S. does it all the time and has for most of its history. The American army massacred native American women and children, the American Army massacred women and children in the Phillipines during a brutal occupation after the Spanish American war, the American Army is the only army to use nuclear weapons to massacre women and children in Japan, the Air Force and Navy killed millions of women and children in Vietnam (poisoned lots of them with Agent Orange, a chemical weapon). America has killed at least thousands of civilians in Iraq, who knows how many really. Why is it the American military is not a terrorist organization by your own definition, Twirp?

Just because the U.S. charged through Iraq in a blaze of glory and Iraq's army melted away you really don't need to pat yourself on the back with ridiculous hyperbole like "the most successful military campaign in the history". Maybe it was a successful campaign but campaigns are not wars. It was one successful campaign followed by a disastrous, expensive failure of a war. As is often the case in both wars, and the Bush administration, the 3 people most responsible for this dismal failure were awarded shiny medals, because medals are a way to con the dumb public that a failure was a success. Look they are getting medals they must have been successful.

Fact is most nations under threat from the U.S. learned a lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq 1 and 2. Never stand toe to toe, in the open, with America's trillion dollar arsenal. Put up a token resistance and melt in the mountains and cities. You go toe to toe you will be annihilated. You melt away and fight an insurgency you slowly grind up the American army with sniper attacks and IED's and America vast military superiority is neutralized. Think you need to stop confusing what you think was the short term success of America's strategy with what is in reality probably the long term strategy of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I carbombed civilian targets because the Russian military targets were too well fortified... yeah. I'd be a terrorist. I like to think that, instead of killing my own countrymen, I'd use sniper tactics against military officers instead.

So let us see...

Some years back, you Americans became the only country to nuke-bomb "civilian targets" (Nagasaki/Hiroshima) because the Japanese "military targets were too well fortified" and so the war could have dragged on for a few more years.

So how does it feel to be part of a terrorist country, by your own definition ?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately in the time leading up to the revolutionary war, our founding fathers routinely assassinated friends of the british, goverment officials and more. I have personally seen the agencies training thier members who openly admit these people were terrorists.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

[I'm not in the US, hence the second person]

A missile shield makes you less safe because it is a strong incentive for potential competitors to develop more sophisticated weapons that can beat it.

If the shield were to work perfectly (a pretty big if) the US could attack anyone without threat of speedy retaliation. This effectively means it functions as an offensive weapon. Most potential competitors don't like offensive weapons being pointed in their general direction, and will become less friendly in a diplomatic sense, and work as hard as economically feasible on weapons that can beat the shield.

The ensuing arms race and volatile international climate would make everyone less safe, whether behind the shield or not. Not to mention that you are then forced to throw more good money after the bad already spent on the shield to develop shield-beater-beaters, which in turn prompts the competitors to work on shield-beater-beater-beaters, etc, etc, etc.

Kind of like the trace-buster-buster-buster scenario from The Big Hit.

Re:Is it worth it?

[miu]

Is Bush a thug or not?

Bush is a bad president and a bad person, but he is not a thug. He was elected according to a defined set of laws, governs by a set of laws, and is subject to replacement by a set of laws. Saddam and thugs like him have no law save might.

I don't care how bad Saddam was myself, unless someone attacks the US I think a full blown invasion is a stupid course to take. There are options for dealing with armed and hostile enemies and Bush failed to seriously consider them. If anything GW2 has merely shown North Korea that nuclear blackmail was the correct road to take in dealing with the US.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vulcann]

From my post on a parallel thread : http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132945&cid= 11103234

For all they're nobility the American government has a surprisingly brutal way of dealing with problems. What amazes me is the skillfulness with which they manage to hide the heinousness of the situation from they're own people.

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

Where does that leave the US's policy of Total War during the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo?

That's be two cases of genuine, bonafide terrorism right there. Right next to the Japanese practice of using hot-air baloons to bomb the continental United States (Only 5 people died, but they did cause plenty of damage), the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the entire German Anti-Mainland-Britain campaign, et cetera. Does that mean the US is blameless? Hell no. But in a world where everybody is guilty, nobody can really be blamed...

What about the nuclear weapons used against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The targets of each of those were military. Ball Bearing Factories, if memory serves. This is contrary to your previous, much stronger example of the firebombing of Dresden.

Are the pilots and crew of Bock's Car and the Enola Gay terrorists?

If you carry out an ILLEGAL ORDER, yes. At the time, however, both of those orders were legit. The blame falls upon those who ordered the action since it wasn't contrary to any treaties, laws, or agreements of the time.

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

Did you completely ignore my use of the word "target"?

Remember, ununiformed combatants aren't given provisions under the Geneva Convention explicitly because they are a sure fire way to raise civilian casualties. So when we're fighting a large number of soldiers, and civilians die as a result, are we targeting civilians? No, in fact the US has gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.

Does that absolve the US of blame? No, but it's a good distance from terrorism.

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

Would you set up explosives by the roadside, then, to blow up passing military vehicles? Attack military convoys? Fire mortars at military bases? Ambush patrols?

Answers to those are: in unpopulated areas yes, probably not as you'd be attacking the enemy's strength, not if the base was even remotely well patrolled, and see the response to "Attack military convoys" respectively.

Those acts get labelled as terrorist when they happen to american troops in Iraq, but they seem like legitimate resistance to me.

Really? I keep hearing the words "insurgents" and "resistance" being used to describe them, and done so accurately.

Don't think Zarqawi's group represents the resistance in Iraq. They are opportunistic interveners in Iraq, nothing more. Hell, they are trying very hard to get the Sunni's and Shia's to beat each other to a bloody pulp! Those guys are the terrorists.

Hence why you keep hearing the label 'terrorists' being used in respect to Iraq.

There are many "insurgencies" in Iraq, not just one, not just terrorists. But they all get treated the same way by both the military (understandable, of course, they are the ones doing most of the dying on the American side) but, more importantly, by the public.

Indeed. The people who support the war look at both as an enemy of the military presence of the United States, which they both are, and as people who are killing US troops and Civilians, which both are doing. Those who are against the war see both as fighting against the US presense in any way they can, and since in the mind of the beholder the war was unjust, they are just in fighting against it by any means possible. So is it any surprise that both are looked upon the same way?

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

Of course, your example makes the US one of the most notorious terrorist nations, we dropped atomic bombs on cities chock full of citizens. We weren't even outnumbered.

It could be argued that those atomic bombs were also dropped to send messages of Terror. They sure as hell did.

That said, the target of those bombing WAS military, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. A far better example of American Military Terrorism would be the Firebombing of Dresden. Especially since the death toll at Dresden was higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I let Clinton completly off the hook for what? Trying to kill Bin Ladin and failing? Clinton was given information and acted on it. He failed in acting, true, but I would have done the same in his place.

Why do you assume I need foreign policy or military experience to figure out how to respond to the type of breifing that Bush received. Other nations have dealt with terrorism before, and have developed standard countermeasures which could be implemented.

About half of the measures intended to make airplanes harder targets and counter Bin Ladin probably wouldn't have helped; i.e. implementing advanced luggage screening techniques which could detect explosives inside luggage. Pre-flight decompression to detonate bombs triggered by low barometric pressure, etc.

Some would have.

1. Routing flight paths away from major cities, as other countries do, would have extended the amount of warning time authorities would have had to react to the situation. The second plane headed for the WTC could have been shot down from the ground in the same way that the planes headed for the capitol were shot down from the air, if there was no other recourse.

2. Implementing an air marshall plan, particularly on flights near NYC, since the breifing described NYC as a possible target and since the profile of Bin Ladin suggested he would try to hit the WTC, since he had attacked it in the past.

3. Seal off the airplane cockpit and make sure the pilot doesn't open it under any circumstances, and that it can't be opened from outside.

The August memo could have been less vauge possibly. If it had included the specific flight numbers of the planes which were going to be hijacked, that would have been quite helpful.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Eunuchswear]

What is your source for the 100,000+ killed figure?

Probably:

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham, the Lancet, Volume 364 Issue 9448 Page 1857

Re:Is it worth it?

[TGK]

Does deterance no longer work? North Korea (admittedly not 3rd world) has both nuclear weapons and ICBM delivery capability. They don't launch on us because they know that about 45 mins after pushing their big red button, South Korea would be an island.

The point is that an ABM shield is very expensive and difficult to deploy and much cheeper and easier to work around.

Moreover, it is seen as a threat by countries with a nuclear deterant. Their rational is that the US, with its new wiz-bang ABM shield can now choose general nuclear war when things don't go its way and will not have to worry about the possibility of retailiation. This makes the decision to go nuclear a more justifiable one and thus makes the world a more dangerous place.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

It has an error range of 96%! IT IS USELESS, INACCURATE AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO REFER TO IT.

Jesus H Skateboarding Christ, you would think on Slashdot you could find people who know how to read a survey correctly. Damn.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Dr Caleb]

Hey, I'm part Albertan, so lay off with your embarrasing pseudo-ebonics.

I get very weary of the Rest Of Canada painting us with the North Texas Red Neck Alberta Separatist brush. We aren't all King Ralph, nor Tommy Douglas.

Still, those 'conservative' values you refer to undoubtedly have more in common with Montana and Texas than coastal BC

Perhaps, but we are all still Canadian. Right now, the Ontairo/Quebec/RestOfCanada differences have to be put aside to counter influences from the south. Once we are a stronger country again, we can be on a more level field with our cousins down south. Follow me: http://www.vivelecanada.ca. ;)

Re:Is it worth it?

[fatboy]

The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial--bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.

Re:Is it worth it?

[intnsred]

I don't see how that refutes my point, other than the fact that the Taliban also accepted money from Bin Laden.

Nowhere does the Infoplease article (itself a compilation of who-knows-what sources) state that the Taliban had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

It does point out, however, that the UN did demand Bin Laden's turnover prior to 9/11 so one can certainly fault the Taliban for that (as they can the US administration for not accepting Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up). But that still does not alter the fact that the Taliban were willing to give up Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks but it was clear that the US at that time was more interested in going to war.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Eunuchswear]

you would think on Slashdot you could find people who know how to read a survey correctly.

You would? Why?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vitriol Angst]

Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing?

Yes. It's called leadership. It's called, being curious and looking at various issues. This is typical Bush. It's macho, has no real chance of success, and is expensive. It was also his choice to begin production before a working system is designed--sounds like the A-1 Abrams again. But he must be in a hurry to pay somebody.

Money get spent to advance our society along.
This sounds like the twisted newspeak of GWB. It is grand, sweeping and general. It means nothing and applies no responsibility. Money is spent for mankind... now who could be against that? We are talking of about $50 billion for this stupid program, while kids are holding back sales to get school supplies. There doesn't seem to be any money for what people really need.

Compare this to what is spent in national defense.
Do I need to correct that statement? This is national defense. It competes with troop transports, flak jackets and maybe the healthcare that won't be spent on injured National Guard troops who come back from Iraq in pieces.

In the end, this stuff (see; Star Wars), has little practical use and just lines pockets of some over-fed fat cats.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vitriol Angst]

You must be referring to Star Wars.

We could have bought off the entire USSR political establishment for less. Interesting that before USSR failed, Reagan was trying to secretly ship $50 billion to prop up the Regime.

But it was the IDEA of a noble and charitable America under Jimmy Carter that made people look at the Communist propaganda as cynical hogwash. It was the IDEA of America and Democracy that inspired people to push for Glasnost and Perestroika. The arms race only effected the economy, but the belief in Democracy effected the people.

Now America is just the strongest power. It doesn't stand up for the little guy, or human rights or much of anything but money. Todays America would never have inspired people in Russia. It would have just been us versus them.

But you will just jump up and down and think it was tanks and missiles and men thumping their chests. But your patriotism is effected by beliefs, in righteousness and what you think is valor. Don't you think that is the same thing that influences other people? Don't you think that the Iraqis now consider themselves David versus Goliath? People throwing away their own lives for a cause against overwhelming odds. Even though they have no chance of winning, or may be wrong, they are going to inspire more people than we, who are there for oil and schemes and power.

You say US nukes are useful because they inspire terror. That is pretty insightful and honest. For one second in your life, could you reflect on that statement.

Perhaps you should think about that when you listen to people say this is simply good versus evil. What makes us better?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vitriol Angst]

We are using scramjets now. And the X-33, and a few replacements of the Shuttle will use scramjet technology. Commercial jets will probably use this in the future, since it allows faster and more efficient force at high altittudes (you don't need to carry oxygen).

Your opinion on the matter is noise.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vitriol Angst]

Nobody is saying that we could NEVER accomplish this.

Everyone, except for scientists who are hired for things like "smoking is good for you" and "there is no global warming" are saying it is impractical. The area you are protecting is too great. The trajectories are infinite. The precision must be perfect... many orders of magnitude greater than a failed test.

This system could never work for an attack from Russia or China, it seems only designed (at whoppingly, huge price) to stop one or two missiles fired off from a desperate "liberated" country like Iran, Iraq, North Korea (get the idea?). A better use would be spending money on 747s with kinetic or laser kill technology to destroy missiles on take-off. As one example. They need "theatre control technologies". You'd want to control 50 square miles and you would need about 50 of these for a good size country. I haven't been briefed, but I have, without bragging (because the bar is so low with Bush), 10 times the President's insight. You guys so want the president to be right, that you ignore consistently stupid things coming out of his mouth. We need unglamorous, practical solutions based on pushing CURRENT technology. Not crap that is "blue sky".

Also, the patriot Missile system is a good example of this in a simpler form. It still doesn't work but 50% of the time with the slowest and easiest missile; the SCUD. So, perhaps a leader with insight would realize, that now is not the time to deploy when the technology isn't even there.

Re:Is it worth it?

[workindev]

I believe Abu Nidal has struck out at the USA, 20 years ago, but I don't think those other groups have.

That isn't the point. You can't declare war on terrorism and ignore one of the largest supporters of international terror.

How do the training grounds at Salman Pak compare with School Of The Americas?

It doesn't. The SOA trained governments in Latin America how to spread freedom and democracy, Salman Pak trained terrorists how to kill as many civilians as possible. It is unfortunate that some SOA "graduates" have committed atrocities, but there is no evidence that suggests the US was behind those atrocities.

What was Rumsfeld doing shaking hands with the Known Terrorist Supporter Saddam Hussein in 1983?

Well, in 1983 Saddam Hussein was also fighting the worlds largest supporter of Terrorism -- one that had held 66 innocent diplomats hostage for 443 days.

Okay, enough rhetoric. Where the hell do you get the idea that I have an irrational hatred for the United States?

Well, your first response to a post describing the terrorist ties in a country that was led by a brutal dictator was to blame the US. And you really didn't even come up with a good argument when you were blaming the US.

Are you denying that the No-Fly Zones offered a blanket of protection to the Kurds? (From Saddam I mean, the Turks were bombing the hell out of the Kurds, and did so with impunity because Iraq couldn't respond without opening a can of NATO whoopass.)

The only kurdish terrorist group that existed in northern Iraq was Jund al-Islam, and they had ties with Saddam. He wasn't trying to bomb them -- they were the only Kurdish group that liked Saddam. When Jund al-Islam joined Al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, they formed Ansar al-Islam, and that organization had very close ties with Saddam, including senior leadership that was on the Iraqi Military Intelligence payroll.

I accept that Saddam supported terrorism.
I've yet to see evidence that, after 1991, Saddam supported terrorism against the United States. Perhaps you know something the 9/11 Comission doesn't. Do tell.

The foiled 1998 attempt at bombing the US held radio free Prague would have been an attack against the US had we not stopped it.

I shouldn't need to point out to you that the purported attempted assassination on our 41st President is not an act of terror.

I guess you can say that, but you would be wrong by every definition of the word "terrorism". A "terrorist activity" is:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any -
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

And "terrorist activity" includes planning, supplying, supporting, funding, or carrying out any of the acts listed above.

So by the legal definition of terrorism, a foild plan to assassinate a former US president is most certainly an act of terror under both (III) and (IV) of the definition.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has an error range of 96%

Where in the study does it say that? I see no mention of "error", although I see lots of 95% "confidence" mentions. The ranges specified (such as 80K-180K) don't always imply error, but variability of responses across a region.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

"We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194,000) during the post-war period."

That's a confidence range of 8k-194k not 80k-180k as your post said. I must again point you to http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/.

This is a meaningless study.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

"I'll stop criticising it when you have an effective missile defence system which could save me from a nuclear attack. So far this has not been the case."

You'll stop criticizing it when it's done?

That's the most rediculous statement I have read today, and that's saying a lot. That's ludicrous.

Does that mean you'll stop criticizing the Iraq war when we hand over Sovereignty? When they have elections? When?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Qrlx]

Pot to kettle: You're black!

So the SOA gets a pass becuase of it's "good intentions." Good intentions and 35 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Give me a break.

How about the CIA training of Bin Laden? Are we not just as guilty of exporting terrorism as the next guy?

Mitigating factors be damned! Just because Saddam was against Iran is no reason to be buddy-buddy with him. In fact it's exactly this sort of attitude that's gotten us in the mess we are now. Osama bin Laden's claim to fame is that he was smart enough to turn on his former masters before they decided he was no longer politically expedient.

Bin Laden, Marcos, Noriega, Saddam, Pinochet, these guys were all CIA assets at one time or antother. Bin Laden is the only one not currently in prison. Give the guy credit for seeing the handwriting on the wall.

The USA and Israel both provided financial support to Hamas when it was founded. Why? Because it was viewed as a destabilizing force against the powerful PLO. We funded radical Islam to overthrow secular forces which were more sympathetic to Moscow than Washington. Same thing with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hell it's the same thing we did in Iran in 1953. And it's exactly this two-faced attitude and false allegiance that explains a hell of a lot of the anti-US sentiment in the world today. Rightly so, in my opinion. (Not that the next guy would be any better. But that's irrelevant.)

And if a plot on Bush's life is terrorism, well we've done the same to Moamar Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. We thought we even had a shot at Saddam in the 90s but his secret police foiled it. And instead of killing Qadaffi we only killed his adopted child.

If the US is so "good" and "righteous" why do we have to keep ghost prisoners? Why do we ship captured "intelligence assets" to Syria or Pakistan or Gitmo where they can be tortured with impunity?

We are not right. We are merely on one side of a global conflict. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see freedom win the day. But I'm not convinced that the US is fighting for freedom, so much as it's fighting for the continued dominance of the US. Self-preservation is after all the most basic instict.

Find me a calendar year in which the number of American civilians killed by foreign terror is greater than the number of foreign civilians killed by the US military.

Wait, are you one of those people who believes that Iran Air flight 655 was full of dead bodies, and the whole thing an elaborate conspiracy?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

SO what you're saying is, after he invaded Kuwait, he was unacceptable as a leader of the Iraqi people. Then why not just take him out? Why make Iraq suffer for the next dozen years with a leader you steadfastly refuse to deal with?

Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is rare. Who would have thought that Saddam wouldn't get it after the smack-down he recieved in the first gulf war?


And who the fuck are you to decide that a leader can't be a crook? That a country can't spend all their money on the military? Do you even know what military spending is in America? Hint: it's 20 times more than any other country on the planet.

Bush may be a hayseed, but a crook, he is not.

Since when was hypocrisy a crime anyway? And you point is what - that it's so unfair that the US is strong?

Bueraucrats were doing their job. Iraq's problems came from the top down, not from the "average joe" just trying to hold down a decent job, which REQUIRES joining the Baath party.


No shit. Glad you figured this one out.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lars T.]

Um. You're very confused. The UN Security Council, in the person of permanent member France, told us to fuck off, not the other way around.

Just like the UNSC, in the person of permanent member USA, has told others to fuck off a couple of hundred times. How many of those did then invade a country just because?

And yes, we invaded on our own terms. That's the only way an invasion happens. You don't invade on anybody else's terms.

I guess that's what Iraq thought when they invaded Kuwait. And when they attacked Iran and the Kurds in Iraq - and the US was still cheering.

Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home.

Yeah, like dwindeling popularity of the president.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

I'll assume that you are in the USA, where you are lucky enough to have freedom of speech rights. Why do you think it is wrong to criticise the government? You have the first amendmant for this purpose.

Be happy that you can, because not all of us are in a country with such rights.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Since the terrorists have the resources to build the bomb, one would assume that they would be able to put it in a plane and fly it over the city for an airburst.

Not so much fallout, but worse for the people in the city.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

My ancestors died to give me this right, I do not take it for granted.

I was talking about him saying "i'll stop criticizing it when it's done"

He can criticize it until it's finished and works?

"this is a silly project, it costs too much money, it's a waste... oh it's done? then it was all worth it!"

That's called hypocrisy and nothing ticks me off more.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Even if it does work it may not be worth it - because IF missiles are used, they probably won't be ICBMs. A system that could stop cruise missiles would be more use.

I would think that spending more money on stopping them from coming in by sea would be of more benefit.

And I said *SO FAR* anyway. Even if it is worth the money and effort in the future, when it is complete, at the moment it has not been worth the money. That does not mean that it will not become worth it in the future.

Re:Is it worth it?

[rewinn]

>much easier to put it in a shipping container and detonate it in the harbor Since there's less than a 5% chance of the container being inspected, why not ship it to the center of any city you like. Include a terrorist with a GPS in the container to set it off when it is anywhere you want, or if the cops come knocking. Frankjly I don't know why the badguys have not figured this out (...altho I heard they did this once, non-nuclear, in Israeli) but for the Administration NOT to be inspecting 100% of containers inbound (...charging a $10 inspection fee to the shipper) suggests that they are not serious about homeland security.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jlgolson]

"And I said *SO FAR* anyway. Even if it is worth the money and effort in the future, when it is complete, at the moment it has not been worth the money. That does not mean that it will not become worth it in the future."

So when it does become worth it in the future, would you say that you were wrong to doubt it now?

Also, perhaps we can stop cruise missiles in addition to ICBM's... ICBM's are harder, and if we can do that, then we can apply the technology in other area.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Cruise missiles can't be picked up on satellite though, and they are shorter range, meaning that the only thing that could shoot them down would be a SAM designed for that purpose. You couldn't do any large area plan without thousands pf missile batteries. And you could probably accomplish the same thing by putting the money into radar and long range fighters.

Better to stop the missiles before they get into the air.

But yes, if/when it does come to completion, I would say I was wrong to doubt it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[fatboy]

The Taliban were agents of al Qaeda. They were an intregal part of al Qaeda's infrastructure.

Re:Is it worth it?

[intnsred]

Says who?

I'd recommend really going back and looking at this. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Bin Laden merely paid the Taliban to keep good relations while he operated his training camps in Afghanistan.

As an aside, Al Queda doesn't really have an "infrastructure". The entire myth of Al Queda's structure has been overblown by the US which wants to make it out to be some sort of sinister, worldwide operation.

Quick -- who gave Al Queda its name? Answer -- The US gov't, back in the late 90s, when they were seeking to prosecute Bin Laden for the attacks in East Africa. Under the RICO (organized crime) statutes, the Justice Dept. could only indict if there was a corrupt organization. Since Bin Laden's group was not organized and consisted mainly of Bin Laden handing out cash grants to others, the Justice Dept. had to give Bin Laden's group a name to make up an organization -- voila! Al Queda.

Even today, after Bin Laden accepts the name (why not, since after 9/11 the "brand" Al Queda was famous) the US gave his "organization", Al Queda is nothing more than a grouping of a few dozen very loosely affiliated local terrorist groups scattered around the world.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

What percentage of columbus's crew and officers do you think was educated in Astronomy and Geography?

Re:Is it worth it?

[fatboy]

Al-Qaida is a multi-national support group which funds and orchestrates the activities of Islamic militants worldwide. It grew out of the Afghan war against the Soviets, and its core members consist of Afghan war veterans from all over the Muslim world. Al-Qaida was established around 1988 by the Saudi militant Osama bin Ladin. Based in of Afghanistan, bin Ladin uses an extensive international network to maintain a loose connection between Muslim extremists in diverse countries.

Re:Is it worth it?

[fatboy]

The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan with little tolerance for deviation from its strict interpretation of the Koran, appears to have given bin Laden's loyalists complete freedom. "They wanted protection and power for themselves," said Naqeeb, a Jalalabad doctor who said he came to know many members of al Qaeda through his private medical clinic. "They wanted to work in Afghanistan and not be disturbed."

Re:Is it worth it?

[gorgon]

Do you have any references to Columbus's journal saying the crew thought the Earth was flat? I have only been able to find excerpts, and none of them touch on the issue.

As for being educated, a sailor would be likely to think the earth was a sphere. Every time they clibmed a mast for look out they would be getting evidence for it. Knowing the size of the earth and how to estimate it might require education, but a spherical is simpler than that.

Re:Is it worth it?

[q-the-impaler]

Umm, I live in Florida and was born in California. I'm 'American.' And I'm not upset, but it appears you are ;)

Let me guess...

[BaltikaTroika]

Two words: Windows ME?

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, i runs a version of the linux kernel

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant Windows NT.

You have to remeber that hazardous equipment should have only outdated software.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

interceptor@nasa:~$ uptime
01:14:47 up 3 min, 1 users, load average: 0.22, 0.22, 0.13

Didn't have very good up-time.

Re:Let me guess...

[jim_v2000]

NO no no...windows me would be too big to put on it...it's running windows ce!

How?

[BWJones]

I try and be non partisan here but I have a few questions: How much money is this system costing? How are we supposed to justify the cost in addition to the $100 Billion (approx 25 Billion more than Bush said we would need before the election) we are going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan next year? How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history: There has never before been a time in the history of the United States where during a time of war, we have had a tax cut. If our soldiers (Semper Fi) are paying the ultimate sacrifice (1,344 US Military and a significant number of British, Spanish and Iraqi troops in addition to unpublished numbers of private contractors), then we should at home be expected to sacrifice as well.

The performance of this program really does make one wonder what we are getting for our tax dollars and investment given all the dramatic failures this program has endured.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The system would be ludicrous even it it did work. It's nothing more than a high tech Maginot line (i.e., easy to go around).

Re:How?

[Thunderstruck]

In answer to your questions:
1. My first memories of television include "The Day After." Anything that might assuage my permanent fear of getting vaporized can be justified to me.
2. We're already IN Afghanistand and Iraq. We can't just up and leave. The issue of whether we should have gone in the first place should color future discussion, but not dissuade us from cleaning up the mess as best we can.
3. Buy US made goods.
4. By "simplifying" the tax code. Every time we do this it usually results in higher taxes to our large middle class.
5. See number 4?
6. Really cheap stealth spy sattelites?? (Editor's note, this post begins to loose credibility around point number 3. It gets worse from there. I really do have a persistent twitch that goes off whenever they test the civil defense sirens though. That movie was scarring!)

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The casualties at Hiroshima were estimated to be between 83,000 and 300,000 dead. Not even 300,000 dead could be worth the expenditure of $100 billion. Could they?

Besides, who'd want to nuke the US?

Re:How?

[zennor]

Driving to work this morning (in Australia) the discussion on the radio was about the half trillion USD current account deficit and the half trillion USD budget deficit. Using my basic maths but woeful understabding of economics this still adds up to a lot of money the US owes. That some high paid US citizens now have their desperately needed tax cuts (after all, new cars are expensive - not to mention Country Club dues) I guess the rest of you will just have to work a bit harder to pay it off. :(

On reading about the missile test failure earlier today I was prompted to go and visit the MDA website http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.ht ml to see what spin they put on it. Frankly, for the cost of this supposed program one would have expected a better website!

Seriously though you are right to criticise the cost and waste. That our (Australian) government has signed us up to participate in this program makes me even more depressed.

Repeated studies and analysis by the AAS and US physicists shows the futility of most of the current MDA program. Still, somebody is obviously benefitting from it. Downgrading the NSF grants may eventually get rid of those pesky physicists involved in non-defence research so the criticism will go away.

Re:How?

[rufey]

I can't find my sources at the moment, but the cost of this test is probably pocket change compared to the money the United States Government has to pay in interest on the loans that were (and are continually) taken out to finance this (and the entire Federal Budget).

This story reminded me of another story that was in the press the past few days about a very expensive spy program that a few US Congressmen critized. We're talking about billions of dollars here.

I have to wonder how long it will be before the US Government files for bankruptcy because of the cost of projects such as this.

Some news sources were talking about how the first phase of this missle defense project is supposed to protect us against a North Korea launched nuclear attack. I'm asking (because I don't fully know), how much of a risk is North Korea in reality?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How?" How can you complain about the spending? The military, homeland security, missile defense...etc are the only useful expenditures of our tax money. Public schools are an absolute mess, all of the Dems ridiculous social reform ideas are so degenerate that even they sometimes can't propose them with a straight face. The Dems don't care about America, they care about their greedy selves. They say that you can't drive an SUV...it's bad for the enviiiiiiiironment, but they haul their fat asses around in their 2 mile to the gallon Suburbans.
I'm so sick of people bashing missile defense while supporting massive corruption (ex. Big Dig in Boston, 14 BILLION+ in the hole already and it leaks!) Missile defense provides us a safety net from the terrorists that Clinton let roam free since he only cared about his own stimulation.

Re:How?

[Derkec]

We don't accept being nuked. Given that as a premise, and the possibility of N. Korea claiming to have an ICBM at some point as well as a dozen nukes, a system that could shoot down a handle of nukes could keep us out of another land war in Asia - which is, after all, one of the classic blunders.

Re:How?

[OverlordQ]

And spend it on what exactly? Feeding the homeless? Inner-City Schools? There's already *LOTS* of money thrown at these problems, but many (The Left) doesn't realize that throwing money at it wont fix it.

Re:How?

[OverlordQ]

Wait wait wait . . .

Seriously though you are right to criticise the cost and waste

But you're wanting them to hire somebody to make a website so it 'looks good' ? it looks fine to me, it presents the information in an easily read and navigable format.

Re:How?

[fahrvergnugen]

How 'bout spending it on balancing the budget and paying off our debts? If I ran my household finances the way the gov't. currently handles its finances, my ass would be out cold on the street.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dillweed, terrorists don't do ICBMs. They will just cross the heavily guarded border with Mexico (Thank you President Bush!).

Re:How?

[IdleTime]

Here is how to :
A. Reduce cost of the program
B. Ensure the technology works
C. Reduce the budget deficit
D. Keep illegal immigrants outside the borders
And finally
E. Keep the pockets of the corps full

Outsource the job to China!

Re:How?

[konekoniku]

most of your questions, of course, are rhetorical. paying for this and having the tax cuts made permanent, reducing the deficit, with the dollar at an all-time low against the euro, etc. isn't exactly a bankrupting problem. (i'm not even sure what the connection between spending on a missile defense problem and a weak dollar have to do with anything, because nearly all of the contractors, i bet, are in the US and balance internal accounts through the dollar.) the system is expensive compared to your checkbook, but compared to the entire government budget it's barely a blip. spending on social security and medicare, or even the iraq war, far outstrip how much is spent on the missile defense system (i believe it's about $10 billion a year, to answer your first question) - hence there's plenty of room to reduce the deficit by making cuts elsewhere in the bureaucracy. so essentially, when you get down to it, the one actual question you raised is: is the national missile defense program worth it? i personally do not believe it is, but i also think discussions of such issues would work much better without all of this partisan rhetoric.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot Poland

Re:How?

[SetupWeasel]

So much of a risk that they have threatened to nuke us, and we didn't take it seriously.

That's right, North Korea threatened to attack us a month BEFORE we attacked Iraq.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs ICBMs when a suicide truck or bus driven by some towelhead could make its way across the Mexican or Canadian border and do the damage cheaper and better?

Re:How?

[Chapium]

I remember watching an interview with one of Bush's associates on Meet the Press. I think he was his economist. I dont remmeber the exact number but it was A LOT. Billions. Several several Billions. And the cost isnt just in dollars, it also creates a security dillema, and makes our reputation abroad just a little more brown colored. Is this necessary? I don't think so, but then again I dont live in the Pentagon.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

> many (The Left) doesn't realize that throwing money at it wont fix it.

but a whopping great missile defence system will? can I have some of whatever you're taking? wtf?

Re:How?

[konekoniku]

nothing says we can reinforce in only one direction at a time. it's clear this missile defense program will be most effectively only in combination with an aggressive border defense, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the national missile defense program itself.

Re:How?

[BWJones]

you forgot Poland

True.....Forgive me. In addition to Poland I am sure there are other countries represented whose soldiers have died trying to fix this quagmire that I neglected to include in the original post.

Re:How?

[konekoniku]

1) nukes have come a long way since hiroshima. 2) i'm quite certain the aggregate economic costs of a nuclear attack will be well in excess of $100 billion. moreover, this will effectively be deadweight loss - money down the drain, whereas much of the $100 billion spent on a missile defense program will return to the economy in some way.

Re:How?

[bucuo]

Well, this has been the US's wet dream for a long time. If we're able to shoot down other people's nukes we get to own the world and all that. Also, this isn't nearly the first time we've failed miserably at it.

We're shouldn't be talking about how much money has been poured into this thing this year, we should be talking about how much has been poured into it since at least the 80s, and probably before that.

On an aside, here at MIT a Professor Postol gave a very convincing lecture a year or two ago on the fraud surrounding the first National Missile Defence test, and the subsequent cover-up of the allegations by MIT's Lincoln Labs and others. Needless to say, he's received a lot of "pressure" from all over the place. More info here.

Re:How?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Do you understand how the federal budget works?

There are no loans. There are bonds, which are not loans but which do pay interest to the people and funds who buy them, and there are intragovernmental funds transfers, which are similar to loans but don't involve interest.

You're thinking of the government like it's a person with a credit card. That's a mistake. You need to think of it instead like a business that sells shares of stock. That's a much more accurate metaphor.

And the answer to your other question is that North Korea is a very serious risk in reality. They are the worst-case scenario: A desperately poor country --emphasis on desperate--with militaristic ambitions and an absolute dictator who is obviously insane.

Kim Jong-Il lacks the ability to comprehend his own mortality, much less anyone else's. If there's a major nuclear attack in the next 10 years, it's going to come from North Korea.

Let me put it this way: Kim makes Castro look sane. And we all know how bugfuck-nuts Castro is.

Re:How?

[Hobadee]

How much money is the system costing? Too much. How is it justified? It isn't.

The missle defense system is just a toy for Bush. It's like he's a little kid who see's candy in the checkout lane and whines until he gets it. The missle defense system has never been proven to work. In tests, half the time the missle was successfully shot down when we knew the EXACT trajectory of the missle beforehand. When we didn't know the trajectory we had a 0% success rate. Now a normal person would have waited at least until we had a 10% success rate, but Bush decided to DEPLOY the system as-is! This is truely a new level in dumbassness.

Re:How?

[Curtman]

And spend it on what exactly? Feeding the homeless? Inner-City Schools? ... but many (The Left) doesn't realize that throwing money at it wont fix it.

How about don't spend it, its my fucking money in the first place.

Its too bad that many (The Right) would rather divert your attention than address the stupidity of the plan.

Re:How?

[gnuman99]

If I ran my household finances the way the gov't. currently handles its finances, my ass would be out cold on the street.

Anyway, defecit -> debt -> devaluation of currency -> inflation -> redistribution of wealth. You see, it is the poor that will loose it all in inflation times. Why? Because the "rich" will move their money to Euros or gold and thus bypass the inflation. Hence they emerge richer in comparison to the poor living from paycheck-to-paycheck.

People don't give a damn about the deficit. They buy sound bites "strong dolar", "tax cuts", "strong economy", "strong military", "arrogant french", "liberate iraq", "terrorists will get you" and the rest of the bull shit. People have no idea what these issues mean. They just care that the slogans sound good.

Most people don't know what "the market" means as long as it has a word "free" in it, then it must be good. It kind of reminds me of what people thought of Nuclear Magnetic Resonanace. Simply put it, people freaked out about "nuclear" without understand what actually happens. So, NMR was renamed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging and people are happy, still ignorant, but happy.

You see, you don't understand why national budgets are run the way they are because you don't have a clue about the backdoor deals, "scams" (borderline legal, hence quotation marks) and "favours' that are done. Why? Because it is not *their* house. They are only there for a few years and end up "on the street" regardless. In the time that they run the house, they will do whatever they have to to forward *their*, not *our*, best interrests. If all politians wanted to forward *our* best interrests, there would be no wars. Heck, there would be no need for national military and the $450 billion dolar waste that goes into it because it has nothing to do with *our* interrests.

But this is not the fault of politians. This is the fault of our entire society(ies). It is always "us vs. them" or some other bullshit. People need to realize that there is no "them". It is only "us" on *our* little blue planet. </rant

Re:How?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Step one: Stop thinking that you understand the federal budget. It's clear that you don't.

Step two: Stop thinking of the government like it's a private citizen with a credit card. That analogy leads you to conclusions that aren't just wrong, they're really, really wrong.

Step three: Contemplate the cycle of investment in this country. For decades, United States bonds have been a sound investment, particularly for people who are at or nearing retirement and who don't want to take risks with their money. What would happen if the government eliminated the national debt? All those bonds would disappear, paid off in full, and there would be no more available. You'd end up with literally trillions of dollars in 401(k) plans, IRAs and pension plans and no low-risk way of investing it. Retirees would be forced to either make higher-risk investments (like in the stock market) or give up on the idea of ever making any money off of their savings.

We have Treasury bonds for a reason. Step three, after you've mastered steps one and two, is for you to understand this.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

News for you, buddy. It's not the Euro we have to worry about. It's the Chinese Yuan that's going to be our biggest problem.

Already the Chinese have bought up most of the US's steel surplus. Steel = industry. Steel = the foundation of our nation (together with corn, oil and concrete, in about that order.) Industry in China is exploding. It's like the western industrial revolution going on over there but a hundred times larger. All of this industry, and the people have money to spend. There has been an explosion in the chinese automobile market in the last 6-7 years. Wanna know the real reason for our gas price hike? Look no further. There is a new market virtually over night of a hundred million plus people (chomping at the bit to catch up with us in terms of lifestyle) that will likely eclipse in the next few years--demanding everything from new sky-scrapers to shiny-just-as-good as European and American made VWs and Chevys, and ALL of it uses fuel.

We don't have to worry about Europe. Europe is stable, and is already thoroughly 1st world and industrialized. They're THE LEAST of our concern, and, truthfully, they're probably going to help us out quite a bit through the shit that's going to come.

Re:How?

[dj245]

How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history:

We are at war. However the war is against none of the usual suspects. Not terrorism, not poverty, not Iraq, not Drugs, not even Comminism or totalianism. We are fighting our economy right now. And the sad truth is that the only way our country can sustain itself is by having a massive expenditure on the military and an even larger spending on private contracting. However we justify that spending is irrelevent. The war is on the economy, because as a country, we are economically slipping down a slippery slope. Soon we will be unable to dig ourselves out of this self-perpetuating cycle of milirary spending. And then a real war will begin, because we will have lost the war on the economy.

Re:How?

[DM9290]

How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review?

I dont think there is any intention to pay for any of this (at least no intention to pay it off). The idea is that the States should become bankrupt. This would make it easier for global corporations to more directly run the country (world) without needing to answer to democratic institutions.

If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.

When the government spends billions of dollars on this or that defense project, (it doesn't matter which one) who do you think gets most of the money? (answer: privately owned global corporate conglomerates).

Sure it creates a few "temporary" jobs. Just as any government spending project creates jobs. But it creates a lots of profit.

It doesn't matter if missile defense works, as long as it costs a lot of public money.

Not only should taxpayers expect to pay more (not less) taxes during war, but corporations should be compelled to contribute to the war effort by providing services and goods(for the war effort) AT COST. no profit (from those war based earnings). This is morally equivalant to the draft (except that morally corporations do not have rights, whereas the soldiers we compell to fight do)

War should not be a profit making exercise, and if this makes investers shy of going to war, perhaps it would be for the best. War should be waged because it is morally necessary. Not for profit.

Re:How?

[AvitarX]

Perfect timing.

Just as China (our only real nuclear enemy/really good trade buddy) perfects Thomohawk (low to the ground) style missiles we are getting our ICBM interceptor to the stages that we are at least supprised it didn't do anything.

Hopefully the money we save buying products made with nearly slave labor is enough to cover the costs of a defense shield from them.

Re:How?

[afidel]

The program you are speaking of is aparantly an aprox 9 Billion dollar a year program to build a small fleet of "stealth" spy satelites. Like the Crusader it is a weapon system from a different era created to fight a different war. Unfortunatly political momentum keeps these kinds of wastes going when the money could be spent on things like up-armoring Humvee's so that fewer soldiers die to improvised explosives in the presidents illfated war in Iraq. North Korea is not an immediate risk to the US, they pose more of a threat to Japan right now. However if the Chinese were to give them tech and a little financial assistance they could quickly become a problem. North Korea is probably the only likely threat to justify the missle defense shield, they have nuclear capability without the command and controll structure to insure that it is not used spuriously. Even India and Pakistan are wising up to the fact that their nuclear arsenals bear grave responsibility (see their mutual agreement recently on things like prenotice of missle tests). Basically no other nuclear state would be crazy enough to start a rocket war with the US, which means that the money would likely be MUCH better spent on improved radiation detection facilities at all ports of call around the country including docks, border crossings, etc since the more plausible threat is a terrorist organization smugling a low yield device into the country through the shipping channels.

Re:How?

[ErikZ]

"How are we supposed to justify the cost in addition to the $100 Billion (approx 25 Billion more than Bush said we would need before the election) we are going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan next year? "

Yeah, cause a nuke hitting a major city would cost us tens of thousands of dollars.

Re:How?

[Best ID Ever!]

Do you understand how the federal budget works?

There are no loans. There are bonds

They are essentially the same -- they are debt instruments used to raise capital. The government pays interest on bonds, just like people pay interest on loans.

there are intragovernmental funds transfers, which are similar to loans but don't involve interest.

Not true. The government owns interest on the money it borrows from entitlement programs such as medicare and social security. It's essentially the same as selling bonds (it's called non-marketable debt, since it's sold to the government and not the public).

You need to think of it instead like a business that sells shares of stock.

Completely different. Businesses do not pay interest on stock, and are under no obligation to buy it back. They give up a piece of ownership of the company for the money they raise, whereas bonds give you no ownership (simply a return on investment).

Re:How?

[king-manic]

actually most of that debt is owed to people who's children will "pay" it off. A lot of it is borrowed from the american people in the form of bonds.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

some high paid US citizens now have their desperately needed tax cuts (after all, new cars are expensive...

Well, since the top 10% of the wage earners pay over 65% of the taxes, I think they should spend the money on what/who they see fit, even themselves if they want (ie, fancy cars). Also, since the US has a progressive tax (the more you make, the higher your tax rate), I see nothing wrong with providing some tax rate cuts to those already paying the most.

The deficit has always been an artificial number since the debt is owed to the US itself and the federal government doesn't have to worry about paying itself back (it's quite unlikely to foreclose on itself)... this isn't something most US citizens understand. A "balanced" US budget is basically meaningless. For the billions/trillions of dollars the US spends on defense, they are paying individuals a salary to survive (I mean, what other industry would you prefer they spend money on), it's not like they're loading dollars into a huge rocket and sending it all to the sun. That money pays people's salaries and funds research... another concept lost on most folks. It is NOT money lost, it's money put back into the economy having been previously collected, in part, from taxes. I for one was happy to be paid a portion of those billions at one time (former defense industry engineer). The taxes extracted from those salaries help pay for so many things that the underserved need.

It's fine to bitch and all, but be sure about what you're complaining.

Re:How?

[scoobydo]

I seem to recall an article put out by the MDA before the last presidential election. The concern was, what effect would/could the outcome have on the future of the MDA. Overall, they felt confident that even if Bush lost the election, they would fair well for two reasons: 1. The MDA recieves less than 3 percent of the overall DOD budget so its not like you're going to save that much by cutting the program. 2. An overwhelming number of Americans feel that a defensive weapon system of this type is worth the price. Of course, based on the latest news, maybe they should be spending a little more here and less on offensive systems...

Re:How?

[Waffle Iron]

Stop thinking of the government like it's a private citizen with a credit card. That analogy leads you to conclusions that aren't just wrong, they're really, really wrong.

You're right. Unlike a credit card, the government can just print its way out of any economic dilemma. It's a great strategy, and I'm glad we're finally using it. Just look at the what the Weimar Republic was able to achieve!

Re:How?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

And the sad truth is that the only way our country can sustain itself is by having a massive expenditure on the military and an even larger spending on private contracting.

Is that the true "truth"?

While spend $100 Billion on the military and private contractors to stimulate the economy would work, but spending $100 Billion to get the homeless off the streets and into a job, with much of the money going to private contracotrs, would work just as well, if not better.

We spend $100 Billion on military contractors because the contractors have incredible political power, and they are able to push all the right buttons.

Re:How?

[GreyWolf3000]

Finally someone looking at the Bush administration from a conservative standpoint. It is on fiscal irresponsibility that I feel Bush is the weakest.

Re:How?

[PsiPsiStar]

That's why polititians talk of 'paying down the debt' not 'paying off the debt.'

The debt doesn't need to be nearly as large as it is to provide for economic stability. It could be a tenth the size, and noone would be the worse for it.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, for the cost of this supposed program one would have expected a better website!

Don't forget the World's Biggest Luddite and his $4m monstrosity. All that for, what, three templates? Anyway, we can hardly be the ones pointing the finger over governments wasting money on bad websites.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

...make one wonder what we are getting for our tax dollars that we aren't paying and investment given all the dramatic failures this...

Re:How?

[PsiPsiStar]

But the money we're spending on "missle defense" isn't buying us anything, and could be circumvented if it did.

The other stuff, you just made up. Nobody's made SUVs illegal. The folks I know who are against SUVs don't buy SUVs. The folks who have them, aren't against them.

Clinton tried to strike Bin Ladin, but the attack got there late and he got such a backlash from it he didn't try again.

As far as 'massive corruption' goes, Bush sets the records for all-time most bribes taken (i.e. campaign contributions) and the Republican party has often written laws using text from corporate lobbyists, unadulterated. Money doesn't come free. There's no way you can vote for any major party without 'supporting corruption.'

Re:How?

[DeepSpace]

why do you think that n.korea will attack usa?
how many nukes do you(usa) have?
they are not that stupid,

btw, i live in s.korea.

Re:How?

[lightknight]

Yes, the contractors do have a lot of political sway. But spending a $100 billion on the homeless is just as useless.

What do homeless programs and defense contractors have in common? Corruption. How about $100 billion tax cut? Or, better yet, slash a few more programs and give the people a $20 trillion tax cut. That will do a lot more to stimulate the economy that this homeless program bullsh*t or missile defense system.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck was that modded as Troll? Sure, it may not be popular opinion on Slashdot, but that doesn't mean it should be censored. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you should mod it down.

Nothing in the post was Troll-ish, and it was posted by someone with a great posting history (no other -1 posts in the posting history, and several highly moderated).

I call moderator abuse on this.

Re:How?

[Forbman]

...but what about Al Quaeda getting a coyote to get a few wetbacks to help carry an extra load or two with them into the US between Brownsville and San Diego?

Probably takes too much coordination and too many loose lips, even if they only speak Spanish involved.

Re:How?

[Forbman]

Anyways, the orbital information for just about every known satellite (whether its purpose is known or not remains an excercise for the reader) is well-published. It's an excercise for how to do things w/o arousing too much spysat attention.

Saddam Hussain built his main command bunker this way: They built the thick roof slab first, then jacked it up, so they could work on the inside details w/o spy satellites looking in. Of course, we knew details about it, and obviously knew where it was.

Others have talked about working around spy satellite observation periods...fictionally and non-fictionally.

Plus, all the North Korea fear-mongers are assuming that NK is acting on their own, w/o thinking about the possibility of them being a bit of an agent provocateur for China.

But I don't expect to see a "free North Korea" bumper sticker anytime soon...

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

why do you think that n.korea will attack usa?

Because Kim Jong Ill is insane.

They don't even have to attack us. Just threaten us with attack unless we pay them a few billion more. We either pay up, or call their bluff and risk nuclear war. Yes, a nuclear attack on the USA would be suicide, but recent history has shown us that irrational people often resort to suicide attacks.

I also think the money spent on this project could be better spent elsewhere, but what else can we do to protect ourselves against nuclear blackmail from rogue states?

Re:How?

[Forbman]

While I agree about the shipping stuff, I would bet that the nuclear material is already holed up in the US somewhere. I can also imagine some scenarios where low-grade radioactive waste is trickled out of that stream. After all, it's garbage, right?

Given time, and looking for relatively high potency radioisotopes, it's possible to probably build up enough of a stash of some bad radioactive isotopes w/o garnering too much attention from anyone.

Think about how much Cobalt-60 is used in irradiation facilities and "radiation knife" systems. A few kilograms, at best, per facility. It's not only a pretty potent gamma-ray source, but it's got a pretty long half-life.

What if North Korea decides to lob a few nukes on Taiwan? What then? The US is in a bind, because it doesn't want to necessarily respond to Taiwan's benefit, because that will piss off China, but then lobbing some nukes in response on N. Korea is likely to piss off the rest of the world, and China, too, and burn down whatever diplomatic bridges the US might still have up, once and for all. I don't see France lobbing one of their nukes on N. Korea for the sake of all mankind. France, take one for the team?

Re:How?

[Forbman]

So, NMR was renamed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging and people are happy, still ignorant, but happy.

Uh, only in a hospital is it called "MRI". The NMR Lab at the Dept. of Chemistry at UCSD is just one example of the opposite. Industrially, it's still "NMR".

there would be no wars

Yeah, right. The US Indians were doing a good job on each other before the White Man came to focus their attention on the real threat far too late.

If you look at governments as just big meta-people, it is easy enough to accept that any body made up of people will ultimately behave on that scale just like a person would.

Instead of two people fighting over a slab of bacon, well, it's two nation-states arguing over the oil rights in a third country.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheaper way to keep from being hit with a nuke...quit pissing everyone off!

Re:How?

[daft_one]

Bonds are well and good, but I think we should just mortgage California. I mean, that land's hugely overvalued, and mortgage rates are really low right now... It's the perfect plan!

Re:How?

[arodland]

Basic economic theory says that you're wrong. The time value of money says that you'll always be able to make a low-risk buck through simple lending in all of its various forms. The government is just a particularly good choice right now because it's deeply entrenched and has a lot of guns. But please, stop confusing conditions with laws. Within "the system" of the world around us, here and now, certain rules apply, but they're not the whole of economic theory; they're just the product of certain organizations of power and money.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh...but what if you just send in a Sicilian? (preferably one with an immunity to iocane powder)

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mutually assured destruction worked pretty well for forty years. It only came close to failing on us when the "mutually" part of the equation seemed like it might not hold - the cuban missile crisis.

The absolute and total assurance that the USA will annihilate the source of an ICBM attack pretty much keeps everyone in check. If N. Korea were to launch an ICBM at us, assuming that they even have one capable of crossing the pacific, the US thermonuclear arsenal would reduce the nation to a crater.

There will never be an ICBM attack on the United States, ever. End of story. This is not up for debate. The anti-missile system is a waste of money.

Re:How?

[Qrlx]

Well said.

You have an extra "have" in your sig, by the way.

Re:How?

[Insanity]

The question isn't "who would want to nuke the US," but rather, "who would want to nuke the US using an ICBM?"

I'm not an expert on military hardware or capabilities, but it's practically certain that the US has the ability to detect a rocket launch from anywhere in the world. I say that it's a practical certainty because, without that capability, the principle of mutually assured destruction couldn't have been effectively implemented against the Soviets.

The bottom line is that, before an ICBM even hit American ground, the source would be known and a barrage of missiles would be headed there. A nuclear attack on an American city would be met with a counterattack of unimaginable lethality.

Given this, there is no conceivable scenario under which the US would be attacked by a ballistic missile. Supposing that Kim Jong-Il is completely insane, he's still a dictator, and dictators generally aren't interested in presiding over a scorched radioactive wasteland.

The US nuclear defense policy must be aimed at non-state actors, principally through the control and monitoring of nuclear material everywhere in the world.

Re:How?

[jlgolson]

"I have to wonder how long it will be before the US Government files for bankruptcy because of the cost of projects such as this."

The USG files for BANKRUPTCY? From WHO?

Wow that might be one of the dumbest sentences I have read on Slashdot.

Hahhahahahaahahah wow that's priceless.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Bostonian, and it's conceivable that the Big Dig, like government projects in general, wasn't exactly completed in the most cost-effective and expedient manner possible. But it is an engineering project of extraordinary complexity, of a sort that has never been attempted.

It's also far less of a waste than missile defense. The Big Dig, after $14B, serves millions of people every day. Missile defense costs ten times that, and is supposed to protect us from a strategically inconceivable attack. But then, it fails at even that, as today's test shows.

So... Big Dig: $14B for a major public works project that serves millions. Missile defense: $100B on nothing; absolutely nothing. You could have printed that money, burned it, and we'd be in the same place.

Re:How?

[figment]

If such a system had existed. It's a fairly well known fact in academia and science circles that this defense system is nowhere near the capability of actaully shooting a real missile down -- it can barely even shoot down fake ones.

Robert Park (of American Physics Society) has been covering this for a while, and there are many well-documented problems with the system, of which some he mentions in this newsletter.

Re:How?

[andr0meda]

We're shouldn't be talking about how much money has been poured into this thing this year, we should be talking about how much has been poured into it since at least the 80s, and probably before that.


The rest of the world is thinking "the more the better". Seriously, if the US has one more expense channel to have to pour money into, it means the rest of the world can watch the US deficit grow ever larger. Ultimately, superpowers bring themselves down. It's history lesson number 1.

Re:How?

[woohoodonuts]

I had a feeling this topic would incite numerous comments about cost. What I don't understand is, how can the slashdot crowd champion vague astronomical science experiments so highly for no other reason than "possible future uses," and then be so quick to call a military venture of the same vague, dubious nature a useless waste of money? Granted this missle defense will probably (hopefully) never be used for its original purpose, as the face of war is changing, but the technology this missle defense project is using, refining, and creating could very well have other "future uses" that are totally unrelated to any militaristic ventures.

Re:How?

[tftp]

too many loose lips

Before the trip the bearers know nothing. After the trip they can't say anything.

But such desperate measures may be not even necessary. How many wetbacks can identify a part of a rare weapon, inside of a boxy package? For all they know, they carry drugs, since that's the usual thing to do anyway.

Re:How?

[Haeleth]

Yeah, cause a nuke hitting a major city would cost us tens of thousands of dollars.

Good point. And we'd better have fighters in the air around the White House this Christmas, too, in case Santa's joined al-Quaida.

And do we really trust the Tooth Fairy alone in our children's bedrooms? Please, won't somebody think of the children!

(Or maybe it's really not worth spending billions of dollars to counter imaginary threats.)

Re:How?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The rest of the world is thinking "the more the better". Seriously, if the US has one more expense channel to have to pour money into, it means the rest of the world can watch the US deficit grow ever larger. Ultimately, superpowers bring themselves down. It's history lesson number 1.

Well, perhaps a few of us would if it weren't for the fact that you're going to bring us down with you. With the world finances being what they are and countries such as mine (Sweden) depending heavily on export the US falling arse over tits isn't a pretty scenario.

Much as the European Union was founded on the observation that if everybody had a hand in each others pockets; the powers that be would find war too costly, we're much to dependent on the US economy (and you on ours to a rising extent) for us to be able to stand well on our own should you go down. So there'll be no cheers over here.

That's not to say that e.g. Cuba would stand to lose much (which is kind of funny were you ever to end up in a situation where had you isolated them to punish them and in the end manged for the very same thing to help them).

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there will. Just wait until someone else gets an anti missile system then see what happens.

Re:How?

[Lonewolf666]

I dont think there is any intention to pay for any of this (at least no intention to pay it off). The idea is that the States should become bankrupt. This would make it easier for global corporations to more directly run the country (world) without needing to answer to democratic institutions.

If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.

Sounds dangerous to me. While I can imagine the Bush government being corrupt or stupid enough to go along with this, there is still the possibility that it will lead to a landslide in public opinion towards an anti-corporation party. Which might result in a more or less communist government.
And as long as that government controls the army, you have the potential for a REALLY big clash.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Uh, only in a hospital is it called "MRI". The NMR Lab at the Dept. of Chemistry at UCSD is just one example of the opposite. Industrially, it's still "NMR".

d'uh. that's the point. scientists are fine with NMR but the ignorant masses need to be told MRI.

Re:How?

[witte]

Well, i 've always wanted do deck the walls in my toilet with dollar bills.

Re:How?

[Oostertoaster]

Didn't LBJ cut taxes during the Vietnam war? I suppose you could split hairs and say that Vietnam was not a declared war, but it was a military operation much larger than Iraq is today, and we had a tax cut. Granted, it was a disaster for the economy. . .

Re:How?

[dabigpaybackski]

Instead of two people fighting over a slab of bacon, well, it's two nation-states arguing over the oil rights in a third country.

And one shadowy group of weapons manufacturers and international bankers who profit from the carnage, regardless of who "wins." It's all bacon when you see the whole world as your own private feedlot. Plus it's fun watching the animals fight.

This is the way aristocrats think.

Re:How?

[staeiou]

War should be waged because it is morally necessary. Not for profit.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't buy the moral obligation argument. Look at pretty much every war ever fought in all of history. They were all about economics, be it spheres of influence, natural resources, etc.

You might be able to make the moral obligation argument tie into economics (we have a MO to increase the wealth of our nation), but otherwise, it's pretty much bunk. We didn't have a moral obligation to defend/invade [Mexico, Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq], we did it for strategic reasons.

Yes, I see your point that it _should_ be based on morals only, but what kind of morals are we talking about? During the cold war, both US and USSR spent one helluva lot of money because they both wanted to save the world from the evils of either Communism or Democracy. If we accept your viewpoint, there is nothing to judge it by.

Re:How?

[jasmusic]

We owned the world at the end of WW2 when we had nukes and everyone else didn't. Missile defense both requires and justifies long-term R&D, not half-assed political stunts. We won't have the do-all be-all defense system right off the bat, but then again, the first automobiles didn't have cruise control either.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a waste of money if you refuse to consider other benefits of the system. Most military technology winds up starting as one project and finishing as another. A system which can shoot down ICBMs can be adapted and modified as the technology improves to shoot down numerous other things as well. Imagine in years to come, a mini version of this system that could shoot down incoming SAMs for our fighters.

Always remember there was a time when the military (and the public) beleived investing in flight was a stupid idea.

Re:How?

[kent_eh]

Here's another question: Is it likely that this interceptor system can ever be made to work better than the dismal failure that the current interceptor technology that it appears to be based on?

Re:How?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

No, histroy lesson number 1 is, "never get involved in a land war in asia." And the rest of the world is thinking,"Oh no, the US is upsetting the apple cart, and MAD no longer works" thus the probability of a limited nuclear exchange goes up.

Re:How?

[Derkec]

Right. It's the threat of attack that could create a blackmail situation. That said, the threat of an attack against Seoul or Tokyo would be quite effective as well.

Again, getting nuked is not acceptable and we're not sure that MAD is an effective safety net against the N. Korean leadership.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the post was a joke. Did anyone read the editor's note at the end?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that the exports to USA are dwindling anyway. As a percatage of exports China and India is increasing much faster than USA here in Germany.

Re:How?

[mattkime]

That is a perfect analogy for the invasion of Iraq...

We're fighting with Moslems over a slab of bacon.

Re:How?

[Derkec]

True enough. I never said that I supported this sheild

Re:How?

[HopeOS]

How much of that debt is payable in a currency other than USD? If the dollar is to continue to lose against foreign currencies, then those debts will only increase. On the plus side, as the USD weakens, it will be harder and harder to secure additional loans, naturally curbing the expansion of debt.

-Hope

Re:How?

[Jeremi]

A desperately poor country --emphasis on desperate--with militaristic ambitions and an absolute dictator who is obviously insane .... And we all know how bugfuck-nuts Castro is.

Why is every dictator that the US doesn't like considered insane? If they are insane, how are they successful at maintaining control of their country?

Re:How?

[jayteedee]

"I'm not an expert on military hardware or capabilities"

Yes, but you should think through this just a little bit.

"who would want to nuke the US using an ICBM?"

Probably the the same "whos" that are developing the ICBMs. The "whos" have made their choice, and they chose ICBMs. They have been developing them for years and continue to push development. This includes all the counties from 1st world to 3rd world. The Taepo Dong 2 has a range of 3500 to 6000 km depending on who you believe. Just who do you think they need to threaten with that kind of range? They are spending substantial piles of money to develop a technology which according to you is utterly wasted and would never be sanely used. Why? They are sharing this info with Iran who is in the same exact boat. Why?

Re:How?

[bored_geek]

The end of the world types developed a rather simple system the stop incoming nuclear (that's new-clear not nuke-you-lur) missiles. They simply detonate a nuclear warhead in space in front of the incoming missiles.

They also made a great trainer called "Missile Command". I spent many a quarter trying out for NORAD.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as the US government has the largest and most powerful military in the world, other countries will simply not be allowed to collect on their debts.

Re:How?

[mOdQuArK!]

War should be waged because it is morally necessary.

Somebody else already responded with a similar message, but I also don't agree with your statement. War should be waged for reasons of SURVIVAL, not for any other reason.

Re:How?

[mikapc]

So you're saying after we've spent all this money we should just stop and give up? That strikes me as defeatist. Even if this system only ends up with a say %20 success rate that still means that if a country like North lobbed 5 nukes at us we'd at least be able to save one city out of five and the millions that would inhabit it.

Re:How?

[mikapc]

You seem to forget that corporations are often owned by many normal citizens like you and me along with a fair share of very rich citizens of course. Let's not forget this fact before we start villifying anything with word corporation in it.

Re:How?

[PantsWearer]

You're completely ignoring federally issued bonds. This is debt that the government directly owes to the purchasers. The purchasers expect these bonds to be paid off when due with interest. Of course, these bonds probably aren't worth as much as they were when they were purchased due to inflation and the falling dollar, but that doesn't mean that the US government can just ignore them.

Re:How?

[xmatt]

Well, strictly speaking the point of a corporation is that it's *not* owned by anyone. And even so, the interest of a corporation is profit. This is all healthy for competition and overall welfare through capitalism and such (which I do believe strongly in), but corporations have no disincentive to rigging the system to allow them to make profits outside of normal competition in the market. This means controlling the government, bending the law to their ends etc. And often it runs absolutely counter to the public interest.

If an individual attempts to subvert this tendency within a corporation, they won't last long when someone less scruplulous could take their place.

Re:How?

[DM9290]

Yes, I see your point that it _should_ be based on morals only, but what kind of morals are we talking about? During the cold war, both US and USSR spent one helluva lot of money because they both wanted to save the world from the evils of either Communism or Democracy. If we accept your viewpoint, there is nothing to judge it by.

Actually... the USSR wanted to save the world from the evils of CAPITALISM. Capitalism is not democracy.

I believe it was american capitalists who coined the phrase "the evils of democracy".

The judgements ought to have been made BEFORE the cold war and during the cold war and without a profit motive.

However... if corporations may not profit from war, that would really cause corporations to consider wether they should encourage governments to wage it.

As for the morality of the war itself. That is something that human beings may judge and decide.
Corporations always vote in favour of profit.

That confounding profit factor ought to be eliminated from the equation of war.

The fact that most wars historically have been immoral does not change the fact that war ought to be moral.

Re:How?

[jafac]

If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.

Well, THAT'S just crazy tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory talk.
Instead, let's talk about the global network of Liberal Media Reporters, and how they secretly want Saddam Hussein in power so they can resume terror attacks on US soil and institute Sharia worldwide, and how all Scientists promote these crazy theories like "Global Warming" so they can destroy our economy and endlessly milk the government for research funds, and how the Atheists and Gays have taken over our public education system in order to brainwash our children into following Satan by teaching them Darwinism (which leads to questioning the authenticity of the Bible) and Sex ed (which teaches them that they can have sex without Consequences). /Rush Limbaugh

Re:How?

[DM9290]

I said: War should be waged because it is morally necessary.

you replied:
"Somebody else already responded with a similar message, but I also don't agree with your statement. War should be waged for reasons of SURVIVAL, not for any other reason."

Who's survival?

Your own? your family's? Your king's?
What do you mean by "survival?"

If you would be guaranteed "survival" by colabaration or surrender to a invading force, then you would advocate colabaration or surrender?

If you know that a war is morally necessary, and you do not go to war, then you are morally culpable for whatever evil occurs thereafter which that war would have prevented.

On the otherhand... I dont agree with the notion that you should go to war simply because the government or your boss tells you to. You must be personally convinced in the necessity, otherwise you are nothing more than a paid killer.

Re:How?

[DM9290]

You seem to forget that corporations are often owned by many normal citizens like you and me along with a fair share of very rich citizens of course. Let's not forget this fact before we start villifying anything with word corporation in it.

"often owned by many normal citizens" perhaps.. but usually not. If you take any share chosen randomly and determine the owner, you will, much more often than not, find that it is owned by of the "fair share" of elite.

So please define your use of the term "fair share". The distribution of corporate ownership seems to defy any meaning of the term "fair share" that I know of.

Something is vile on its own merit. It doesn't matter if a small percentage of the corporation is owned by people who would be appalled and dismayed if they knew what they were a part of. The controlling share is owned by the elite.

But the problem is not merely one of unfair wealth distribution. Corporations routinely engage in practices which are despicable. And we allow it to continue out of fear that somehow doing good will "hurt business".

Rarely do we ask ourselves if something we do is going to hurt people. Presumably people can take care of themselves.. but business is a defenseless child we must nurture and love.

This is especially the governments duty. (how it became the governments duty.......... well.. business told us it was.)

Re:How?

[b00fhead]

You forgot Poland.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

See this link for an explanation.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

You owned nothing at the end of WW2, Russians had a far larger army/industry, they could stopped You dead in no time,even with your "supposed" nukes, after all they defeated the nazis not USA, they afforded 20 million dead in WW2, a few more millions by nukes would have been nothing, thank your luck, ya had lots. And do yourself a favor go read some *real* history books may your arrogant tone decrease.

Re:How?

[dcam]

Newsflash: Life is dangerous. You cannot completely protect your country from harm. Deal with it. It is certainly a good idea to take reasonable steps to protect yourself, the key word there being reasonable.

The terrible irony of 9/11 was that while the US was protecting itself against high-tech ICBM attacks, a cheap, low-tech attack slipped under the radar. There are many lessons to be learnt from 9/11.

Re:How?

[BeaverCleaver]

Ah, but the USA _does_ need a military. With the country's absence of decent unemployment benefits, the military is like a huge welfare project for all those kids who leave highschool woefully uneducated to get a bit of training and a few bucks so they have a chance in the real world.

Re:How?

[Insanity]

The development of ICBMs capable of striking America is undertaken not because they are to be used preemptively, but because these countries want respect.

Mutually assured destruction goes both ways, after all. A rocket attack on the US will result in the complete destruction of its source, this is given. But America is nonetheless forced to think twice about occupying a nation that could launch even a single nuclear ICBM at a major city.

It's been suggested by others in this discussion that missile defense is really about shooting down the few desperate missiles that a nation on the brink of defeat and occupation would send our way - basically giving America the ability to conquer even nuclear capable states.

Re:How?

[mOdQuArK!]

Who's survival?

Your own? your family's? Your king's?

The survival of anyone/everyone who is important to you. Natural side effect: pooling resources with other members of society to ensure collective survival results in a military. This can probably be stretched to include preemptive action, if a situation perceived to be potentially survival-threatening is developing. (Obviously, to avoid PO'ing off all your neighbors, you'd better have a really high standard of evidence for this reasoning...)

What do you mean by "survival?"

Being able to live with a low probability of getting killed.

If you would be guaranteed "survival" by colabaration or surrender to a invading force, then you would advocate colabaration or surrender?

I doubt I'd trust any "invading force" to keep such a "guarantee". I do not feel that any situation where someone else has absolute power over my life (and no reason to respect my life) is good for my chances of survival.

If you know that a war is morally necessary, and you do not go to war, then you are morally culpable for whatever evil occurs thereafter which that war would have prevented.

B.S. There are no "moral" reasons for war. You are only "morally culpable" for your own decisions - not for the decisions of other people. Using "morals" as a reason for war is just an excuse to force your will on others who don't think like you. (And I would point out that using military force to enforce your will for reasons other than your own survival on other people who don't want it, would probably qualify as a big-time moral & ethical no-no in most peoples' eyes.)

The only _ethical_ rationale for participating in war is for survival of you & the people you care about. You might get involved in someone else's war if you have decided that there's a group of people you want to protect (extending the idea of cooperating for survival), but rationalizing the use of military force for reasons other than survival is just rationalizing the "might makes right" philosophy.

So...

[AnimeFreak]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...

It doesn't work, that is why.

Re:So...

[ToadMan8]

No, it's because you Canadians spell program 'programme' and that's creepy.

What'dya think, this is Europe?!

We all know it's Russian influence (clearly Europe is influenced because they are close to Russia!)

Re:So...

[tarunthegreat2]

Sir, judging by the colour of your comment, you have no honour! Now put on your aluminium foil hat!

Re:So...

[Osty]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...

It doesn't work, that is why.

And here I thought it was just because you didn't understand what we meant when we said "missile defense program".

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the fact that some right winger moderated this as "troll." Slashdot is sure about not having alternative opinions!

Re:So...

[Doctor Crumb]

We understand far too well the purposes of the program, and that is why we are opposed to it. It is basically a way to make the US untouchable so that they can continue their wars of "liberation" without fear of retaliation. That is, if it ever works; in the meantime, it's a great way to continue lining the pockets of the defense contractors.

Re:So...

[Curtman]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...

No, I think they know full well why we are reluctant. Just look at whose country they plan to shoot these potentially nuclear missiles down over. This isn't our defense system. A better defense system for us would be to sabotage the thing, and wave as the missile flies over.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the joke. Take note of the spelling.

Re:So...

[Best ID Ever!]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...

Canada shouldn't join the missile defense program. You'll essentially get it for free, being our neighbor, so it would be silly to volunteer to pay for the costs (regardless of whether it works or not).

Re:So...

[AnimeFreak]

That is not the case. What matters is that MY COUNTRY'S soil is being requested for use with YOUR COUNTRY'S programme.

I reserve the right to tell your country to "fuck off" from doing that. Can Canada put nuclear weapons in your country freely?

Re:So...

[Easy2RememberNick]

Even if it did work any part of Canada under a missle strike in space would be where all the junk from the target missle would land. yeah that's a great plan! Blow up a nuke and have a dirty bomb land on our city instead. You're OK in Chicago? Oh...OK that's fine then.

Re:So...

[BallyHigh]

The key word is 'reluctant'... Paul Martin (Current Canadian Caretaker Prime Minister) doesn't have the word 'no' in his vocabulary. He'll never say 'no' to missile defense. More likely he's hoping the US abandons the idea, or at least doesn't implement it until he or Bush is out of office. Maybe if Hillary is elected & supports missile defense (like her husband did), Canadians will swallow the idea better.

Re:So...

[korbin_dallas]

Proof that Canadians are dumb. You could have sukled at the USGov teat for 50 years!

Its not SUPPOSED to work. If it worked, then it would go into production, THEN all the bozos in Stategic Defense Command would have to get ANOTHER job.

This is the only 'research' program boondoggle that has go on longer than the ISS. It started in the late 1940s and here it still is.

Re:So...

[The Swedish Chef]

Right, a failed test certainly means that the system doesn't and will never work...

Regardless of one's opinion about the necessity, or lack thereof, of a missle defense system one can hardly judge it's efficacy based on a failed test (or even a hundred failed tests).

The purpose of testing is to, you know, test the thing to see if it works. If the test fails then you analyize the failure data and make corrections.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly,
That's not the case here. This is a measure counter-measure race. Country one spends $1 dollar developing a missile system, country 2 must spend 1000 * $1 dollar to counter it (as it is at least thousand times harder to track, seek, and hit a fast moving missile with a Faster More accurate missile rather than hitting a continent). Country one see's the counter, and spends $1 + $1 to counter it (chaff, faster missile, mutiple warheads, tumbling flight, low radar profile, multiple dummy launches etc ad infinitum..). Country two will have to spend (1000 * increase in difficulty for each counter!), and research (time) to counter the counter. You should understand this, this is the same battle developers face vs hackers in securing code - think windows.

Re:So...

[srcosmo]

Who cares? The US would be paying for virtually all the R&D, as they have up to this point.

Think Pascal's Wager: if it works, we're in on it. Good.
If it doesn't work, we haven't lost anything.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

aluminium

Umm, well we actually spell that metal aluminum. You got us Canucks confused with the Kiwis.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...It doesn't work, that is why.

Maybe you freeloading gerks could get out and help push the car once in a while...then we might get there faster.

Re:so...

[chawly]

And there you have it.

Why can't we all just get along?

[Vombatus]

That way we wouldn't need new ways of blowing things up

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but this is blowing something up to stop something blowing something up.

comprehendi?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[burns210]

Because then you are putting your nation's safety on the honor system, hoping the other country(..ies) are as optimistic as your are. Do you really want to roll the dice on that one?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Tablizer]

Why can't we all just get along?

Phrase made famous by a guy who drunkly drove a Hundai Excel at 130 mph (I didn't even know they went that fast).

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[OverlordQ]

This wont work the same reason Communism wont work. Not all people think that way. Somebody, somewhere is going to corrupt the idea and then you're back where you started.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

This wont work the same reason Captialism wont work. Not all people think that way. Somebody, somewhere is going to corrupt the idea and then you're back where you started.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Why can't we all just get along?

Simple. Because you and I have different views of what getting along is. Now multiply the number of people who have different views by the worlds population.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that phrase was made famous by the truck driver who got beat with a cinder block during riots caused by that PCP maniac getting beat while he taken in to "help police with their inquiries".

Either way I'm sure there is some irony to be found in the situation somewhere - pretty much all we got these days.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[bigberk]

Because then you are putting your nation's safety on the honor system, hoping the other country(..ies) are as optimistic as your are. Do you really want to roll the dice on that one?

Yes, because I have faith in humanity. I think that if countries maintain close ties (economic, social, and political) then there is little or no reason to be hostile to one another. If countries respect people in other countries, and don't exploit them, don't take advantage of them, then really where is the animosity going to come from?

Americans and Europeans are ignorant of their own history if they think they have treated the rest of the world respectfully and justly. American foreign policy for decades has been to exploit weaker countries, manipulate international politics to their advantage. This is documented; it was explicitly outlined by presidents.

England has spent most of its history conquering people, overthrowing cultures and screwing around in places they don't belong.

All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Ok, I'll bite.
The situation is not analogous. Capitalism does not require the goodwill of mankind to work. As a matter of fact it relies on mankinds inner selfishness to work. Humanity is selfish. Selfishness leads to violence in struggles over resources. Protection against the worst forms of violence is desirable both for pragmatic reasons (less risk) and reasons of principle (we do not necessarily have to use nuclear weapons, even if they are used against us).

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Frogbert]

Listen there are three types of people Vombatus, Dicks, Pussies and Assholes...

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[mr100percent]

Did Mr. Rogers get death threats?
Did Canada ever come under threat of terrorism or war?
How about Switzerland?

Inviting your neighbor over for dinner goes further to making peaceful relations than building a fence and screaming at him to stay on his side or you'll call the cops.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[kfg]

If countries respect people in other countries, and don't exploit them, don't take advantage of them, then really where is the animosity going to come from?

Forgive me for being an old cynic, but I have faith in humanity.

KFG

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is funny, because most of this "American Aggression" is targeted at dictators who most definently do _not_ want peace and tranquility...

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Mashiki]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

It's easy enough to use the greatest seach engine around to get the answers to these simple questions. Unfortunatly, some countries no matter how nice you play and no matter how many paper treaties you sign will still stab you in the back, fund terrorist groups, invade their neighbors and go on wars of conquest in Europe, or Korea, or Africa, etc.

Funny how people still don't learn history in this day and age.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Mashiki]

Hmm. I'm pretty cynical too, I have faith that if one neighbor is more powerful then the other...then the weaker will do whatever it can to "take" anything from that more powerful neighbor. Or cause trouble, or a pile of other things.

Funny how things really haven't changed in how many thousands of years? I have faith in humanity that we might get out of it. I don't have much faith that I'll see it in my life time, and not with organizations like the UN with dictatorships and despots at the helm telling democratic societies it knows best.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[NCraig]

Yes, because I have faith in humanity. I think that if countries maintain close ties (economic, social, and political) then there is little or no reason to be hostile to one another. If countries respect people in other countries, and don't exploit them, don't take advantage of them, then really where is the animosity going to come from?

Why would you have any faith in the likelihood of a situation that has never occurred before?

Americans and Europeans are ignorant of their own history if they think they have treated the rest of the world respectfully and justly.

We are well aware of our treatment of the rest of the world. Our history is the reason why we want to build such an elaborate defense system.

All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?

Such ideas are pleasant to espouse but are contrary to the patterns of history. The story of civilizations and nations is one of war and strife. You assert that nobody wants violence, that hostility does not appear out of thin air. If you truly believe that, then please explain the following events (the first began roughly 5,000 years ago): Upper Egypt conquers Lower Egypt; Sargon conquers Sumer; Cyrus of Persia conquers Babylon; the Peloponnesian wars; Alexander the Great; the Roman Empire; the Holy Roman Empire; the Hundred Years' War; the Spanish Inquisition; the Conquistadors; the U.S. Civil War; World Wars I & II.

Ideally, your "ideas" will come out on top. But until then I'd rather have a missile defense system.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[burns210]

I completely agree, mostly...

American's, and European powers have screwed other countries, and we are now(and have in the past, and will continue to) be repaid for it.

However, I have to bring in the extreme example to best show my point. Hitler. For general purposes, we will consider him to be a leader of a once good nation gone to shit, he gave his countrymen a scapegoat and gave them confidence... Then promptly led them to genocide and world war.

It is a chicken/egg issue. The world would(in theory, atleast) be safe if no one broke other's rules, etc. Well, we can't do that until there is no threat to us(no, not iraq, something more like Iran/North Korea and nuclear bombs). We can't just say "ok, well north korea can now attack X number of countries with atomic weapons, but if we don't bother them they won't use them, so we will be ok". No, North Korea isn't run by the most trustworthy or logical folk, they don't have any penalties for starting a world war other than their own lives and their conscience.

If all the governments of the world were democratic/republican, and thus represented the will of the people according to the people(with term limits, etc, etc), then yes. I absolutely agree we would be able to move to a place(slowly, not immediately, because of a building of trust) where militaries are virtually unneeded and bombs are a thing of the past.

The problem is, their are dictatorships and corrupt governments that don't have the will of the people in mind, and don't have a conscious over their actions(again, Hitler, or China invading Tibet). What is to stop a psycho with nukes from using them? Their own fear of death, and with death, the loss of their power.

The day we move to a place where Mutual Assured Annihilation isn't what keeps us "safe", is a day I will dance in the street. We are not at that day, nor are we close to it.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Mant]

Americans and Europeans have just done what humans have done to each other throughout history, they were just better at it.

Before the Europeans took control of other countries were they all peaceful and loving? No, they were killing each other. The Spanish destroyed the Aztecs with the help other local tribes that the Aztecs had conquered. The world's largest empire was created and ruled by the Mongols. Just look at the history of Africa or Asia and you will find plenty of wars before the nasty white Europeans showed up.

Just look at Africa now and you will find plenty of fighting, often driven by tribal or religious differences.

It's trendy to blame the white guys for playing "conquer the other guys" better than everyone else, but everyone else was playing too.

The idea that people just want to live in peace requires a wilful ignorance of human history. Humans naturally form groups (tribes, nations whatever). A person may not want violence, but a society tends to fear the other, and groups of humans have always turned on each other. Fear, greed, anger, prejudice, remembrance of past wrongs real or otherwise. Hostility may not come from thin air, but it comes easily enough.

Then there is the issue of respecting others. To respect someone, they have to behave in a way that earns it. Should we have respected the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the way they treated people? Just chalk it up to cultural differences and ignore it?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[m50d]

All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?

I didn't used to, but having played Civilisation I do. I find that I quite often invade peaceful countries simply to get their land, coal etc. Maybe this makes me a psychopath, but if that's so then from multiplayer games I know there are an awful lot of us, and some of us are going to be in power in countries. People are selfish, no matter what you say, and if they can take something then they will. It's wishful thinking to pretend otherwise. Yes it's not "real" in a game, but a politician sitting in office usually doesn't experience any actual warfare either. So even the peaceful need a military to protect them.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. How could I have been so blind before.

If French would just show a little bit respect to Hitler, Germany would not have attacked. And Russians too, they were just not polite enough.

Thank you again for your valuable contribution to the humankind.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[dfj225]

Regardless of what you think about defense spending and the missle defense system, it is just being nieve to think that simply treating other nations with respect and kindess will prevent a major war. I think one example that has probably poped into many minds is that of Hitler. We can even go back to World War I, when America had a "let's keep to ourselves" mindset. However we were drawn into the war by various grievances. I'm not saying that it is right to treat other nations poorly or waste billions on faulty missile defense systems, but not thinking about defense with the hopes that humanity will be amicable will quickly look like a mistake when a power-hungy ruler begins to invade the nations around him or trys to committ large scale genocide. It has happened in the past, so who is to say that it will never happen again in the future? I have faith in humanity--faith that humanity is capable of committing acts of good as well as atrocities.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Ruie]

Why can't we all just get along so we can blow things up together ?

Don't tell me you never had fun making something go boom !

There is nothing wrong with blowing up, it is not getting along that is the problem - and possibly the only problem.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

throughout history the individual has seen themselves as part of a larger and larger community (clan, tribe, barony, nation, continent)
The next natural step is for individuals to see themselves as members of a global community.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[asoap]

I totally agree with you. The problem is that the U.S. now has a history of pre-emptively attacking a country that is not a threat to it. Which means that if you are a country that has something that the U.S. wants, the chances of you being fucked are greater.

The next dictator that is going to be in Saddam's shoes, when the U.S. gears up to attack his country, will not be as optimistic as you or I. If I was said dictator, and had an arsenal of ICBMS with nuclear warheads, I wouldn't hesitate to fire them at every major U.S. city becuase Mutually Assured Destruction would already be assured. The only difference is that instead of the U.S. launch an invasion, they would carpet bomb the country with nukes also.

During the Cuban missle crisis, Russia already had nukes in Cuba. Fidel told Khrushchev to USE the nukes against the U.S. Fidel was willing to sacrifice his people. Luckily Khrushchev's cooler head prevailed and nuclear winter was avoided. Which does support the argument about human nature not wanting to destroy everbody.

BUT, that was back in the day, if the Cuban Missle crisis happend now, do you think Khrushchev would hesitate to use those nukes? Especially when he knows that U.S. WOULD be attacking his country regardless if he uses them or not.

It's really sad, and I don't wish to be so pestimistic.

-Derek

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[skubeedooo]

I think that if countries maintain close ties (economic, social, and political) then there is little or no reason to be hostile to one another.

If two people have their hands in each others pockets, then they can't hit each other.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[murdochrjj]

'England' has also fought 2 world wars on the side of the under dog and preserved the nations of europe and around the world whilst the US waited till a) it was attacked b) it knew it could win easily c) All its economic competitors were bankrupt before it made the 'brave' move to 'help the world out' At the height of the British empire there was much that Britain did what was not in its direct interest but that of the world. That is why they had 200 years of superpowerdom. America has only had 60 years of pre-eminience 50 of those shared with Soviets. The reason increasingly large numbers of people resent the US is because they have realised the US does not do ANYTHING unless it is in their immediate direct interest. This complete self centredness wrapped up as good will repulses many people. Protectionism, tapping up markets, devaluing the world currency, the quasifascist merger of executive and corporate power, sabre-rattling and blatant exploitation are the legacy of US 'hegomony'. I speak as an English person who is sick of the imperial guilt which we press on ourselves twice as hard as other countries do. Yes we did much wrong in the past, but we also did much right. As for USA, they must realise the world is not an exploitable resource, for their complete and utter consumption. It is our home. I feelthere is much good in Americans but also much malign in America.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[SeattleGameboy]

Got some news for ya...

The WHOLE FREAKIN' MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM RELIES ON THE HONOR SYSTEM!!!

The Missil (non)Defense System relies on our enemies to use only long range missiles. It also relies on our enemies not to develop missiles that flies low. It also relies on our enemies honor system to make sure that they don't use decoys. It also requires our enemy to send one missile at time. It also relies on enemy to not knock out our silos first. It also relies on enemy not to bring a nuclear weapon in a briefcase. It also relies on...

Shall I roll the dice or you do you want to do the honor?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?

May be not crazy but are pretty far from reality. Some rulers and governments need tension, wars and violence to better control their own people. It's harder to destroy opposition and steal money from people when there is peace.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a book coming out in 1910 called "The Great Illusion". It concluded that the fears of war were wrong because nations were becoming economically and socially interdependent...
The book was a success. Reality just happened to give a bad review.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[mikapc]

Ok this attack on the U.S. is entirely unfair. Number 1, you should be thankful we came at all to the allies side in WWI considering, first off at that at the time the U.S. was not a superpower, second, it was in a continent apart, third, there was no threat to our security. Mainly it only because the Germans were blowing up our transport ships that we finally came over to the side of Germany. Now let me ask you, what did UK do for US when it was a superpower? Let's see, you guys tried attacking us, burned our capital down etc. If not for a shared language and culture I see no reason why the U.S. shouldn't have supported the Germans in attacking you. Also let's think about these world wars, did the U.S. bear any responsibility for there start, NO!, It was an entirely European thing, so how can you criticize us for not immediately sending over troops to be killed the moment your country decides to enter into a pointless war based on agression for territorial expansion(WWI). Also keep in mind that U.S. only became a true superpower shortly after the beginning of WWII. About this so called self-centeredness you acuse the U.S. of, I could say the same for imperial UK in the past or any other superpower. That's just the way politics work, deal with it. The U.S. isn't perfect but looking at history, we are guilty of much less then other past superpowers, including USSR, UK, Spain, ... Rome, so quit whining, we're doing a better job then your country did when it was a superpower in terms of explotation etc.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because roughly %2 of humanity are arrogant, greedy fucks who will stop at nothing to gain a little additional money & power.

Waste of Time

[egg troll]

Unfortunately this expensive, worthless boondoggle will only continue. Meanwhile, the cost of university tuition is skyrocketing.

Re:Waste of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

eanwhile, the cost of university tuition is skyrocketing

Excuse me, I think you meant to mention the uninsured.

Re:Waste of Time

[mc6809e]

Unfortunately this expensive, worthless boondoggle will only continue. Meanwhile, the cost of university tuition is skyrocketing.

Better would be to say the price is skyrocketing.

Why? Because the more money that is made available, the more money the educational system will charge for its services.

Give every student another $1000 and Universities will simply raise prices to match.

More successful if...

[ttroutma]

The accuracy requirement is reduced by using a nuke.

Re:More successful if...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the first nuke to go off leaves you deaf, dumb, and blind to any incoming that were too far away to be destroyed by that nuke. It's like a big flash bulb going off, and the glow doesn't go away for a while, even for radar. Radar will lose track of any incoming beyond the fireball. That's when a determined enemy will make the warheads start to maneuver so you can't count on extrapolating along their tracks. While not the most compelling reason, it was one of the reasons that the U.S. shut down the first ABM program.

Re:More successful if...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. The currently deployed Russian ABM system uses nuke warheads to aid in missile interception.

For those of you who don't know, Moscow has been protected for over three decades by an integrated medium and short range ABM system. Over 100 interceptors are part of the Moscow defense system.

Re:More successful if...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has some news about this.
Not that great. "no immaculate interceptions"

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=n d0 3zimmerman

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the US. I will share our secret for downing missles.

We will invade the world and pave it over. Anyone displaced will starve and die. Hence, nobody left alive to launch missles. Hence, our missle interceptor program will work without fail.

Did They Use Ada Like They Were Supposed To?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the most stable software that exists is written in Ada. Ada is found in missiles, airplanes, and anywhere else critical software control is needed.

If you need it to work, you use Ada.

Re:Did They Use Ada Like They Were Supposed To?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need it to work, you use Ada

Yes, it's my favorite seven languages too.

Amazing what a simple port scan can lead to!!1one~

[Anonymous Coward]

In the right hands.

Probable cause

[uniqueCondition]

if it was software related it was probably due to a fault in the scheduling algorithm re: data sharing between processes most problems in RTS come from an excessive amount of world inputs that aren't properly accounted for by data structures then again.. it could of just ran out of gas

Re:Probable cause

[Anonymous Coward]

"excessive amount of world inputs that aren't properly accounted for by data structures" ?

what the hell are you talking about?

Re:Probable cause

[uniqueCondition]

Once the DoD attempted to create a plane that would serve as a trainer for the navy

Navy boats would have their ability to interpret their radars tested as the plane would send out hard to deceifer and misleading signals to the ship.

The project failed because the plane had to asses surrounding radio frequencies, boats, planes, &c. in order to know what misleading information to send.

The darn thing would crash everyonce and a while and no one knew why. Turns out that if there were too many planes,boats, &c around it couldn't appropriatly deal with all that information and compute the correct signals. The same could be happening to these missles,if could be reading in various inputs (ie. planes, heat sources, wind currents, icbm decoys (assuming it traces the icbm throughout it's entire course)) and not be able to deal w/ them, thus crashing

Re:Probable cause

[driftingwalrus]

Hard for it to run out of fuel before it's even launched. RTFA.

Re:Probable cause

[WillerZ]

Equally, it's hard for it to launch if it has no fuel.

Re:Probable cause

[Insipid Trunculance]

it could of just ran out of gas

Dont you have an excellent source of hot air in Washington , DC ?

And so...

[bravehamster]

The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.

Re:And so...

[MasterDirk]

It's probably a malfunction of some sort. My bet is it's software or hardware -related. :D

Re:And so...

[md17]

Ok... I bet it's running Windows. ;)

Re:And so...

[Tablizer]

could have been anything from a software glitch to a...

I knew this would happen when I saw one guy walking out of the anti-missle lab with "XML for Dummies".

Re:And so...

[miu]

And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.

Naw, thats the old slashdot style - instead of somewhat honest second guessing and speculation about a technical issue lets have a few +"5, Interesting" comments pushing some political agenda or another.

Re:And so...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's definitely a hardware problem.

-- Joe Developer

Re:And so...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a software problem.

--John Hardware Guy

Re:And so...

[wik]

>And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.

If we do this, then we are no better than the interceptor missiles, which also speculate and fly aimlessly.

Re:And so...

[kerrle]

Well, that seems to be taken care of, so far.

Though in truth, both styles seem to be in full effect here.

One Question:

[dakan]

I only have one question. Does this actually supirse anyone? I mean the is the US Goverment we're talking about.

-Nik

This begs the question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Could "Skynet" become a reality in the near future?

Re:This begs the question:

[mrami]

Skynet as a government project:

Skynet became self-aware in 2008. Six months later, it became self-absorbed and slashdotted itself.

Re:This begs the question:

[sailforsingapore]

Self-absorbed...hardly. It was lonely, became depressed, and took matters into it's own hands by using /. for what it truly is...a little, self contained, DDOS attack.

Re:This begs the question:

[tarunthegreat2]

Yep. Combine this with last story on ASIMO, and I can just see an Austrian-accented killing machine coming for people of Irish origins...

Re:This begs the question:

[sailforsingapore]

Combine this with the previous story, and you would get a killing machine that ran really slowly, and randomly shut itself down mid killer-rampage.

Re:This begs the question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, what really begs the question is..

do you have any grip on reality?

Damn...

[JessLeah]

Stupid rackafratchin' metric conversions ;)

Re:Damn...

[darkone]

Brings new meaning to the term "blue screen of death"!

Re:Damn...

[dfj225]

What is the metric conversion for the "launch" command?

Re:Damn...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stupid rackafratchin' metric conversions"

Yes, base ten can be so difficult for those born with imperial hands (twelve fingers, that is).

smart bomb

[james_34567]

hey, the target was going to crash harmlessly into the ocean anyway, maybe it was smart enough to know that and to not explode and to not release any other global warming chemicals

Correct me if I'm wrong

[sailforsingapore]

...but aren't we violating some sort of test ban treaty by testing the missle defense shield? If so...I wish we would at least make it effective, if we are already going to the trouble of violating international law. As I recall, this isn't the first time an interceptor failed miserably.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Derkec]

The major test ban treaty prevents us from testing real nukes. The only treaty that covered missle defense shields was one we signed with the USSR.

The Bushies claim that treaty is now moot as the USSR no longer exists. Moscow didn't see it that way. The US was open about it's plans and if I recall correctly that would have matched protocol for leaving the treaty.

I may have that last part wrong. It all happened in the early part of the Bush presidency when he was withdrawing from, ignoring or unsigning a major international treaty every couple weeks.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[konekoniku]

No, the US is legally in the clear, as it has exercised its treaty rights under article something or other (i think 10?) of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which allows any signatory to legally withdraw from the treaty provisions given 6 month's notice. (similar provisions exist on virtually all international treaties; e.g., the npt for example).

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You're thinking of the ABM treaty, an obsolete piece of Cold War paper that was designed to put the brakes on the US/USSR arms race. We are, thankfully, no longer bound by the terms of that treaty.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Maniakes]

The ABM treaty contains a clause allowing either party to withdraw after six month's notice. Back in 2001, Bush gave notice to Putin that the US was withdrawing, and in exchange for a few concessions on other issues Putin announced that he had no objection.

source

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

We had our fingers crossed behind our back when we signed that.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[demachina]

No we are thinking of a treaty that put an end to another round of escalations in the arms race at staggering cost to both sides, and more importantly a piece of paper that kept one power or the other or maybe both, from coming to the stupid conclusion that if they just build enough defenses they could win a global thermonuclear war. Mutual assured destruction as sick as it was was preferable to two super powers with ever expanding arsenals thinking they could win if they just spent a little more.

What do we have today. America sinking billions in to a system that probably wont work against anything other than maybe a lame rogue missile coming out of North Korea, which probably wont ever come because they know they would be incinerated if they ever launched it.

Can missile defense be defeated, why sure it can and a lot more cheaply than it takes to build this modern day Maginot line.

Method 1 already being pursued by Putin, build maneuvering warheads and load missiles up with lots of decoys.

Method 2 being pursued by every other roque state and terrorist in the world, slip a nuke in a cargo container or a tramp steamer or a fishing boat or ..... and slip it in close to an American city.

With missile defense George W. and Condi Rice are just trying to relive Reagan's misguided and probably Alzeihemer's induced delusion that if American just spends more on missile defense it can win a nuclear war, that the rest of the world doesn't even want to fight anymore, and dominate the planet.

I'm conflicted

[TubeSteak]

I'm conflicted, I want to make two posts at once:

Duh
and
I know this is rocket science, but they've had 20 years

It's very comforting...

[dteichman]

to know that we place our lives in the hands of such reliable technologies. I think that if we had our interceptor just hit the target city before the original missile, we could laugh at bad guys, "Hahaha! Your missile didn't do jack shit! Our missile hit before yours."

My concern

[Frennzy]

Ignoring for the moment the cost and the dubious necessity for such a system, what worries me more is:

'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly'

What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs...possibly in the NYC sanitation department.

The system 'shut itself down'...ergo, a failure condition (anomaly) must have existed. I fail to understand how the 'system' knew about a problem that was bad enough to shut itself down, yet somehow the folks running said system aren't able to discern exactly what that was? Hell, even Windows has 'event viewer' and kernel dumps.

This cash cow needs to have her neck severed.

Re:My concern

[MasterDirk]

Maybe the interceptor was intercepted by something? An outside factor would be an anomaly of this sort, wouldn't it?

Let the conspiracy-theorists commence...

<tinhat>

Re:My concern

[Guppy06]

"'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly'

What kind of engineering is this?"

The realistic kind. If they had known what kind of anomaly it was going to be, they would have prevented it from happening.

Re:My concern

[Dun Malg]

'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly' What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs

The talking head who said "unknown anomaly" probably talked to the engineers first. They probably said something like:

"The primary system dumped core with error 0xEA09, which indicates the fizgig wasn't able to spin up to polarity. We need time to dump the logs and figure out if it was the metabalancer, the interflexor, or maybe even the sky modulator that miscued the fizgig."

To which he says, "I'll just tell 'em we don't know what happened yet"

Re:My concern

[Frennzy]

You obviously missed the 'shut itself down' portion. Any condition which can be detected and cause a shutdown was predicted. If it was predicted, and detected, then it should have been logged, thus easily traceable.

Re:My concern

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

You play a gnome in WoW, don't you?

Re:My concern

[izomiac]

Perhaps it was just checking something generic, like internal temperature, and shut itself down because it was outside of the allowed conditions. They may know something, like that the navigation system quit responding, but not know why. Hince, the thing could have shut itself off because something unexpected happened. If a program throws an exception then you don't know exactly what went wrong. That or it was an error with the error detector.

Re:My concern

[isomeme]

This is a highly classified military system. "Unknown anomaly" is secret-engineering-ese for "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you." Seriously, how much sense would it make to advertise the recipes for system-crippling failure modes? The more you know about the guts of a complex weapon system, the easier it is to sabotage or counter it.

Re:My concern

[Piquan]

Hell, even Windows has 'event viewer' and kernel dumps.

How long does it take to analyze that core dump? The first thing you have is just a message like "page fault in kernel mode"... how long between when you get a core event and you know what the actual problem is? How long before you're sure enough to tell the entire world that you know what the problem is?

I, for one, don't want hasty engineering here. I want somebody looking closely, double-checking their assumptions, and somebody else double-checking him. I don't want somebody to jump to a hasty conclusion.

Re:My concern

[Forbman]

Yes, an anti-SAM device surreptitiously installed on a TWA 747 screwed it up. Instead of a 747 crashing in Long Island Sound, well, the Pentagon's baby got messed up.

Re:My concern

[arodland]

That's not a concern with this system, which has no chance of providing a viable defense against anything moving faster than an unladen swallow anyway. The only important goal of the project is to spend as much money as possible, and gain as much power for the people behind it as possible, before they're forced to admit that it's useless.

Re:My concern

[GWTPict]

African or European?

Re:My concern

[syylk]

...To which he says, "I'll just tell 'em we don't know what happened yet"

Even worse:

Talking head: "ehi, engineering guy, what happened? in human readable terms, please"
Engineering guy: "well, our post-crash data analisys led us to believe we have a minor problem"
TH: "which one?"
EG: "the software will shut everything down on all wednesdays, so we better avoid being attacked on weds'"
TH: "I'll just tell 'em we don't know what happened yet"

Re:My concern

[smchris]

No test is a failure.

I assume the contractors got paid.

Re:My concern

[geoffrobinson]

Are you being serious?

When building a new system as trivial as a word processor (compared to a interceptor missle, trivial), do people not get bugs (i.e. anomolies) of unknown origin?

You detect a problem but are unsure what caused it. This happens so often.

was it running linux or windows?

[james_34567]

all your icbm under the sea are belong to old koreans

Luckily...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it just shut itself down and fell "harmlessly" into the ocean. Sounds like good error handling, but what if it had changed its course instead of shut down. Kind of scary to think about.

Some perspective is needed

[crumbz]

Some have said: A shameful waste of American money. An inducement to start a new nuclear arms race. Another dangerous precedent for continued American unilateralism.

Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.

Meanwhile, tons of radioactive materials are left unsecured in the former USSR.

And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S. from invading their countries.

Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare? And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[PetrusMagnusII]

Yet, I can't send some perfume to my girlfriend in Japan for christmas because after 9-11 you can't send liquids via the post office anymore on planes.. i have to send it on a boat.. meaning it will take over 1 month!!
grr.....

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Better het posting then.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Joel from Sydney]

Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare? And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.

Perhaps while they're at it, they could have a word to the Australian government about missile defence, namely: WE DON'T NEED ANY. Apparently we've signed on the ridiculous "Star Wars" missile defence program, and we're going to spend billions as well. Yay us.

I find it incredible that in this day and age where anyone with a rented truck and a few hundred bucks' worth of fertilizer can blow up a building, we can collectively waste so much money on things like ballistic missile defences. Something doesn't add up.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Someone want to educate Crumbz on the DPRK's No Dong and Taepo Dong missiles?

Or at least the expression "don't put all your eggs in the counter-terrorism basket?"

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors

Just like there is no alquaeda in Iraq, there will be no falling ICBM.

It will come through the ports on a container ship that isn't inspected and detonate somwhere down the road.

So you're right, it will be immune to missile interception.

Meanwhile countless americans don't have healthcare.

This is "morals and values" for you folks.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[idiotnot]

Glad to see you've got your Kerry4Pres propaganda e-mails in your gmail account to search easily.

Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.

If you believe it's physically and fiscally possible to inspect every single container, I wish you luck. You'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams, and I have a bridge you can buy with the proceeds. Perhaps you missed the stories about the month-long backlog at the Port of Los Angeles due to container inspections. Inspecting them all would only exacerbate that problem. So, build more ports! Haha. Not bloody likely.

Meanwhile, tons of radioactive materials are left unsecured in the former USSR.

It's nowhere near the problem it was eight, ten years ago. Russia has most of the materials secured.

And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S. from invading their countries.

Like Pakistan? Oh, wait, I thought that Pakistan developed them to fend off an attack from _India_. Like Isreal? Who developed them to fight off attacks from Iraq and Iran. Like North Korea, who are just desperate? That's a very thin argument. Very thin.

Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare?

I'm sure that with your vast knowledge of international affairs, you're well-equipped. Send them a resume?

And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.

It's not a question of _the_ next threat. There are multiple next threats. It is naive to think that the threats that existed before al Qaeda attacked the US and Spain have magically withered away -- they're still there. To place a singular focus on it is foolish at best, suicidal at worst. Remember the "Axis of Evil?" The two remaining members have nuclear capabilities, and North Korea may have sub-launchible missiles. If they get close enough to the West Coast....

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Aceto3for5]

Al Zarquai is in Iraq, he is al qaeda. Russia is developing ICBMs to avoid our defense shield that we dont even have yet. China is developing antisat missiles.

this is NOT an anti-terror system, but terrorism isnt the only threat.

we should have just developed the thing in secret like the stealth bomber and stealth fighter.

as far as countless americans not having healthcare... boo hoo. I opted out because i couldnt afford the premiums. I have it now because my smaller company got eaten by a larger one, who COULD provide health care at lower costs. Healthcare is not a RIGHT. Healthcare is not a RIGHT. Healthcare is not a RIGHT. Keep repeating that or pretty soon broadband, free lunches for working families, subsidy programs for christmas presents, and any other nonsense will become rights.

Remember its not a RIGHT until a politician promises it to you in an election year. Even bush (whom i support) is guilty of this with the medicare package he sent up.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Pakistan? Oh, wait, I thought that Pakistan developed them to fend off an attack from _India_.

Ironically, the past 4 Indo-pak wars have always been initiated by Pakistan thanks to Indian official "non-first strike" policy.

Pakistan has been pretty candid that they developed it to maintain the balance of power, in context of *their* ability to attack India again. They pretty much refused to a non-firststrike agreement for the same reason. i.e. They stated they *will* be the first to use their nukes when and as they want, regardless of whether India was attacking or not. Straighten up your history.

Coincidentally, Indian version does state that they developed the bomb as a responce to the defeat by China's hands *and* mostly because of the nuke-scare caused in India during 70s thanks to US sending the nuclear aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, on 9 December 1971 to the Bay of Bengal to threaten India during the Indo-pak war, and authorisinge transfer of US military supplies to Pakistan.(Keep in mind that in those days the nagasaki-hiroshima horror was pretty fresh in minds of the world as well as *which* country had been the sole nation in history to use nukes against a populace).

So unfortunately, on one point at least, you do fail.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

> Meanwhile countless americans don't have healthcare.

So? Why should it be the responsibility the rich and working tax payers to provide free services to the poor, many of whom are uneducated and unwilling to work?

Free health care is not a right.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Free health care is not a right.

Well, in many countries it is and I'm damn happy for that if I happen to have a bad economy at the time, even if I have a job.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's not developed in secret, is because they're using it for media capital: for whatever ends. They didn't have to tell us it failed. They didn't have to tell us they even started making it. Yet they did. The military and government has vast numbers of media experts to help construct their image. Everything that you hear about a military operation, you hear about for a reason.

Maybe they just mention it to give more for the "left" and the "right" to bicker over. What Goebbels said, "the goal of propaganda is to create an ostensible division behind which is an actual unity."

Re:Some perspective is needed

[TheLink]

Basically there are huge gaping vulnerabilities in the US's defenses. Hundreds of tons of cocaine gets through EVERY year despite the billions spent in the war vs drugs.

The US can only close many of these vulnerablities at great cost to themselves (great impact on freedom and economy ) - e.g. by declaring martial law, curfews and such.

If you know you can't win a no-holds-barred fight if an opponent chooses to attack your major weakness AND your weakness is common knowledge, then perhaps you shouldn't keep trying to piss everyone off.

However it seems the US is going out of its way to pick fights. Makes me wonder why.

Sure the US got whacked in 9/11 and lost 3000 people. But what the US is doing sure looks like it's making things worse and not better.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Forbman]

And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S.

No, they're doing it because of their own regional political headgames with their neighbors.

Do you REALLY think Iran's program is to keep the US at bay? Nope. It's to usurp regional dominance when Iraq implodes in a year or two. Keep the Iraqi Shi'ite and Sunnis at each other's throats...

Re:Some perspective is needed

[idiotnot]

Basically there are huge gaping vulnerabilities in the US's defenses. Hundreds of tons of cocaine gets through EVERY year despite the billions spent in the war vs drugs.

The government can't keep drugs out of prisons, much less the country. The "War on Drugs" is a failure of monumental proportions.

The US can only close many of these vulnerablities at great cost to themselves (great impact on freedom and economy ) - e.g. by declaring martial law, curfews and such.

I agree completely. A missile defense system, while expensive, is not something we're devoting a large portion of the budget to. In fact, it's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. As a total percentage of the total budget, it's tiny. And it's a system that doesn't infringe on any civil liberties. Yet, the left opposes it reflexively. Why? Reagan supported it. Bush supports it. It must be bad, and not worth even trying.

If you know you can't win a no-holds-barred fight if an opponent chooses to attack your major weakness AND your weakness is common knowledge,

Or try to reduce that weakness before your enemies can well exploit it?

However it seems the US is going out of its way to pick fights. Makes me wonder why.

How, exactly, is working on missile defense picking a fight? In fact, it could be argued that missile defense is totally contrary to the "Bush Docterine" of pre-emption abroad. It's a defensive system, employed within the confines of the United States.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[TheLink]

If you haven't noticed already, the US picked a fight in Iraq, and has not given _honest_ reasons why it did so. That sure didn't make the rest of the world happy, or reduce the odds of the USA getting attacked.

You also miss the other point. The major weakness is not being attacked by missiles. Drugs and people get smuggled in ALL the time. What's stopping nukes from being smuggled in? They aren't that big you know. And they don't have to be that complex - bomb complexity is only to improve yields and stuff like that. I'm sure terrorists aren't so fussy about that.

Someone could just take a boat right into SF bay and nuke SF. Same for NY. Most of the major cities are close to waterways.

IIRC a drug smuggler went right into the SF bay before and dropped off stuff. No problems...

Hijack a boat (in the south china sea or thereabouts), rebadge it, load it up send it on a one way trip to SF or NY.

To defend against such attacks the US would have to make itself poorer and less free.

The best defense is to not to be such a desirable target.

You piss a few extremists off, they kill a few thousand. You piss LOTS of people off in a major way, the stakes are higher. Sure it's a sad thing when 3000 people die. But it's sadder if millions die, and the lives of tens of millions are badly affected.

Perhaps if the US had taken the billions it spends each month on Iraq and spent it on making the US's enemies not hate the US so much, it'd actually be much safer.

You don't nuke or suicide bomb someone if you just dislike them...

Re: Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you lack the perspective of this administration...

If we have a reliable missile defense system, then there will be nothing to stop defense contractors from exporting missile delivery systems. Our president is simply seeking to develop emerging markets for US corporations.

Mind you, I don't claim that this makes any more sense, but there is a twisted sort of logic to it.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame the above was posted AC, anyone who posted that should get full cred for posting one of the absolutely best comments on here for a long while.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Lonewolf666]

Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.

If you believe it's physically and fiscally possible to inspect every single container, I wish you luck. You'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams, and I have a bridge you can buy with the proceeds. Perhaps you missed the stories about the month-long backlog at the Port of Los Angeles due to container inspections. Inspecting them all would only exacerbate that problem. So, build more ports! Haha. Not bloody likely.

The point is that the USA have an obvious vulnerability there, and any terrorists that are smart enough to build a nuke might also be smart enough to smuggle it into the country. The same goes for small nations that actually are mad enough to start a nuclear war with the USA. A missile interceptor system is not very helpful there.

Against more rational governments, old-fashioned deterrence should work fine. It worked against the USSR, which was big, expansionist and aggressive.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop that Health Care Bulshit, Pleeease.

Anybody can buy health care if they are smarter then a monkey and care to find a job.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[frankie]

BZZT. Before the war, Zarqawi was in Kurdish northern Iraq, aka not under Saddam's control or protection. We could have taken him out at any time, but chose not to.

BTW, if Russia/China are developing anti-defenses, it's because they are so much EASIER and CHEAPER than defenses. Mylar balloons shaped like reentry cones cost 30 cents, extra interceptors cost 30 megabucks. Who's going to win this arms race?

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The missile defense isn't designed to eliminate threats from Russia or China or any other superpower. The defense could at best take out two or three simultaneous launches. It'll have nothing against 50 ICBMs heading towards US at the same time.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

bzzzzt, if it was iraq, it was under a stranglehold grip by saddam.

including the kurds in the north, gee why do you think those mass graves exist up in that region.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[ad0gg]

They can also make the warheads wobble, coat them in "stealth" materials to defeat the XRadar guidance. And lets not forget Russia has subs with cruise missles. And china is developing them aswell.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

saddam lost control of northern iraq in 1991.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

check your facts. what year were those graves made?

ok then! thanks for playing! bye!

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a dozen fashion magazines and rip out the scented cards.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Jagasian]

Moral values also includes hating gays.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[rmerrill11]

"Free health care is not a right."

No, it is not. But it is a public good.

A Fire Department is not a "right" either but most people have figured that if your neighbor's house is burning down and nobody puts the fire out there is good chance that your house will get damaged too. So it is worth it to society to invest in appropriate public goods.

At the most personal level, the benefit of universal health care is that your society, your neighbors, will be more healthy. For example, the person making your BigMac is less likely to have tuberculosis - and therefore you are less likely to catch it from him, or from some random person sharing an elevator or the mall.

From a business perspective, if individual companies do not need to take on the burden of insuring their workers then they will have a lower total cost and will be better able to compete with companies that do not provide health benefits.

This works because the total cost to society of practicing preventative medicine is lower than the cost of increased illness, lower productivity and treating the poor in expensive Hospital Emergency rooms.

So no, "Free health care is not a right" - but publicly subsized health care for all is a good investment for society.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[dcam]

There is an even greater waste that America fails to see.

Spend some money on diplomacy. You can protect your country with more than just military.

Cost versus Benefit?

[hunterx11]

Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Triumph The Insult C]

we have the technology to map the chemical composition of the surface of mars using satellites. i don't know why we don't have a similar set of satellites checking out earth for signs of nuclear material

that said, we could probably spend just a fraction of the $$ spent on a national missile defense system and use it instead to educate and give medical attention to the parts of the world that really need it. and do it in a way that can only be humanitarian. "kill 'em with kindness" aka "doing the right thing"

but, we'll have to wait for a heathen, communist, jesus-hating, left gov't to come to power to do it ... i mean, the compassionate 'christian' right surely won't approve

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

we have the technology to map the chemical composition of the surface of mars using satellites. i don't know why we don't have a similar set of satellites checking out earth for signs of nuclear material

Dingdingdingding! Give the man his kewpie doll.

(Except they're not satellites. But you're closer than you might realize to the truth.)

And no, to educate the world would cost many, many, many times more what we're spending on national defense. Yes, it costs more to build an aircraft carrier or an interceptor missile than an elementary school. But people seem to be oblivious of the fact that we'd need to build a million elementary schools ... and staff them ... and maintain them.

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

But we still need aircraft carriers and interceptor missiles.

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Peyna]

The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

The main reason we participate in foreign aid is so that we can influence policies around the world.

"Oh, you don't like our plan for abstinence education? No AIDs funding for you!"

It's the same thing the federal government does to the states.

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Qrlx]

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

But we still need aircraft carriers and interceptor missiles.

Foreign Aid, 2003: $15 Billion
Military Budget, 2004: $399 Billion

Which one of these is a black hole again?

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[glesga_kiss]

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

BULLSHIT. The US gives out bugger all in foreign aid. It gives out a lot in foreign LOANS which it calls aid. And these loans go to the corrupt leaders that are doing what they are told, meanwhile the population have to pay them off for the rest of their lives. They turn the country practically into a hostage of the "donor" country.

Google for "third world debt". Loaning a country money instead of aid is anti-aid. It is the complete opposite of aid, and most first-world countries have stopped doing it; in fact many are now writing off these ill conceived loans. However, not only does the US continue to do it; it has the population feeling all warm and fuzzy about how generous their country is compared to everyone else. In reality, you only just make it into the top twenty of aid givers. Which is pretty embarassing considering you have the largest economy in the world by a long shot.

Of course, when it comes to arms spending, you are easily in the top five per capita; but if you look at raw spending, you are way way way out in front at $276.7 billion (1999). The next person in the list is China at $55.91 billion (2002). Yes, that's right, China only spends 20% of what the US spends on making war.

Yup, a nation of peace lovers and peace makers indeed. So you can forgive us when we question your motivies for whatever country is on the business plan next.

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[rho]

Foreign aid.

After all the money and effort poured into the shitholes of the world, they're still shitholes. However, a platoon or two of U.S. Marines have brought more freedom to the world than an aircraft carrier-full of Kofi Annans.

$500 million dollars to Egypt--they still hate us. $500 million dollars worth of grunts and bombs in Egypt? They'll hate us, but they'll be very coy about it.

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Qrlx]

It's more like $2 billion to Egypt, and the reason they hate us is because our "foreign aid" goes to propping up their military dictatorship. Same for Pakistan. Same for Saudi Arabia, except it's not a military dictatorship we're propping up, it's the House of Saud.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I think not. Foreign aid is mostly military aid. It's corporate welfare at it's finest. We give these countries billions, with the stipulation that they will spend the money on military equipment from the USA.

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[demachina]

"at $276.7 billion (1999)."

I think you should probably use a more recent number than this one which was during a time of peace and under a Democratic President. I'm pretty sure today it is running closer to a half a trillion dollars a year if you factor in the Pentagons public budget, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which are in separate books and all of the poorly reported funds being dumped in to the CIA, NSA, NRO etc.

On the news today it appears the National Guard is tettering on collapse and are wanting an extra $20 billion to patch up all the equipment wearing out and being blown up in Iraq. I think the number was around $4 billion just to slap armor on every humvee and truck in the theater. The guard is also 10,000 below their recruiting goals because amazingly people don't want to volunteer for weekend warrior duty that really means landing in a shooting gallery in Iraq and that, thanks to stop loss, you may not be able to get out of, ever, unless its in a pine box or when you have a limb blow off.

Guys, this is BETA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until the full release! This isn't even a Release Candidate!

Re:Guys, this is BETA!

[clean_stoner]

Wait until the full release! This isn't even a Release Candidate!

Um, the system was scheduled to go online in two weeks. If they don't have a Release Candidate two weeks before the final version comes out, we're in more trouble than I thought.

The issue was with the monitoring equipment

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue wasn't really with the interceptor missile. There was a problem with the monitoring equipment (software and/or hardware) that kept the interceptor from being launched.

Sure and ICBM costs a bundle, but the interceptor and monitoring equipment probably cost a good deal more. The whole point of a "test" is being able to gather and interpet data to improve the system. If this test wasn't going to produce a complete set of data then is it any good?

Besides, I'm sure we've got a few extra ICBMs available for testing.

Achoo!

[Plocmstart]

Bless you. Ooops there goes the environmental sensor again....

Agreed

[ashitaka]

Prepare for the chants of "but it will after more development!"

Doesn't matter. It isn't needed. It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.

At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests. Financial war can be messy but at least you don't get this.

Re:Agreed

[AnimeFreak]

The main question is whether or not there is a real threat to the United States. Twenty years ago, it was conceivable that the USSR would roll into Canada and attack the United States, or would start raining hellfire on the country as a whole.

These days, the threat is from countries that have limited missile capabilities. North Korea has the ability to fly only a few hundred kilometres with their existing missiles, and the same is for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries.

As a Canadian, i do not see a purpose to doing this, and see diplomacy as a method of getting things done at the very best. If someone is going to attack the United States, it's going to be ground based, nuclear or not.

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea isn't a threat? What world do you live in?

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats an odd argument, considering Irans parliament just recently unanimously moved to expand their nuclear program, all the while chanting "Death to America".

Re:Agreed

[ashitaka]

My point exactly. The Maginot Line of the 21st century.

Re:Agreed

[konekoniku]

actually, the dprk definitely has the capability to reach anchorage, alaska, and is further suspected of having the capability to reach the west coast of the united states.

Re:Agreed

[Raspberry]

China is going to be the next USSR...

I think the US is setting up things to make China think twice before initiating anything in North America... Japan just caught one of their subs in its territory a few weeks/months ago.

Basically, what stops China from being the new bully if it surpasses the US economically?

If you look at what China and the US are doing they're the exact opposite... China is paying Iran millions to gain backdoor access to oil and the US is threatening sanctions against Iran... it's hard to inforce the sanctions if they're getting the goods elsewhere...

The bell is tolling for the US if they don't figure out how to control the Chinese growth.

Americans at least have the freedom to voice their unhappiness with gov't action. If the US doesn't listen to the the world community what's going to happen with China once they reach economic / resource super-power status? They have no checks and balances in their gov't system...

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

China is going to be the next USSR...

Funny, I don't recall the USSR being financially dependent on one or two US corporations.

China exists at the mercy of Wal*Mart.

Re:Agreed

[konekoniku]

"It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests."

while i agree with the general thrust of your post, when i was reading it i couldn't help thinking about "the spirit of locarno" and "peace in our time."

almost your exact sentiment was echoed in the 1930s, with the signing of the kellogg-briand pact that banned war itself. and we all know, hopefully, what happened before that decade was out.

in short - politicians make the defense decisions they do because of a very real fear, supported by history, that their country may be attacked on their watch, under their responsibility. while i disagree with this particular decision to go ahead with the national missile defense program, i understand why such a decision has been made, and i believe a discussion on its merits will be more productive when its critics really understand the reasons behind it.

Re:Agreed

[jsse]

Twenty years ago, it was conceivable that the USSR would roll into Canada and attack the United States, or would start raining hellfire on the country as a whole.

Don't make us force our way into yours if you refused to let us protect you. We can reinitiate Canada invasion plan anytime we see fit.


For the humor impaired, it's supposed to be a joke.

Re:Agreed

[QuantumRiff]

Hmm, lets see, the destroy LA, we destroy their entire country, and the fallout destroys their continent? Wow, were worried about 1 bad guy firing 1 nuke at us, how many thousands does the US have? I know that can't be measured in libraries of congress, but how many times can we destroy the world with that number?

Better be a very very dumb evil dictator..

Re:Agreed

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Right now, the conflict between the US and the PRC is very, very cold, and it's likely to stay that way for a long time.

China and the United States don't really compete over resources. Yes, the US would love it if China would open up its markets more so we could sell our products there --markets are the most important resource of the 21st century --but it's not a big problem at this point. It's a small thing in the grand scheme of things.

That was also true of the USSR, but there's a critical difference between China and the USSR: The Soviets were ideological exporters. They had a policy of trying to export totalitarian communism -- by far the greatest evil of the 20th century --to wherever they could: Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, whatever. The possibility that the USSR would attempt to solve the Berlin problem once and for all by rolling tanks through the Fulda Gap was very real, and the war plans were all carved in stone. Nuclear conflict was seemingly inevitable.

That's not the case with China. They have chosen, if anything, to be ideological importers. The situations with Tibet, with Hong Kong, with the ROC are far from perfect, but they're also far from unstable.

China, as of this moment, seems to be a gentle giant. It would take something drastic, like a huge plague or a huge famine or a military coup d'etat, to change that.

Re:Agreed

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

You poor misguided idealist. Nuclear proliferation is a reality, as is long range missile tech proliferation. All you need is one stolen, hacked nuke to cause a shitload of trouble, and potentially start WW3.

Re:Agreed

[NickCool]

There is the possibility of an accidental launch. I'm too lazy to track them down but there are several examples of that very nearly occuring during the US / USSR cold war. That said I have a gut feeling (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist) the missle interceptor ("hitting a bullet with a bullet"), is potentially very inferior to the flying laser method that is also under development. Maybe pick one and stick with it?

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

South Korea and China would not just stand there and let North Korea get destroyed.

Re:Agreed

[HillBilly]

Not so dumb.

LA is in California, California is the worlds 5th largest econemy and is helping prop up the rest of the US. The destruction of LA will take the rest of the US with it, maybe not in physical destruction but econemy wise.

Re:Agreed

[konekoniku]

the two systems are for different purposes - the airborne laser is meant primarily as a theater defense system, while the national missile defense speaks for itself. there's definitely some overlap (e.g., if the threat is from a single theater, e.g., a certain missile-testing region of north korea, and we're willing to orbit an abl or keep one on short standby in the region, then the abl might be a substitute), but they're largely meant for separate purposes.

Re:Agreed

[doorbot.com]

These days, the threat is from countries that have limited missile capabilities. North Korea has the ability to fly only a few hundred kilometres with their existing missiles, and the same is for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries.

Well, China has nukes, and has put a man in space, so if they don't have ICBMs yet, they will soon. I assume they already have them.

Americans like to think that the US is the only super power left, having won the cold war, but frankly China is basically the new Russia. Except they keep their heads down and pretend to be accepting capitalism and the like. They will threaten US hegemony in the next 100 years, if not the next 20.

Now, let's also not forget North Korea has nukes and can hit the US west cost with their missiles, as well as Japan. I would assume China has a huge interest in North Korea not getting nuked in retaliation, so I assume they're putting a lot of pressure on Kim Jong-Il to stop ruffling so many feathers, but, hey, the guy looks and behaves like a classic movie villian.

With that said, what if Iran or North Korea sold their missiles and nuclear technology to someone a bit closer to the US, like Cuba, Mexico or Canada? /Doesn't support the missile defense shield

Re:Agreed

[jlgolson]

You must not live in LA. Substitute LA for . Now how do you feel?

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

China has never been ultra expanionstic like the americans or europeans. Its unlikely they will pick the habbit up now.

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

"while i agree with the general thrust of your post, when i was reading it i couldn't help thinking about "the spirit of locarno" and "peace in our time.""

It's reminiscent, but irrelevant. Critics aren't saying hopeful things about a future with no war, they're saying the whole ICBM defense thing is a collosal waste of money versus other options for dealing with the problem, and that it is destabilizing -- it encourages potential foes to build *more* miss. The "small number of missiles from a rouge state" threat, while conceivable, is so remote that it is stupid to spend resources on it rather than to defend against the more likely terrorist routes, such as putting a nuclear bomb on a private vessel and sailing into some U.S. harbour. The criticism is about threat prioritization, and, on top of that, the fact that the ICBM interceptor system does not work reliably (if at all), is easy to circumvent via decoys or more missiles, and is very costly. It's the 21st century equivalent of building a gold-plated Maginot Line.

Re:Agreed

[SlayerofGods]

isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country

And that 'liberation' will come on the tip our own ICBMs

Re:Agreed

[rho]

It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.

You miss the nuance. A missile defense system effectively eliminates a rogue nation's nuclear bragging-rights. A nuclear North Korea is meaningless if any missle launched gets plinked before it can leave the peninsula.

And, you miss the whole concept of proactive defense. You do your best to build things before you need them, not after. A missle defense shield isn't needed today--but what about tomorrow?

Re:Agreed

[ultramk]

China, as of this moment, seems to be a gentle giant. It would take something drastic, like a huge plague or a huge famine or a military coup d'etat, to change that.

Any or all of which could happen in the space of a few months, weeks, or days. Meanwhile, it takes years to a get a system of this complexity working reliably.

The question isn't, do we need this system right now, it's will we need this system in less than 20 years. Personally, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The other argument I am seeing here is along the lines of "no one would ever attack the US, because they would be destroyed instantly!." This is true for most nations... but there are always miscalculations. In 1941, the leaders of Japan thought that one devastating attack would cause us to withdraw from the Pacific theatre, and stay out of their way while they established a little empire of their own. They weren't stupid, but they greatly miscalculated, and the cost was millions of lives, on both sides.

The real question is, do we believe that that those with the power to destroy (or horribly injure) us will always behave in a rational fashion? What are we willing to bet on that? All of our lives? Our children's lives? Grandchildren? The whole human race?

I personally believe that this system will never be used. I certainly hope that. When the consequences are this great--potentially the future of the species (this world is a tinderbox, have no doubt)--then the caution taken should be equivalent. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

m-

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

They destroy LA. Whole rest of USA cheers!

Re:Agreed

[demachina]

"China, as of this moment, seems to be a gentle giant."

I'm always amazed when you right wingers rant about the Soviet Union being an all encompassing evil in one breath and then turn around and say kind things like "gentle giant" about China. They are still most definitely "totalitarian" and pretty much communist. Why is it you you have such kind words for them, because they have thrown open the doors to Western capitalists and given them a vast pool of cheap labor. As long as right wingers are turning a PROFIT some place their high flying ideals of freedom and democracy get flushed down the crapper. The U.S. hated the U.S.S.R, Noriega and Saddam because they had the audacity to challenge American hegemony. That is the one and only thing American's hate. No one is allowed to challenge American's as they seek to rule the world.

The Soviet Union had a lot of short comings but the Communists took a country that was smoldering ruin at the end of World War I, a land of a few wealthy elitists and millions of destitute peasants and turned it in to a global super power, a power that defeated Hitler almost single handedly, and which still has some of the world best educated people. The main thing that went really wrong on the way was Stalin seized power, he wasn't a communist, he was a just a totalitarian despot, not sure communism had anything to do with the Soviet Union after that it was just a dictatorship like a lot of dictatorships and it appears it will be again under Putin.

One question, why exactly would China resort to armed conflict or event the threat of it. They are going to destroy the U.S. economicly, and are already well on their way there. I think you need to give the Chinese credit for having a long view and being able to see that in the long run they are going to win without the messiness of a global war. Contrast that long view with that of most of America's corprate and political leaders who can't think past this quarters numbers and today's stock prices. I know who I'd put my money on.

Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Scratch that guy off the list for NASA administrator.

The ridiculous thing

[oddaddresstrap]

is that the system is already being deployed. NPR interviewed an expert who said that the testing is going so slowly and so badly because President Bush decided to deploy the system before it was functiona. The last test was two years ago and also failed. He (the expert, not Bush) estimated it will take twenty years to have a working system given the current testing rate.

American overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

as an Australian... I, for one, welcome our new technologically incompetant American overlords...

we will, as always continue as puppets in this missile defence system and place a non-working version somewhere out in woop woop...

Re:Sooo funny

[miu]

What a slap in the face for the yanks.

Are you trying to "take the piss" or any of those other wacky colloquialisms non-American English speakers use?

Congratulations, I guess

[Tom7]

as the interceptor missile ... shut itself down...

Well, it could have been worse! Nothing like going from one incoming ICBM to one ICBM and one haywire interceptor...

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is quite simple: The width of railroad tracks is ultimately based on the width of a horse's ass as seen by the romans. Somewhere along the line you lot managed to get your heads stuck in that arse. Ever since you've done nothing but cock up.
Might I suggest you remove your head from the arse in question and stop wasting money on useless nonsense?

Do something productive, like putting weapons on space or something.

how often

[usernotfound]

How often does these tests fail? I'd sayit's not promising that we need near 101% reliability on these systems, and they just plain dont work. I think there are a few West Wing episodes that poke fun at our ability to shoot down our own missles.

More harm than good.

[Stripsurge]

Just a thought. If I was a terrorist (I'm not honest!) and I heard Americans going on and on about how great this system is knowing full well its faulty I'd probably put it to the test. Seems like that would be the ultimate slap in the face. "Your billions and billions of dollars STILL can't stop us" An unfounded claim just begs to be tested.

Its like those "indestructible" CD holders they sell in those little booths at the mall.... Lets just say I'm not allowed back in that mall for a while.

Wow. That sounded bad. Ok. No more writting in the first person as a terrorist.

--
To sig or not to sig

Re:More harm than good.

[jtbauki]

If I was a terrorist (I'm not honest!)

To me that sentence says you're a terrorist and you're not honest

Re:More harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

##Signal Interception##

"#&() I ) a terrorist ()&Y)))) Americans %"'#('$)(" Slap in the face "#$ Your )')## billions of dollars STILL can't stop us. &)#"

'&!#() Destruc ~%#UO" that mall

"(') A terrorist

##End Transmission##

Homeland security priority signal concerning Stripsurge 162174.
Apprehend and Interrogate.

Re:More harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you trying to sound coherent thru all that mumbling?

Re:More harm than good.

[Stripsurge]

My roomie is doing some painting. I blame the fumes :P

No surprise there

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

What they're attempting is incredibly hard to do, and almost trivially easy to evade. This was hashed over repeatedly in the 80s, during the original Star Wars program. I don't think that the laws of phyisics have changed since then. It's a classic example of the current administratation's ignorance of science and engineering, and their blind wishful tinking. In fact, all it has done is result in an arms race - with Russia, of all things: http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041210132728.0uutp7j6 .html

Re:No surprise there

[EnergyScholar]

I suggest this foolish program exists not due to ignorance, but due to greed. The politicians who ordered this program, and the defense contractors who carried it out, know perfectly well it will never work. Future FOI documents will eventually bear this assertion out, but not until years after the Politicans' bribe money and the contractors' profits are hidden and long gone. It's a win-win situation for everyone except the public welfare. Similarly, the Bush/Cheney administration is perfectly aware of the issues surrounding asymetric warfare. In fact, awareness that a missile defense system is useless in the current threat climate INCREASES its palatability, because then there's no risk of getting in trouble when the system fails in a real-life situation. This makes it a safe way to feed pork to friendly corporations in return for generous kickbacks.

Re:No surprise there

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I think you're forgetting the fact that the original "Star Wars" program --the Strategic Defense Initiative --was a phenomenal success. It literally brought the Soviets back to the table at Reykjavik after the failure of Geneva, and then President Reagan's refusal to disband it caused Gorbachev to go home empty-handed, leading directly to the hard-line coup that signaled the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991/1992.

The purpose of a weapons system is to blow something up -- an enemy soldier, a city, an incoming missile. But the higher purpose is to cause the enemy to alter his plans before carrying them out.

Re:No surprise there

[Anonymous Coward]

And at that time there was a "real" threat of someone launching ICBMs. Hence the success.

Today noone in their right mind would launch an ICBM and expect to not be totally obliterated. In fact there are very few who possess the capability to launch ICBMs besides the US. The ones I come to think of are India, Pakistan, former USSR countries and China. Of these I think only the former USSR have anything that is truly an ICBM.

Anyway, it's a lot easier to just smuggle a nuclear device into the US and set it off in the city of choice. Untraceable, thus no major risk of nuclear retaliatory action. Had not the Al-qaeda taken responsibility for 9/11 the FBI/CIA would still be fumbling about in the dark as to who did it. (Well, Iraq would probably unjustly have been pointed out as perpetrators. Yay OIL!)

Re:No surprise there

[Mant]

I think your confusing "happy unintended consequences" with "success". It wasn't like it was planned that that would happen, the coup could have had much worse results.

Technically SDI and it's current successor suck, and probably will for a long time. If they do start to work, the best way to defeat them is build more missiles, a not so great consequence.

Oh darn!

[Anonymous Coward]

America still doesn't have working technology to completely take over the world. They still can only take over the ones which they can find propaganda and lies to support taking over. I'm soooo disappointed. I can't wait till America can own the entire world. Fat, greedy and ignorant people on the streets of every city in the world. What a great day that will be.

Re:Oh darn!

[the_2nd_coming]

since when is a defensive system capable of taking over the world?

Re:Oh darn!

[Anonymous Coward]

By ensuring that no military can retaliate against the American Empire. Parking a Nuke on a container in Long Beach is still trivial though. But fixing that problem doesn't increase Haliburton's profits, so what would be the point of it.

Re:Oh darn!

[the_2nd_coming]

umm, this system is only effective against a country that has a few ICBMs. if Russia launched there would be no way to stop the destruction.

also, how is the US an empire? it has the same borders it has had since WW II and has not gone on any wars of expansion.

Hating the US is just harder if you can not call it all the bad things that you can think of I guess.

"Would You Like To Play A Game?"

[chia_monkey]

That phrase just keeps on ringing over and over in my head. It's a completely different scenario than the movie, but geeze...I'm just gettin' creeped out by my mental images of missles flying here and there...

Re:"Would You Like To Play A Game?"

[ccnull]

No need to settle for 2nd best. Educate your paranoia! The correct quote is:

"Shall we play a game?"

Funny thing is...

[jtbauki]

I think the funny thing is that even when the system becomes operational or even perfect, people who really want to hurt the US can do so by bringing in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb or even attacking from inside the coutry with internal spies. Or they can use a simple EMP device to shut down all the electronics in the vicinity when launching missles. Or they can disrupt the targeting system by shooting out flares. There are so many ways to circumvent the system, it's obvious the Missle Defense Program is just another way to fund the Miltary-Industrial Complex. I am, however, interested in the advances in technology that comes from development. But hundreds of billions of dollars...?

Re:Funny thing is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Are you trying to make a funny? Do you seriously think that you're the only person who's ever thought of bringing a nuclear weapon into the United States? We've had systems in place to prevent that kind of thing since the 1950s, and they've been under constant improvement ever since. Just what do you think they do at Oak Ridge, anyway?

As for the "simple EMP device" thing, please put down the comic book and step away from the keyboard. Post your present location and somebody will be along with a high-school physics textbook within the hour.

Finally, I don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding the flare thing. We're not referring to the AIM-9, here. I don't think bemoaning the state of the art of 1958 is really a productive line of discussion, do you?

Re:Funny thing is...

[QuickSilver_999]

I think the funny thing is that even when the system becomes operational or even perfect, people who really want to hurt the US can do so by bringing in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb or even attacking from inside the coutry with internal spies.

I will agree. This technology does nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring. In fact it makes it the preferrable way to commit an attack. However, this limits the attack to a smaller scale attack than an exchange of missles. To try to do a massive attack on the US this way would require a ton of planning, operatives, money, and time. All 4 of those items gives the US plenty of more opportunity to catch and distrupt any such plans. A small attack, while damaging and horrible, would not be enough to knock the US onto its back forever. It would end up just causing the end of the middle east forever.

But, there are still enemies out there, such as China, Korea, Iran, the French, etc. that are out there trying to build both missles capable of reaching the US (or it's allies), and carrying a nuclear warhead. Now, suppose that Korea goes nuts and has say 20 ICBMs. They target 20 cities, and launch. If the system knocks down just 20% of the missles, it saves 4 American cities, and millions of lives. If it does 40%, then it saves 8. 60%, 12. Hell, if it knocks out 1 missle, it's still worth a couple of hundreds of billions of dollars. Lets say the system costs $200,000,000,000. If it saves 5,000,000 people, is it worth it? And, if this scenario ever happens and there is no defense system, we'll hear people crying as the world crumbles around them, "How come they never built anything to shoot these damn things down?"

There are so many ways to circumvent the system, it's obvious the Missle Defense Program is just another way to fund the Miltary-Industrial Complex.

Whether it works right now or not, it is never foolish to put work into a defense. Otherwise, we never would have made kevlar, because only steel could stop bullets. Did the first AA guns work perfectly? Shoot down every plane? How 'bout that radar... Really, what a waste to put money into a pie in the sky dream like that! Submarines? Come on, the first ones built all sank. Decoys and chaff for AA missles? Come on, that would NEVER work! Something new always looks foolish. But eventually with enough R&D, hard work, and effort, some of these projects bear fruit. Does it mean that we just fund everything? No. It does mean though that we always look for new ways to do things. Otherwise it's back to MAD, with an enemy that really doesn't CARE if you incinerate their people.

Re:Funny thing is...

[jtbauki]

Are you trying to make a funny? Do you seriously think that you're the only person who's ever thought of bringing a nuclear weapon into the United States? We've had systems in place to prevent that kind of thing since the 1950s, and they've been under constant improvement ever since. Just what do you think they do at Oak Ridge, anyway?

Thousands of illegal immigrants come over the border easily each day and you're saying we can stop terrorists or countries from coming over? All they need to bring is a freaking suitcase. And if more than one person comes over, how effective will your "systems" be? how many people can they catch out of 5? out of 10? out of 100? one is too much.

Finally, I don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding the flare thing. We're not referring to the AIM-9, here. I don't think bemoaning the state of the art of 1958 is really a productive line of discussion, do you?

Omg. I was just pointing out that there are many other ways to attack the US. Like some others have said, making missles faster, and launching more plus decoys can circumvent the system. You go on to attack tiny points in my post but miss the big picture. The point is that the Defense System can be circumvented. And I DOUBT you will argue against that. But I should never underestimate the power of stupid people. Bush did win the election after all...

Re:Funny thing is...

[jtbauki]

Whether it works right now or not, it is never foolish to put work into a defense. Otherwise, we never would have made kevlar, because only steel could stop bullets. Did the first AA guns work perfectly? Shoot down every plane? How 'bout that radar... Really, what a waste to put money into a pie in the sky dream like that! Submarines? Come on, the first ones built all sank. Decoys and chaff for AA missles? Come on, that would NEVER work! Something new always looks foolish. But eventually with enough R&D, hard work, and effort, some of these projects bear fruit. Does it mean that we just fund everything? No. It does mean though that we always look for new ways to do things. Otherwise it's back to MAD, with an enemy that really doesn't CARE if you incinerate their people.

I never said I was against the technology. I specifically said that I'm interested in the technology developing even more, but I doubted they were spending efficiently. I bet a lot of the money went into the coffers of the high-level executives.

Re:Funny thing is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Thousands of illegal immigrants come over the border easily each day and you're saying we can stop terrorists or countries from coming over?

I'm saying that we are safe from nuclear infiltration across our borders. As you'd know if you thought about it for about ten seconds. If you, you know, used your brain.

All they need to bring is a freaking suitcase.

The smallest possible nuclear weapon is about two feet by three feet, and weighs nearly 200 pounds. Considerably larger than a suitcase. And a weapon of that size, when detonated, would be basically indistinguishable from a truck bomb. There's no practical use for such a weapon in a terrorist attack. It's too small to conceal without a vehicle to carry it around in, and if you have a vehicle you can get a bigger bang with a conventional explosive.

Practically speaking, a nuclear weapon that would be of use to a terrorist would be about six feet long and would weigh half a ton. Think Ryder truck, not suitcase.

I was just pointing out that there are many other ways to attack the US.

You may have been trying to do that, but you were not successful.

making missles faster

Are you familiar with the phrase "ballistic trajectory?" ICBMs can only travel at one speed.

launching more plus decoys

That's what you said was "easy" and "cheap." If our enemies could build more missiles, friend, they would.

You go on to attack tiny points in my post but miss the big picture.

Your "big picture" is that this system is not worth building. You are mistaken about that.

The point is that the Defense System can be circumvented.

No, the point is that in practical terms it cannot be. You talk about things like changing the acceleration of gravity or magically manufacturing additional missiles as if they were practical objections. They're not.

Bush did win the election after all...

Hey, thanks. Because, you know, you'd done such an incredible job of hiding your politics up to that point. Ahem.

Re:Funny thing is...

[QuickSilver_999]

I never said I was against the technology. I specifically said that I'm interested in the technology developing even more, but I doubted they were spending efficiently. I bet a lot of the money went into the coffers of the high-level executives.

There are so many ways to circumvent the system, it's obvious the Missle Defense Program is just another way to fund the Miltary-Industrial Complex.

Sorry, the second quote (from the original post) seems to say "Oh, missile defense is pie in the sky and will never work so we're wasting money on it, but at least well get some cool new things like Tang and Velcro..." Never once did you talk about money being spent efficiently. You complained about the cost, but did no breakdown on cost of development vs. pockets of high level execs. You made a blanket statement that appeared to me to be a total write off of the whole project, that you expect it to be a total failure, but that we might learn something else that is useful from it. That to me is an even worse attitude, since if you truly think that something is a total loss for the purpose the money was originally being spent, then it is your duty to act against it. Not to pray that "well, something good might come of it in another field." If I have misread you, my apologies. Your second post makes more sense if what you're really concerned about is efficiency. For that, I applaud you.

Re:Funny thing is...

[jtbauki]

I'm saying that we are safe from nuclear infiltration across our borders. As you'd know if you thought about it for about ten seconds. If you, you know, used your brain.

If you used your brain you would realize we have, oh over 8000 miles of border around the US to protect and, oh only a couple thousand border patrol officers. If you bothered looking up actual facts, you'd remember the homeland security director submitting many concerns about terrorists coming over the borders. And he is way more qualified than you at making that assessment, yet you still deride my comments as stupid or ignorant. Many news organizations expresses concerns over the ease, which people come over the border, and yet still you don't accept it is possible. (here's one of the many links in case you whine about no proof http://www.nbc4.tv/newslinks/3901282/detail.html ). To doubt that it's not possible is foolish.

You may have been trying to do that, but you were not successful.

clever

Are you familiar with the phrase "ballistic trajectory?" ICBMs can only travel at one speed.

I hate to break it to you but the defense system is designed to defend more than just nukes. Blowing up the nuke but letting the 500 missiles after it hit is a pretty stupid defense system.

Your "big picture" is that this system is not worth building. You are mistaken about that.

that's your opinion and, for the record, it's not worth building

No, the point is that in practical terms it cannot be. You talk about things like changing the acceleration of gravity or magically manufacturing additional missiles as if they were practical objections. They're not.

Haha, ok. Let me give you one scenario. Launching the nuke from space. Hmmm.... And when I said circumvented, I meant there are other ways to attack the US that the defense system can't defend against, which includes non-ICBM rockets and mass attacks including decoy rockets.

Hey, thanks. Because, you know, you'd done such an incredible job of hiding your politics up to that point. Ahem.

That sarcastic remark is redundant. If I was trying to hide my politics I wouldn't be posting. Your posts reveals your own ideology.

Re:Funny thing is...

[westyx]

Probably the same things, but on a lesser scale than the DEA and FBI and local and state police departments have been doing to prevent the importation and distribution of cocaine and heroin and maijuana into the united states of america, and, hey, that's all been a fucking fantastic success, no?

Another comparison could be made to the strict border controls that ensure that noone enters the united states illegally - any stories you hear about "illegal aliens" working and living in the us must just be fictious nonsense spread by those that seek to undermine public order, right?

Re:Funny thing is...

[jtbauki]

I'll admit my first post is generalized and partly ambiguous. So I'll sum it up:

1. The System is a way to fund the Military-Industrial Complex. a.k.a. Rich people trying to make more money

2. The technology of tracking missiles and blowing them up is a good idea.

3. There are many other ways to hurt the US.

4. But because of point #1, the current MDS is stupid (not the way it should be) and should be scrapped or at least reformed.

Re:Funny thing is...

[westyx]

The smallest possible nuclear weapon is about two feet by three feet, and weighs nearly 200 pounds. Considerably larger than a suitcase. And a weapon of that size, when detonated, would be basically indistinguishable from a truck bomb. There's no practical use for such a weapon in a terrorist attack. It's too small to conceal without a vehicle to carry it around in, and if you have a vehicle you can get a bigger bang with a conventional explosive.

Practically speaking, a nuclear weapon that would be of use to a terrorist would be about six feet long and would weigh half a ton. Think Ryder truck, not suitcase.

Because noone's ever thought of packing a suitcase with high explosive and plutonium to make a dirty bomb - never happen!


I was just pointing out that there are many other ways to attack the US.

You may have been trying to do that, but you were not successful.

Like slamming planes into buildings! noone will think of that! 9-11 was just a conspiracy so that iraq could be invaded!


The point is that the Defense System can be circumvented.

No, the point is that in practical terms it cannot be. You talk about things like changing the acceleration of gravity or magically manufacturing additional missiles as if they were practical objections. They're not.

Nope. Cannot be circumvented. Like detonating a lpg container ship in port. or, say, launching an icbm when it's *raining* over the missile defense launch area.

At what point will this system work? How many presidents are going to say "we will have a missile defense system" and then have the rest of us watch as you guys burn through cash like there's no tomorrow to have the system not work before you give up?

it could have been worse...

[Legato895]

in order to prove just how reliable these things are, bush could have aimed a icbm at a city to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the system worked when the rest of the world invades us, how bout we devise a system of immunity... for example, smearing sheep blood over the door frame of our houses allowing the house to house sweeps to passover the select few and not shoot us and our families in the knees

To me, the previous /. article says it all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare the "Interceptor Missile Fails..."
article with the one just before it, ie,
"Honda Updates ASIMO" [the next-generation
humanoid robot].

I'm beginning to think that techies just
don't want to develop more real world
weapon systems (a good thing), but are
happier developing new tool systems, that
can do mankind some good (hopefully).

Maybe, in a climate in which folks feel that
a blind or crazy religious fanatic is at
the helm in USA, helping to make small
but fatal (to the system, not to people)
design glitches is the only option open.

After all, when military systems fail benignly,
the $$$'s keep flowing to patch them up...

Get them working and contracts end -and-
so can lots more innocent lives somewhere.

I seem to recall that Japan was once told
to get out of weapon systems development.

Well, that "punishment" still seems to have
helped them move into really cool & useful
technologies than the "winners" of WW2 have.

The Honda example is only one, but there
are so many other successes in non-military
technologies, for which the Japanese can be
duly proud, despite their predecessors'
history.

The fault was in the missiles' AI

[the_skywise]

It was too broadly programmed and decided to become a conscientious objector...

(Now there's a sci-fi story waiting to be written... an AI that refuses to do non-efficient work that it was designed to do..."This job is stupid, I'm not doing it...")

Re:The fault was in the missiles' AI

[CSG_SurferDude]

Almost your idea....

The press spokesman

[DougDew]

Critics of anti-ballistic missile defense systems have often pointed out the futility of trying to build a missile defense system. As the critics have explained, it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than it will be to build an effective defense.

So, it seemed tragically humorous when the press spokesman for the missile defense effort inadvertantly agreed with the critics when the press spokesman proclaimed that although the interceptor had failed, the target missile had functioned properly.

With all of the money being spent on this program, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to hire a more savvy spokesman.

Re:The press spokesman

[konekoniku]

to be entirely fair, however, just because it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than an effective defense doesn't necessarily obviate the usefulness of the defense. as a hypothetical example, while it may cost ten times as much to build a missile defense than it does to build a missile fleet capable of breaching that befense, since our defense budget is more than ten times larger than that of north korea's, and them spending, say, $3 billion a year on nuclear weapons is a much greater drain on their economy than us spending $100 billion a yaer on nuclear weapons is on ours, a missile defense program would still be effective in the end.

of course, this means that it's something only the world's largest economy could possibly pull off, and only against a small rogue power. but then again, that's exactly the situation we face here.

Re:The press spokesman

[izomiac]

I'd be really surprised if it were the ICBM were to fail instead. It's the intercept system that they're developing, not the ICBM. Also, it's a lot better if the dummy ICBM launched and the interceptor didn't. If it were the reverse then wtf would the interceptor be intercepting? The ocean? Some guy's model rocket?

Re:The press spokesman

[Curtman]

...than us spending $100 billion a yaer on nuclear weapons is on ours, a missile defense program would still be effective in the end.

Makes sense if it is effective in the end. Otherwise its just a huge waste of money and resources that might have otherwise been effective in the beginning.

And the better course of action is?

[DumbSwede]

This probably won't be a popular opinion with the slashdot crowd, but the argument used to be there where no rival powers after the end of the Cold-War that could threaten the U.S. with nuclear ICBMs, thus missile defense was a colossal waste of money. And besides any terrorist nuclear threat was likely to come in via a storage container or small boat along our coast.

While the latter is still possible, we now have Korea probably a nuclear power, Iran trying to become a nuclear power and both developing ICBMs. And all I hear here is about what a waste of money this is. Even an imperfect shield is likely to be a deterrent to nuclear blackmail from Korea or Iran. And just call it a guess, but like Israel or not, if Iran had the bomb and a missile, I give it a 50-50 chance of just being crazy enough to lob it at Tel-Aviv.

I would rather see some slashdot reasonable alternatives to pursuing this technology that is other than wishful thinking and a can't-we-all-just-get-along mantra.

Did we make in Iraq? No doubt. Being wrong in Iraq doesn't mean we should prepare for threats from this area of the globe.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a half ass missile sheild that everybody thinks works is dumb .. why it would encourage overconfidence and pissing off neighbours. And then when one of them calls our bluff and lobs over a nuke .. then what?

Re:And the better course of action is?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

I think you're totally wrong. Iran knows full well that Israel has at least 200 nukes, all within range of Iran. Also, a nuclear strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation from the US. Iranians are not suicidal. Fact is, there is no 'rogue state' missile threat. That's a paranoid delusion created by the neocons.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[sunspot42]

Even an imperfect shield is likely to be a deterrent to nuclear blackmail from Korea or Iran.

I think an even better "shield" to nuclear blackmail is the fact we could turn North Korea into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot should they attempt to lob a missile in our direction.

If someone really wants to nuke us in a terror operation, they won't use a missile - they'll slip it into the country aboard a container ship, an oil tanker or a jetliner. The origin of a missile could easily be traced. It might be virtually impossible to tell where a nuke delivered by more conventional means came from originally, given the few fragments that might remain after it detonated.

"Star Wars" makes even less sense now than it did 20 years ago. The *only* way you're going to make a missile defense scheme work is with directed energy weapons. And we're probably still decades away from having a system capable of shooting down shielded warheads and all of the dummy warheads a sophisticated power (like China) would deploy to counteract an anti-missile missile.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Actually an imperfect shield is very dangerous because it makes people think they have a are protected and they tend to do stupid things.

There is one and only one proven way to prevent nuclear ICBM hits and that is mutually assured destruction. I know it does not sound nice but that is the only proven way. Remember missile defense systems are not new. The russians used build them long time ago, but soon they realized that they are a very unreliable shield and signed the ABM treaty and settled on mutually assured destruction.

The one good thing about an ICBM is that it can always be traced to its origin after it has been fired. So you cannot really fire them anonymously. That is why mutually asured destruction works.

Of course you do not want to always rely on MAD so eventually you will have to diffuse the situation, and you do that through politics. That seems to be very unpopular nowadays, because everyone seems to like a president that puffs up his chest and tells everyone off ... but the fact is that neither Iran or North Korea are irrational, or able to exist independently from the rest of the world. Some smart politics could easily diffuse either threat.

North Korea's nuclear program could have been stopped with some smart negotiations for some wheat and rice (which Japan and south korea would gladly pay for). That of course is before Bush made the axis of evil speech which made negotiation impossible.

Iran can also be puruaded to stop its nuclear program. Of course the axis of evil speech did not help there either. But basicly if Iran can be sufficiently asured that they will not be attacked by other nuclear powers they will probably scub their program.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Anonymous Coward]

While the latter is still possible, we now have Korea probably a nuclear power, Iran trying to become a nuclear power and both developing ICBMs.

The ICBM threat, of course, is nothing new. It has been countered, for decades, by a nifty little strategy called "massive retaliation". That was enough to keep the USSR at bay, which had a giant stockpile of nuclear weapons and all the ICBMs to carry them. If it could achieve that, it should be able to deal with North Korea or Iran. (It probably helped that Soviet leaders weren't nearly as nuts as Kim Jong-Il, though.)

But aside from that, I actually like the idea of missile defence and am somewhat puzzled by all the critcism. There are two main points that are often brought up:

a) It won't work and therefore the ongoing research is a waste of money. Actually it's rather disappointing to read this so often on a site like Slashdot. People here should be a bit more optimistic about technological development. It can be done in principle, and it will be done sooner or later. It would seem to me that this line of reasoning isn't based on actual disbelief and skepticism but rather on the wish to exploit news like these for arguing against the whole concept.

While failed tests like this (it's not the first) are indeed embarassing and disheartening (we may assume that they didn't say, hey, let's launch an ICBM and see what happens, rather they probably were very sure that at least the result wouldn't be quite that disappointing, even if the ICBM would have gone unharmed) - while news like these are unfortunate, let's face it, they hardly "prove" that the idea of bringing down ICBMs isn't feasible.

The other point of criticism is:

b) This is rearmament in a time when we should be disarming. It will start an arms race! (Actually arms races can be good as a means to wrestle down an economically weak enemy, but nevermind.)

Well, that is a valid point, and it can be somwhat disconcerting to see how the US more and more tends to see the rest of the world as a collection of dangerous potential enemies that must be watched closely and reined in if necessary. But it's no a very strong point. The missile defence system really is one of those few military systems that don't hurt anybody. Oh, it has been claimed that it's really an "offensive" system as it lifts the US out of the "massive retaliation" loop. But who is going to retaliate massively against the US anyhow? North Korea and China? Certainly not!

Yes, the missile defence system might be a waste of time, money, personnel, and other resources. But then again governments wasting money is hardly a new and surprising development ...

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Qrlx]

I would rather see some slashdot reasonable alternatives to pursuing this technology that is other than wishful thinking and a can't-we-all-just-get-along mantra.

Not pursuing this technology had been the course of action for much of the Cold War. The Anti Ballistic Missile or ABM Treaty basically said that neither side would try to "solve" the totality of destruction guaranteed by Mutually Assured Destruction.

With the Soviets out of the picture, the USA has decided they might as well go ahead and build their missile shield, since there's really noone who can tell them not to.

Let's look at the end state. Where the USA still has all its nuclear weapons, and no threat of Mutually Assured Destruction should they decide to use nukes.

This technology represnets an escalation of the threat presented by the United States. It does nothing to reduce the threat from any area of the globe, since Mutually Assured Destruction surely holds for Iran, North Korea, or heck even India and France.

Star Wars is not a defensive system. Is it an enabling technology for a workable, winnable nuclear war system.

"Congratuations! Your civilization has invented Star Wars. You are now free to nuke other countries with impunity."

So to answer your question, we were all getting along, but that wasn't a superior enough position for the United States, the Republican Party, and Neoconservatives, in increasing order.

It's going to be another arms race. The USA spends the next ten years deploying this system, which only ensures that adversaries will try to have their ICBMs ready in nine years.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[deep_magic]

The above is written like someone that has done very little serious thought about this issue. Not intended as an insult, just stating an observation.

The classic paradigm for understanding national defense is the "capability and intent" approach. This is a very sound and well-rooted approach to national security issues. You fundementally fail to acknowledge this in your post.

Let us assume that Capability to mean 'do they have the capability to destory the US', and lets take Intent to mean 'do they *want* to destroy the US'

With this approach (CaI) we can understand how enemies of the US fall into various categories. For instance, lets take the Soviet Union of 1980's.

Did the Soviet Union have the capability to destroy the US? Yes. However, they never seriously intended to do that. We felt the same about them. This is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was able to work. When two countries symetrically match each other on the matrix - its easier to avoid war through diplomatic / political process.

However, in the new era, the US faces a very asymetrical approach to its enemies. Most of the hardline terrorist cells - and to some degree Iran - absolutely *intends* to destroy the US. There would be no greater feeling for them then to kill millions of Americans. The only thing stopping them at this point is that they don't have the capability to do that yet.

This is the theory behind why the US is pusing for things like Missle Defense. Perhaps, in the long run, its an unworkable idea, but the idea is that enemies of the US would have to increase their capabilities even further than just getting their hands on some ICBM's. Even if a rogue state was to launch missles at the US they would have to assume that there would be a possibility that no missles or very few might make landfall. This is admittedly not a perfect solution for the US, but like in the computer world, security is like an onion. Many layered. This is but one layer of a comprehensive national defense.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[CK2004PA]

I agree with you somewhat. But "Iranians are not suicidal." ? Tell that to suicide bombers , from Iran, in Iraq. It is their belief that suicide is a good thing. Don't believe me? Search Google for "Islamic terrorist attack strategies".

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people suspect Israel has nukes, but it's never been confirmed (and I've never heard a number as high as 200.) As for Iranians not being suicidal I think maybe you need to do more research. Not only are the radical Iranians suicidal (currently signing up for suicide attacks in Iraq/Israel) but the government doesn't care if their entire country gets wiped off the planet. From their perspective no one can destroy the entire Caliphate (islamic state) as long as there is one muslim nation left. They'll go in a bunker, wait for the smoke to clear and then pick up where they left off. Unless you really think they care about getting all their citizens killed.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a big stream of nonsense.

A. Providing 'wheat and rice' *was* the Clinton deal, and we know how effective it was. Building a nuclear program takes time, and we know both Iran and NK began long before the 'axis of evil' speech.

B. None of the mentioned countries ever said the 'axis of evil' speech was an impediment for negotiation (which is still happening with both countries), and it is certain they were not offended (like we should care). After all, compared to their rhetoric 'axis of evil' is tame. Only the 'head in the sand' types keep mentioning it, probably as an excuse to bash Bush.

P.S. Some people still remember how 'the evil empire' speech prevented Reagen from negotiating with the Soviet Union (not!).

Re:And the better course of action is?

[dbacher]

And everyone said that Hitler wasn't a threat, that we didn't need a defense against him, where did that get the world?

It's funny you should mention Israel, because they are the threat here.

Israel is fighting what they perceive to be a holy war. The other groups in the region are, similarly, fighting a holy war against them. Religion does make people do stupid things.

All it takes is either side deciding they can end the other side fast, and because it is religious, anyone who dies in the process either goes to hell or heaven, depending on which side you are on. That makes it all very convenient.

The real threat is that Israel will do something stupid and someone in the middle east will feel compelled to respond. It could be Egypt, it could be Libya, it could be Iran -- plenty of options there for either side to be stupid, and since the whole region is caught up in a crusade, it's hard to predict what either side might be compelled to do.

This is the scenario I would see...

Israel does something insanely stupid, like launching a chemical, nuclear or biological attack against the Palesteins.

As soon as that happens, all bets are off for direct attack against the US.

5 day forecast

[dghcasp]

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including weather problems [...]

Important Notice to Rogue States and Terrorists: If you plan to attack the US, check the weather first and make sure it's a calm, clear day so our missile defence system has a chance of working. Love, the US government.

Re:Sooo funny

[Dun Malg]

Ahahahahahahahahahaha, LMAO! What a slap in the face for the yanks.

And how's your missile defense system going?

dang fer'ners...

I don't know about you Americans but...

[No. 24601]

up here in Canada we're celebrating. This means we can procrastinate further on whether to help you guys start the next arms race. After his recent trip, Bush had a lot of people up here arguing about whether it's in our best interest to help with missile defense.

Personally, I hope the defense project fails... otherwise Canada will be forced to disagree again with American policy. I'm sure there'll be economic consequences.

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Martin officially said no just a couple of days ago. I think Bush's recent visit had a lot to do with that decision as this is somewhat unexpected for Martin.

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[Qrlx]

Personally, I hope the defense project fails... otherwise Canada will be forced to disagree again with American policy. I'm sure there'll be economic consequences.

Yeah, your dollar might go back down to what it was five years ago. ;)

Don't worry, with NAFTA we Americans are pretty much guaranteed to get everything we ever want from Canada, which is electricity, natural gas, trees (but not too many), and a little bit of mad cow disease thrown in, just to keep things evil.

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[dr_d_19]

Personally, I hope the defense project fails... otherwise Canada will be forced to disagree again with American policy. I'm sure there'll be economic consequences.

Nah. The brightest beacon of Freedom will ensure your bright future by simply liberating you from your communist dictator.

Also, there will be "happy camps" :)

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, if we are nice and disarm they will not harm us.

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[zx75]

Procrastinate further? Well I suppose we've done a fair share of it lately, but Martin said yesterday that until he gets an official written document asking for our participation along with a detailed list of what is being requested, there is no debate. It will not happen on Canadian soil and not one Canadian cent will be spent on Missile Defence until that happens, and if it does, it will go to parliment.

Pretty definitive I'd say... and I must say I very much approve of this approach (and policy of not joining either!)

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will there be camping jolie in Québec, too? :)

Alaska

[Xerxes2695]

Those iceholes in Alaska have WMD's, time to invade (and steal their oil).

setback?

[lelliot]

Don't you have to be making forward progress in order to 'suffer a setback' ? Wouldn't 'flopped again' be more accurate?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My take on nuclear missile defence.

[Steamhead]

I wrote this for an English teacher of mine so I won't bother to reformat it, but it shows why us Canadians are reluctant to join into this program.

Winnipeg is among Canadian cities where a North Korean nuclear missile could land if the U.S. shot it out of the sky with its ballistic missile defence technology.

Although the chance of Winnipeg getting hit is distance, it's still a sobering thought for Prairie dwellers at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush is pushing Canada to sign onto his plan.

If the U.S. hit the feared missiles early enough, they would make it no farther then the arctic before landing or breaking apart. But a few minutes delay and a missile could fall much closer to its target, such as in southern Canada.

The anti missile technology works by destroying the rocket's booster rocket.

The Nuclear warhead would either break apart and scatter radioactive material over a wide path, or continue intact but come short of it's target, if it did hit the ground it may, or may not explode.

U.S analysts haven't thought much about the consequences for Canada, which lies in the path or a nuclear missile from North Korea, or of Berlin and Edinburgh, which lie in the path of a nuclear missile from Iran. A United States official commented that saving New York is worth killing one or two of our reindeer.

If you draw a line on the globe from North Korea to Chicago, it passes quite close to Yellowknife, The Pas, Kenora, and Winnipeg . I suppose Chicago is worth the three reindeer in Assiniboine Park, and 600 000 Winnipeggers eh?

The trajectory to Washington passes not far from Toronto.

If Canada joins this plan, we would have to demand protection of our major cities, but more then likely if we do join this, we will just end up being a target.

Re:My take on nuclear missile defence.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Winnipeg is among Canadian cities where a North Korean nuclear missile could land if the U.S. shot it out of the sky with its ballistic missile defence technology.

That's the part where I stopped reading. You clearly don't understand your subject.

The really, really short version: The kill vehicles are exo-atmospheric. After an interception, nothing is going to come back to Earth except a few kilograms of dust smeared out over a hundred thousand square miles.

I hope your teacher gave you an F.

Re:My take on nuclear missile defence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it, if there's a nuclear bomb heading your way you don't care who it hits as long as it isn't you.

Note: I hope you didn't use first and third person in your paper. Costs quite a bit on my papers.

Re:My take on nuclear missile defence.

[QuickSilver_999]

If you draw a line on the globe from North Korea to Chicago, it passes quite close to Yellowknife, The Pas, Kenora, and Winnipeg . I suppose Chicago is worth the three reindeer in Assiniboine Park, and 600 000 Winnipeggers eh?

Ummm... Yeah. At least to the people of Chicago. And since they are part of the people paying for this and electing people into power in the US... Yeah, I guess it's an acceptable writeoff for Washington. ("Mr. President, we can save several million voters in the city of Chicago, which also has important industry for our war effort. But it will kill a couple hundred thousand Canadians!" "No Mr. Secretary, our neighbors to the North are more important than your relatives in Chicago. Let Chicago die so that the Winnipeggers and the 3 reindeer can live unmolested.")

If Canada joins this plan, we would have to demand protection of our major cities, but more then likely if we do join this, we will just end up being a target.

Or, it would alternatively allow us to site the equipment further north of our borders, allowing us to shoot more missiles than we could from Alaska alone, and have a better probability of hitting and destroying them before it would be an inconvenience to those 3 reindeer.

Re:My take on nuclear missile defence.

[michaelhood]

So then if the missile is headed for Toronto, and intercepted, would it then fall on Washington? Sweet karma for Canada? Disclaimer: I'm USian.

Whoops

[Godman]

A recently released statement by the US government. "Ahem...well...we uh....HELL! We forgot to plug it in, OK!?"

OBSOLETE

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The system is a total waste.

It is obsolete before it is even functional.

Why do I say this?

Because to overcome the defense, all you need to do is send more warheads and make the warheads travel faster. A CHEAP EASY WAY TO OVERCOME A TRILLION DOLLAR SYSTEM. They can be real warheads, they can be decoys, just put lots in the air at once, the US won't be able to shoot them all down. Make them move faster, and the defense system can't keep up.

This does not require very many missles.

The new Russian system announced recently does all this. Each missle carries more warheads (10 or 12), and the missle travels much faster than previous missles.

Now, how about the other issue .. the fact that the system has never yet worked properly under normal expected conditions?

The ONLY time the system has EVER shot down a missle has been when the target missles have been set to travel and a greatly reduced speed AND have been made to emit a homing signal for the defensive missle to follow in.

Do you really think any 'rogue states' are going to slow their missles down and put nice friendly homing beacons on them? dumbass.

Hmmmm maybe that's why DUBYA is such good friends with the nuclear military dictatorship of Pakistan, as well as the well known terrorist leader of Libya who has murdered hundreds and has billions in the bank to fund any terrorists he wants ... wouldn't want any real threats to test the system, better to just invade the imaginary threats that never had any WMD's.

Re:OBSOLETE

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you forgot. Don't you know? We're going to sell F16s to the friendly islamic dictatorship in Pakistan. Just so that they can attack the nice democratic country India next door.

Cow worshippers and vegetarians are more dangerous than a nuclear armed Islamic military dictatorship. Didn't you know?

Or..or... they'll make painful music and dance sequences and kill our children!!!!!1111!

Re:OBSOLETE

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Because to overcome the defense, all you need to do is send more warheads and make the warheads travel faster. A CHEAP EASY WAY TO OVERCOME A TRILLION DOLLAR SYSTEM.

My favorite part was where you called doubling or tripling the size of an enemy's strategic missile force and somehow inventing ballistic missiles that, you know, go faster than physics allows "cheap" and "easy."

That was my very favorite part.

Admit it: You're the Time Cube guy, aren't you?

Re:OBSOLETE

[Edmund Blackadder]

it is always much much easier to throw a ballistic missile in the air than to intercept it. Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided.

and you dont have to triple strategic force ... all you have to do is over load a particular sector.

really all you have to do is cram more junk in a multiple warhead missile. Still relatively cheap compared to the effort required to detect all the junk and determine which piece of junk is a nuke and which is merely junk.

Re:OBSOLETE

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with those +Funny modders lately?

Re:OBSOLETE

[withoutfeathers]

GISGEOLOGYGEEK said: "The new Russian system announced recently does all this. Each missle carries more warheads (10 or 12), and the missle travels much faster than previous missles."

Question about gravity GIS: Russian ballistic missles currently have a fly-off speed of about 7KPS (15,000MPH) which is pretty close to orbital velocity, 7.663KPS. Doesn't that mean that if Russian "missles travel much faster than previous missles" they would...um, go into orbit rather than hit targets in North America?

Did the Russians get some sort of exemption from basic physics?

Also, it seems to me that the majority of cost of a missle defense system is, just like ever other major weapons system since WWII, a combination of R&D, manufacturing facilities and basic infrastructure. The incremental cost of adding ordinance to such a system is actually pretty small, so it wouldn't seem all that difficult to counter increasing numbers of targets with increasing numbers of interceptors.

Re:OBSOLETE

[Rufus88]

The ONLY time the system has EVER shot down a missle has been when the target missles have been set to travel and a greatly reduced speed AND have been made to emit a homing signal for the defensive missle to follow in.

Do you really think any 'rogue states' are going to slow their missles down and put nice friendly homing beacons on them? dumbass.

Dumb-ass (n): Someone who doesn't understand the concept of "unit testing", but is willing to criticize it publicly.

Re:OBSOLETE

[narl]

really all you have to do is cram more junk in a multiple warhead missile. Still relatively cheap compared to the effort required to detect all the junk and determine which piece of junk is a nuke and which is merely junk.

So, ballistic missile defense will forever be impractical because of the cost of electronics?

I thought the number one lesson of our industry was that today's million dollar system is tomorrow's cheap kid's toy.

Does someone have a link to a real explanation/argument about why missile defense is impractical?

Re:OBSOLETE

[SparafucileMan]

You're assuming that the target of this missile shield is a large nation that has an established nuclear program for decades and can launch many missiles.

What if the missile shield is intended to be used against suspected nuclear powers, or countries that just went nuclear? Right when the country starts their nuclear program and looks like they will have a nuke, or right after they have confirmed tests, anyone with a missile shield can run in there and lay waste to the country with little fear that the enemy country could retaliate.

I suspect the missile shield is not for use against, like Russia and Britian and such, but for "emerging threts."

Plus, as a side benefit you get wicked spin off technology and hey, maybe some day it'll all get perfect. You'll never know what $100 trillion can accomplish until you spend it!!

Re:OBSOLETE

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course other countries will slow down their missiles so that your missile defence system will work. They will be the dummies, and after your supply of missiles is finished, the *real* missiles will be launched at you.

With comments like "if your not with us your against us", you better get that "shield" working soon...

Re:OBSOLETE

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

basic infrastructure! .. yes, a 100 missiles that dont work is always better than 1 or 2 that dont work.

Looks like an american has ignored basic ingenuity.

First of all, your typical ICBM has an impact velocity of only around mach 10 or 3.4KPS ... lots of room for improvement there without getting tricky.

And, didn't it occur to you that one way or another the missle or even the individual warheads could be boosted on their descent phase? Do you somehow think that the force of G is the only force that can be applied? ... if i can think of that simple solution off the top of my head then I'm sure the real edumacated types have a lot more ideas.

Why do you think the USA is working on scramjet propulsion for their next generation of cruise missles? ... faster impact velocities attained with a smaller weapon that don't have to carry a big tank of oxidizer, that can fly under any ABM system anyone else may be building since they tore up the anti ABM treaty.

I don't blame Iran one bit for trying to get nukes. Once they have them, the US will either ignore them like north korea, or will suddenly be best friends like pakistan, regardless of the politics within Iran.

Damn fools. If you'd stop making so many enemies needlessly and spent some of the trillion or two that the ABM system will cost on helping the world, and if you just plain and simple treated other countries the way you expect to be treated instead of screwing the world over constantly ... maybe you wouldn't have so many people out there that want to see you all dead.

Hmmm, maybe we should turn this discussion into a list of all the enemies the USA has created for themselves through their own stupidity, through funding and arming dictators and terrorists that came back to haunt you.

just for starters ...

saddam
bin laden
noriega
batista
sauzo
marcos
suharto
s elassie
seko
Hitler ... bet you didnt know that with support from the us government, Ford built germany's tanks even as they were being used to kill US troops.

One of my favorites is how Dubya's grandfather got rich in the 1930's on contract work ... building concentration camps in germany for hitler. No wonder you bastards stayed out of the war for so long despite an obvious in your face enemy.

Don't like that one? then how about Dick Cheney getting his Haliburton to setup offshore shell companies so that he could indirectly sell goods to Iraq, in direct violation of american law? In one sentance cheney is defending his business with saddam, while in the next telling us we need to take saddam out ... and you elected him twice.

Shove the ABM system up that two cheeked area that holds your brain. It won't protect you from the enemies you insist on continuously making for yourselves.

Re:OBSOLETE

[withoutfeathers]

Gis said: "basic infrastructure! .. yes, a 100 missiles that dont work is always better than 1 or 2 that dont work."

Missiles are ordinance, not infrastructure. Prehaps you should throttle your condescention until you can get your terminology straight.

Gis said: "Looks like an american has ignored basic ingenuity."

First of all, your typical ICBM has an impact velocity of only around mach 10 or 3.4KPS ... lots of room for improvement there without getting tricky."

ICBMs don't "impact" they air-burst. Again, you need to get your basic facts straight.

Gis said: "And, didn't it occur to you that one way or another the missle or even the individual warheads could be boosted on their descent phase? Do you somehow think that the force of G is the only force that can be applied? ... if i can think of that simple solution off the top of my head then I'm sure the real edumacated types have a lot more ideas."

It would certainly be possible to accelerate the vehicle in the descent phase and even the terminal phase, but their are compelling reasons not to. First, motor and fuel would add substantial mass to the re-entry vehicle, which would have a substantial affect on the size and mass of the booster, launcher and the fly-off profile. Second, it wouldn't actually help much since it is unlikely that the warhead could be accelerated enough to make a difference, given constraints of weight and burn-time. Third, a burning rocket motor would kinda give away the location of the warhead; wouldn't it?

Gis said: "Why do you think the USA is working on scramjet propulsion for their next generation of cruise missles?"

Actually, the first military use of the scramjet is planned for near-space, hypersonic reconnassaince aircraft to replace the current generation of low earth-orbit sattellites. The next generation of cruise missiles, which is already in the trial and pre-production stage, are primarily distinguished by stealth, greater range and greater accuracy. Their are plans for so-called "super-cruise" missiles which will travel at supersonic speeds, but the goal of that enhancement is to reduce flight time, not to increase impact velocity. So-called "bunker busting" ordinance is in development (and deployment of early designs) but that doesn't require hypersonic velocity -- again, it's just physics.

Gis said: "... faster impact velocities attained with a smaller weapon that don't have to carry a big tank of oxidizer, that can fly under any ABM system anyone else may be building since they tore up the anti ABM treaty."

I just don't understand your obsession with "impact velocities." Is it baby seal clubbing season in Canada again? Why would anyone (other than the brain-dead USA) do something as stupid as build an ABM system which, you insist, couldn't possibly work? In addition to being fact challenged, I think you have a bit of a problem with consistency as well.

The rest your post is plain old America-bashing, which simply doesn't warrant a response.

Quick, Gis, grab your club! Somewhere in Canada a baby seal is getting away!

Shameful misinformation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This is really embarrassing. Whomever this "samzenpus" is, he should be ashamed of himself. Virtually nothing in this summary is correct.

The shutdown was triggered by a fault in the sensors in the kill vehicle's boost-stage rocket. This fault was detected during the regular pre-launch check and the decision was made at that time to scrub the test.

Yes, the target drone was lost, but guess what: That's what they're for. They exist only to be destroyed. The minute that candle was lit, that drone became a write-off. An expensive write-off, sure, but that's life.

The choices were to continue with the test and miss out on a big chunk of important telemetry --destroying an even more expensive kill vehicle in the process -- or to scrub the test, fix the sensor problem and try again with another target drone.

The choice made was the right one. Explaining this to your average wire service reporter is obviously not an easy task. But it's kind of embarrassing that a Web site that purports to carry "news for nerds" should just parrot the misinformation carried in the wire service report.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Edmund Blackadder]

Huh? so what exactly did the wire reporters get wrong? I am especially eager to know since they are quoting a statement from the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency.

I guess now any barely coherent rant on how the so called "liberal media" don't know anything is bound to be marked "informative".

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL!@

I already replied to one of your half brained comments. You're a fucking idiot. The nuclear warhead does not magically warp into space. It simply falls short of its target and lands somewhere else. It may even spew radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Look. If people start lobbing ICBM's, this place is done. We'll open up those silos and the whole fucking world will just be scorched earth. The Cold War is over.

This technology is useless. I don't think you understand how difficult it is to hit one warhead with another warhead. Especially when war heads which split into 12 separate projectiles have existed for some time.

It's a stupid idea, it's a waste of time, and a waste of money. There are plenty of other things we can spend this money on, instead of blowing shit up.

THE TEST WAS RETARDED. THE IDEA IS RETARDED. YOU ARE ALSO RETARDED.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The part where the shutdown was described as automatic, the part where it was described as of unknown origin, and the part where it was described as a failure: None of these was accurately reported.

The first writethru was even worse. And don't even talk to me about Jim Wolf's story for Reuters. That was just a mess.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Edmund Blackadder]

Ok, I am quopting the yahoo story:

"Since we don't know the cause of the anomaly, we won't speculate on potential impacts to either beginning initial operations or conducting future tests," said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.

You notice that the spokesman for the missile defense agency is saying that they don't know the cause of the anomaly. Is he a liar? Or are the yahoo reporters misquoting him? Or are you just making stuff up?

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The nuclear warhead does not magically warp into space. It simply falls short of its target and lands somewhere else.

No, it begins to tumble, enters what they call an aerodynamic unstable orientation, breaks up into pieces upon contact with the atmosphere, and vaporizes at altitude.

It may even spew radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Of course it spews radioactive material into the atmosphere; where else would it go? As much as 10 or 20 kilograms of radioactive material per missile end up smeared over an area the size of Canada.

The phrase you're groping here is "immeasurably insignificant."

the whole fucking world will just be scorched earth

I think you've been reading too many comic books.

I don't think you understand how difficult it is to hit one warhead with another warhead.

It is exceedingly difficult. It's also something we did with 100% accuracy during the invasion of Iraq. Saddam lobbed somewhere on the order of 20 medium-range ballistic missiles at Kuwait; of those that were on target, 100% were intercepted by PAC-3 missiles.

I think you're confusing "difficult" with "impossible." When there's a 200 kiloton nuclear bomb heading toward your home town, that distinction becomes pretty important.

There are plenty of other things we can spend this money on

Yes, that will always be true. But it'll also always be true that we have to be prepared to blow stuff up if it comes to that.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it begins to tumble, enters what they call an aerodynamic unstable orientation, breaks up into pieces upon contact with the atmosphere, and vaporizes at altitude. Of course it spews radioactive material into the atmosphere; where else would it go? As much as 10 or 20 kilograms of radioactive material per missile end up smeared over an area the size of Canada. The phrase you're groping here is "immeasurably insignificant."

I fail to see how radioactive dust mixing with the clouds, raining all over the land, and mixing further with water supply is "immeasurably insignificant."

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Qrlx]

The part where the shutdown was described as automatic, the part where it was described as of unknown origin, and the part where it was described as a failure: None of these was accurately reported.

So you're saying they deliberately and knowingly shut it down, and this is to be viewed as a success.

I could go for "it could have been a lot worse" but (pardon my triple negative) I'm not seeing how this fails to be a failure.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Forbman]

Well, I would say that in most scenarios, living to see another day is the most basic of successes. In this case, it's having another day to do the test, instead of sending up a very expensive piece of hardware while disregarding any indications that the test should be scrubbed because that piece of hardware was not working right and would have failed misearably (in this case, it probably means launching the interceptor while having to destroy it before it gets a chance to do its thing, or an important telemetry system not working, etc., in other words, there was no purpose to launch the thing).

Do we launch the Space Shuttle because four risk-averse computers can't agree on whether to launch 5 seconds before liftoff? Is that a failure, or in light of Shuttle history, really a big sigh of relief?

Do you think it's easier to tell millions of people "sorry, we'll try again next month", or the obvious "something has happened. Please stay calm. We will let you know as soon as we can"?

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Forbman]

Oh, I don't know. Go find a coal-fired power plant, and stand down-wind of it.

These things spew far more radioactive material into the atmosphere...

Remember the nuclear-powered Cosmos satellite that crash-landed in Alberta 20 or so years ago? Hmm... REAL significant radiation damage from that. Not.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Qrlx]

I dunno, after the Challenger blew up, Reagan basically told the whole country "sorry, we'll have a State Of The Union speech next year."

Turns out the keynote speaker was feeding the fish off Florida.

I realize that NASA has set the bar for success pretty low with the Shuttle program (I could try to phrase that better but why bother) but still, you know, the interceptor didn't make it off the launchpad when the motherfucking ICBM was inbound. There's no way that's good.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[spitzak]

Do we launch the Space Shuttle because four risk-averse computers can't agree on whether to launch 5 seconds before liftoff? Is that a failure, or in light of Shuttle history, really a big sigh of relief?

Yes, that IS a failure!

The Shuttle would have failed to launch.

If the plan was to not launch the shuttle it would be a lot easier to leave it in the hanger and not call everybody into work that day.

You really should give up on this part of the argument, it's making you sound like an idiot. Your other points were good (about them "not knowing the cause") so stick to that.

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo does not have reporters. Look more closely at the story.

If I watch a story on cable news, it does not become a "Comcast Story."

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a reporter and have dealt with people like you. It is incredibly frustrating. Saying the TEST was a failure is not the same as saying the PROGRAM is a failure. Your political zealoutry has made you blind to the basic facts: The scheduled test did not happen. That is failure. Not a judgement of anyone involved, or a call to cancel the program.

Contractor - Boeing

[Artifakt]

Primary contractor for the interceptor missile system is Boeing. Four previous tests have been successful as tests of at least some parts of the system. At least 1 previous test was spectacularly unsuccessful after the missile boost stage failed to separate, and others have had less obvious problems.
Orbital Sciences Corp. is an alternate contractor for a booster system in case the Boeing design doesn't meet final acceptance, and several companies such as Lockeed-Martin also have standby programs.
The warhead that may ultimately be deployed is technically an EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle). Raethon has the contract for this design. It contains a sensor suite that is supposed to descriminate between actual nuclear devices and decoys. Tests so far have had balloon decoys whose IR characteristics were relatively easy to discriminate vis-a-vis an actual warhead. This test would have been against a wider selection of balloon decoys.

For more info, and some nice photos, try:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi. html/

Re:Sooo funny

[Anonymous Coward]

dang fer'ners...

The prefered rendering looks as though the subject of the word is involved in the preperation of furs or something.

I'm not complaining bout "fer'ner", I'm just saying "furriner" - ya know.

Scrubbed not failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The mainstream press has been unrelentingly hostile to the concept of missile defense since the 1980s, essentially because it was Ronald Reagan's idea. The idea that missile defense can't work and shouldn't be attempted is an article of faith. So the press is always quick to report any failure or setback in the missile defense program, as happened today in this Reuters story titled "U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails."

Reader Bob Morris makes, I think, a good point:

The Reuters report by Jim Wolf of a failed missile defense test last night is flawed by either intent or ignorance.

The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon said.

The interceptor missile did not shut down because of some malfunction, it was shut down intentionally because of inability to monitor performance of a boost stage rocket detected during pre-launch system checks. The boost stage might have been set to work properly or it might not have, but a test of this magnitude and expense demands ability to monitor all mission critical systems so that all necessary data is available for post-mission review. When it became clear that this would not be the case, the mission was scrubbed, not failed.

About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile carrying a mock warhead had been successfully fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, according to a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.

The aborted $85 million test appeared likely to set back plans for activation of a rudimentary bulwark against long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like North Korea.

Unfortunately, a very expensive target drone was lost, and somebody is presently being chewed out because of that. But the kill vehicle and its delivery system remain intact for future use, and by far most of the test hardware funds were expended there. As for schedule delay, expect this test to be rescheduled as soon as a replacement target is ready.

Media coverage of scientific and technical issues is driven largely by ideology, not science. Thus, the MSM blindly adhere to global warming theories without asking basic questions like: if the computer program that predicts warming based on CO2 content in the atmosphere is reliable, why are its projections contradicted by the actual experience of temperatures on Earth over the past 2,000 years? Another example is embryonic stem cell research; it is an article of faith in the MSM that such research is a uniquely promising medical breakthrough, but it is nearly impossible to find a rational discussion of why embryonic stem cells should be superior to any other stem cells.

The MSM will continue to denounce missile defense as impossible--I think they've given up on the argument that it would be "destabilizing"--right up to the moment when it is successfully deployed.

doomed for failure

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you include decoys, can any anti-missle system defend against such an attack?

What we need ...

[ytrewq_dednah_tfel]

>> an "unknown anomaly" led to an automatic shutdown of the interceptor missile shortly before it was to launch from the Ronald Reagan Test Site

Stem cell reasearch could help.

Re:What we need ...

[OldCrasher]

Possibly.

Could it be that the interceptor developed Alzheimer's?

Blue touch paper lit... Now do what?

Obvious really

[Chuck Chunder]

If you can get the bloody thing to work then just hold the world to ransom!

The more things change...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's quite telling about the whole missile defence debate is just how static it is.

If you go back at look at every proposed ABM system, you'll notice that the debates that surround them are almost exactly the same. Same strategic debate. Same technological difficulties. Same relatively easy means of confusing kill vehicles. For all the money and political capital spent, there has been very little progress over the years.

In the "other" control room

[Anonymous Coward]

The plan was

Target ICBM radio transmitter - ON
Interceptor radio reciver - ON
Target Locked
.
.
.

Whooo...Whoo

Common failure..

[tji]

This used to happen to me all the time.

That little sticker that holds the igniter up in the engine probably came loose. Either that, or the alligator clip came off the igniter.

Estes is usually good to deal with, just call their 800 number and they'll send a new pack of igniters.

There is a helpful guide here.

Looks like it was running windows try ctrl+alt+del

[Agret]

Looks like it was running windows, try ctrl+alt+dele

Probably a Good Thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Despite what all the official propoganda says, this system is primarily an offensive weapon.

As others have pointed out - no two-bit dictator with a nuke is going to launch it at the US (or any of our allies that might be geographically closer) because they know it is a sure ticket to "liberation."

But, what the US military, and anyone who bothers to think about it for 30 seconds, does know is that if the US premptively liberates a country from its two-bit dictator, then any nuke that guy has at his disposal will be launched just as soon as he can hit that red button.

Ballistic missile defense is designed to neutralize that retaliatory threat and thus make it "safe" for the US to liberate a country like Iran or North Korea. That's the reason all the talk about how "it will never work" because of decoys and whatnot doesn't make an impact on development - they don't (plan to) need to deal with a well-funded and well-planned attack, only the last-minute, "if I'm going down, I'm going to take as many of them with me" kind of attack.

Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the US feels to throw its weight around, the better off the planet is in the long run.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[TheLink]

Nah. Any two bit dictator sending nukes to US would do it via standard shipping containers, or via whatever way the _hundreds_ of tons of cocaine are smuggled into the US _every_ year.

Of course if you only had ONE nuke and wanted to hurt the US, there are perhaps one or two targets OUTSIDE the USA which if hit in the "right" way and time, could arguably hurt the USA more than hitting targets within the USA.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[QuickSilver_999]

So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns. The U-2, which never carried a weapon so far as I know, was an offensive weapon because it was used to gather intelligence to make it easier to win a war?

Your reasoning is suspect, because NO SYSTEM BUILT BY MAN CAN EVER BE 100% EFFECTIVE. Therefore, no government would ever rely on it 100% to protect the country from an attack, even a last minute, desperate one. Because 1 single city, erradicated by the failure of any such defensive weapon, would immediatly cause an end to the political party in power forever. And being in power is more important for any politician than anything else.

Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the enemies of the US and her allies feel to attack and not be hurt by it, the better off the planet is in the long run.

If Iran has nukes, and can reach the US with them, expect terror to go on an immediate rise, because their 2 bit dictator can talk from a position of strength to the US and stop them from ever coming in and rooting out the terrorists. North Korea doesn't do the terror thing like the rest of the Axis of Evil, so I'm not nearly as concerned about them. And the US will have to stand idly by as the terrorists destroy democracy in the world.

Remember, the one thing that a theocracy is afraid of is democracy. Democracy encourages the right to sound off and be on the other side. Theocracy cannot allow another side, because only THEY know the truth.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Current consensus is that Iran's not there yet but North Korea is -- although North Korean missiles stand no chance of reaching the US, hyperbole aside.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns. The U-2, which never carried a weapon so far as I know, was an offensive weapon because it was used to gather intelligence to make it easier to win a war?

I will answer this one. A tank is an offensive weapon because beside its protecting the soldiers inside it can also be used to *fire* upon the enemy... or even if unarmed for some reason...just run over them.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, the only rational use for "Missile Defence" is offence.

People have been going on about how much this costs and how it will never work ever since Reagan's Start Wars. Technically, missile defence is too hard to implement and too easy to defeat. So are all these military spenders really that much more stupid than Joe Public? I doubt it.

Instead, offensive domination of space makes way more sense. Don't forget the earlier Shashdot articles on the Air Force's plans for space domination http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/0 8/180222&tid=103&tid=160 with lots of nifty weapons http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/slaw/lawofwa r.htm The best defense is a good offence.

I recall the dread of the Cold War when we (as high school students) were convinced that nuclear war was inevitable. There was a reprieve when the USSR fell, but now this administration wants to bring it back. The US scorns international treaties http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsContro l/Nuclear.asp and is determined to weaponize space.

Of the three nations in Bush's "Axis of Evil", one has been invaded, and the other two have (wisely) realized the only effective deterrent is nuclear weapons. I really don't blame Iran and N. Korea. They're paranoid and they should be. The US scares me too.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[temojen]

They do stand a chance of reaching a carrier battle group in the sea of Japan, though.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[mikael_j]

So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns.

Kevlar and bunkers can both be used when attacking someone, if you're controlling your artillery from a bunker while your enemy is out in the open (because they have a concrete shortage or something..) then obviously you'd be less hesitant to attack your enemy than if you were also out in the open.

If Iran has nukes, and can reach the US with them, expect terror to go on an immediate rise, because their 2 bit dictator can talk from a position of strength to the US and stop them from ever coming in and rooting out the terrorists. North Korea doesn't do the terror thing like the rest of the Axis of Evil, so I'm not nearly as concerned about them.

Hmm, I'm more worried about ol' Kim than Iran, at least there are elections there, and they're slowly changing to a better society (although they do have a long way to go).

Another interesting little detail is that some people have this crazy idea that one of the reasons for the cultural och political extremism was that the people of Iran didn't like the shah (who was backed by the US, go figure..).

And the US will have to stand idly by as the terrorists destroy democracy in the world.

Actually, as far as I can tell most of us are more afraid of you guys than The Terrorists(tm), seems to have something to do with your self-righteous attitude and your habit of interfering with other countries when you have something to gain from it and bitch about how other countries should help out every once in a while when you don't stand to gain anything from interfering.

/Mikael

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Tyrell Hawthorne]

You have made a very good post and you seem to be able to see through a lot of propaganda. The only thing I object to, and which makes your post a bit scary, is how you use the term "liberate" without quotationmarks or marks of any kind, when in fact you are talking about invasions.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[mesterha]

So kevlar is an offensive weapon because it helps protect our soldiers from being shot? A concrete bunker is an offensive weapon then, since it helps protect our soldiers while they fire their guns. The U-2, which never carried a weapon so far as I know, was an offensive weapon because it was used to gather intelligence to make it easier to win a war?

In the context of missile defense, a weapon is offensive if it is used to help attack another country and defense if it is used to fight off an attack from another country.

Kevlar is not really offensive or defensive, since it helps with both aims. A concrete bunker is primarily defensive, but I suppose you could use one to hold foreign territory. The U-2 was probably more offensive, since it helped plan for an attack, but was a little defensive since it could help you predict and defend against an attack.

The missile "defense" currently seems primarily offensive, since their doesn't seem to be a credible threat of someone attacking us with a missile. A country would have to be pretty stupid to launch a missile at the US. Of course, it's a great offensive weapon because, if it worked, it would allow us to attack countries without fear of nuclear reprisal.

It is slightly defensive since it would defend us in the unlikely event that some "terrorists" were able to break into the missile control of a country and secretly launch missiles. They must only be able to aim and launch the missiles, but not steal the bombs. (If they could steal a bomb, they wouldn't need a missile to get it to its target.)

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Theocracy cannot allow another side, because only THEY know the truth.

Yes. The idea that "either you're with us or you're against us"

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Read it again, there are quote marks there.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[bruthasj]

This just doesn't make sense. If we're just talking about ballistic missiles and neutralizing enemy threats, there's not much else to research. We've had this a *long* time ago. Calling it a different name and having full disclosure to the press about its failures doesn't make sense as a new conspiracy and cover up for other intentions.

Course, I never believed in Roswell, but who knows?

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[NatteringNabob]

Exactly right. The most frustrating thing about the last election is that people willing voted for a guy who is quite likely dumber than the stupidiest person that they know personally, who has his finger on the nuclear button, and who has an inclination for using military force as a first resort. This same bozo is a ardent fan of a defense system that

A) Doesn't do anything to protect the country against actual threats such aa 9/11 style terrorist attacks. Terrorists are NOT going to waste their money acquiring an ICBM and launch facility.

B) Probably wouldn't even work against the hypothetical threat it was designed to thwart.

This same bozo, through his actions, has made it very clear to thuggish dictators worldwide that if they want to stay in power, they better acquire nuclear weapons pronto, and a lot of them. They have taken his advice to heart.

In the end, we end up with the worst of all possible worlds; a 21st century Maginot line and dozens of nuclear equiped thugs. This is probably the best you can expect from a system that was created by a guy that learned everything he knew about warfare by acting in movies, and another guy that learned about it by getting drunk in bars.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[drew]

yeah, it's too bad that iran actually *HAD* a democratically elected government, and we saw fit to replace it with a theocracy.

oh, sorry, i forgot. iran, iraq, and afghanistan have always been the axis of evil. we would never have suported their governments with weapons or intelligence.... my bad.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[quisph]

Any two bit dictator sending nukes to US would do it via standard shipping containers, or via whatever way the _hundreds_ of tons of cocaine are smuggled into the US _every_ year.

In the stomach of a Peruvian woman?

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[radtea]

This is implausible (which is not to say it might not be correct.)

If the US was to "premptively liberate" a(nother) country, it would have the opporunity to destroy that country's ICBMs on the ground, and be far more likely to do that as part of the initial attack rather than wait for them to be launched.

I suppose NMD would provide a backup layer (if it worked) against the possibility you cite, but from a purely technological point of view the missiles are far more vulnerable (and far easier targets) in the boost phase, so a more reasonable backup system would be a medium-range interceptor that was targeted at launching missiles rather than one that was trying to hit re-entering warheads.

Such a system would require less range and would have a targetting system that involved aiming at a slow-moving great big fuel-laden rocket spewing a many-kilometer-long trail of extremely hot gasses, rather than aiming at a supersonic ballistic (unpowered) warhead. The disadvantage is that it would have to be ship or plane based, but that is a relatively small downside compared to the other things.

--Tom

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

WORLD citizen, "better off the planet is in the long run"...

Well with talk like that we don't need or want you here in the US.

Go to the Third World and get dysentry or malaria or sleeping sickness. Forget about having Internet access, unless you want to pay half your salary for a 2400 baud connection. Speak out like you are doing now, and get shot or beheaded. Work 12 hours a day and make $2000 a year. Worry about bandits shooting you in the night.

And we did actually liberate Iraq and Afghanistan. Their people are better off. No more torture, no more oppression.

Oh by the way, did you know having an Internet capable computer under Saddam was punished by beheading?

Did you know women have no rights in many of these countries? Why is discrimination against women seen as such a bad thing (which it is) when it is done in the USA, but FAR WORSE discrimination against women in these other countries is tolerated and respected as "part of their culture"???

Why is it so fashionable to hate the USA? Why is it so hip to hate freedom, and to resent success?

I'll take right over wrong, morality over moral relativism, freedom over oppression, health over disease, education over ignorance, having a job over unemployment, and prosperity over poverty any day.

Many people agree with me.

People immigrate to the USA in huge numbers, many risking (some losing) their lives to do so.

Not many people voluntarily leave the USA.

I wonder why? Is it because we suck? No, that wouldn't make any sense. It is because we have something people all around the world want.

The USA does have one major problem, it is getting too crowded. Do your part to help us out.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[TheLink]

"Pregnant" one maybe :).

Seriously though, you really think 300+ tons of cocaine is mainly smuggled into the US that way year after year?

Since we're on that topic, ever heard the joke about a cyclist carrying bags of sand across the border?

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen...

Ha. You're either with us or against us, citizen.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[innate]

I'm not sure that NMD even works as "well" as you describe. In the case of North Korea, Kim won't nuke Seattle*, his target is Seoul. In the case of Iraq, if Saddam did have WMDs he wouldn't have launched them against Orlando*, he'd hit Israel. North American NMD wouldn't matter, even if it existed, even if it worked.

* Of course it's highly unlikely that Kim has the tech to launch across the Pacific (Japan is as far as Taepo-Dong will go). And nobody in the Middle East can hit a target on the other side of the Atlantic.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular Science had an article about super-sonic torpedoes. They ride a shock wave through the water and can actually use less fuel then ICBMs. Only trick is trying to steer them.

But this missile defense will only be good against one or two missiles from a known source. Like the parent post pointed out--only good for last desperate attempts by a "liberated" country.

The point here about Cocaine doesn't make sense. Most of the Cocaine arrives in this country at landing strips designated "no inspection" by the CIA. One of these places was used by the 9/11 terrorists for training how to fly a plane but not land it.

Yeah, I know, sounds like another conspiracy theory. But you can look at the Kerry Commission Senate probe into the issue. They found that the CIA was smuggling cocaine into California. Its the same investigation that found a link with Iran-Contra and the BCCI bank in Florida. This is all on a record you could read, if you want. HERE or this link. The original source may be hard to find, since the past is fading into mist these days.

Note, that if the CIA didn't control drug shipments, you would have had a lot more assasinations purchased by foreign countries like we've seen in the USSR and other countries that did not control drug trade. There is a consistent steam of arrests of smugglers, but they only represent the upstarts and competition to those blessed with government support so long as they support the government. Pretty tidy, huh?

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Vitriol Angst]

300 x 2000 = 600,000 pounds.

Say one stomach could hold 1/2 pound.

That is 1.2 million people taking "mule flights".

Yeah, this is just the occassional freelancer. Makes us all thing that "something is being done". Drugs and imprisonment are the status quo for those with no status.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Vitriol Angst]

I concur. I am more afraid of the ignorant NeoCons in this country supporting the Bush regime than I am of any foreign, two-bit terrorist. Now Rush would translate that as "liberals hate America and want the enemy to succeed". I would ignore this army of brain-dead if they weren't damn well everywhere these days.

Read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. I don't want to here from any more NeoCons who think everyone else is ignorant until they've attempted to read that book. Which means, I'm tired of NeoCons. Everyone saying that the sky is falling is supposed to be a conspiracy nut.

"They do not hate our freedoms." They don't really give a damn. They hate our policies. It's the Bush regime that hates our freedom. Seems that freedom let 9/11 happen.

It is so pointless to argue. These NeoCons are too full of themselves to listen to anyone. I'm just a socialist, tree hugging hippy. Ignore me. Now I'll go read some Chomsky and sip sullenly at my choclate milk.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Vitriol Angst]

The Clinton administration had a program whereby they actually paid for security guards and troops in Russia to guard nuclear weapons. Bush ended that program, and as a result, since 2000, we have had a black market awash in nuclear material.

Prevention would have helped a bit more on this then a useless, and really, really expensive missile shield. Bush sucks, he sucks he sucks he sucks. Did I mention that he sucks?

But he is a hero to the clueless, because it makes them feel like they could be in charge with a movie inspired simple idea. Hey, I enjoy a good Swarzeneggar picture along with the next red blooded American, but I don't think that this US vs THEM, shoot until THEM is gone approach ever, ever, ever works.

There are too many irrational people all nodding to eachothers dumb ideas. Here is a short list:

Supply-side economics. NO. Rich investors do not make markets. People who need stuff and want to buy make markets. Rich people have disposable income which they can invest or buy a plane with. They spend about the same no matter what the economy. That is why it is called; "disposable income". They will not invest in a company that won't sell a product. Companies don't sell products that don't have markets. Note; the discretionary income of the middle and lower class creates the market.

War on drugs. What, 25 years and no progress? Must be all that money involved.

Celibacy. Some people want it, some don't. Some just pretend to make their parents happy, but then do it anyway because they feel good. The ones getting pregnant are the ones that have NOT been told about birth countrol. Good, well adjusted and educated kids from Liberal families ARE NOT GETTING PREGNANT or NOT GETTING ABORTIONS in droves. The fact is, since 2000, abortions have doubled under the current "moral regime". It has to do with poverty and lack of education.

Moralism. Look at any good Theocracy (that means religious-controlled governments) and you will see abundant tyranny. Things appear moral, because people get killed for NOT praying and nobody complains because the women get killed for being raped. We used to have a LOT more religion and none of these Progressive Liberals who were tolerant of gays and such. Yeah, it was called the Victorian era. And it sucked. And men say prostitutes a lot more than they do today. And it was also REALLY moeal during the "dark ages". So don't look at science as the root of all evil. It's ignorance that will kill you quicker. But theocracy is a good way to get rid of dissent and make sure you keep the status quo. Saudia Arabia is a theocracy, yet the rich princes all go to University in the United States. They get busy with the booty--as anyone who has been at one of their parties would know. The wealthy only have to play MORAL for the dupes. The rubes. The proletariat. The NeoCon.

I could go on.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Vitriol Angst]

How would we destroy their missiles on the ground exactly? How many did we stop durring Gulf War I? NONE.

We had the Patriot Missile system covering a small area where we knew where missiles were coming from. Even then, it was a massive failure. The Patriot was as dangerous as the incoming missiles--but that was hushed up a bit. SCUDs are about the slowest and easiest to hit missiles that might carry a payload. They aren't the threat here. We will be facing faster, smaller, smarter missiles or even long-range cannon. More likely briefcases.

But there were no laser beams from the sky, or bunker-busting missiles destroying any SCUDs before they left the ground. Even during the war. So yeah, it is plausible that this is only to get the stray, desparate nuke that is launched by the tyrant who doesn't plan to see tomorrow. In fact, that is the only plausible reason I would deploy such a system.

Of course that and maybe, lulling the populace, or giving lots of pork to business buddies on a system that Bush will never be alive to be called to task for. And of course, I would never, ever tell the truth about it. Pretty much Standard Operating Procedure if you ask me.

Or else, Bush really is just a dumb-ass and thinks it would work.

Does it make sense now? Bush has a Tri-fecta here; lull populace, money for chronies, look tough and techy. Win. Win. Win!

Pure ass. Could we spend this money on health care or education? Why not even waste it on welfare? No. No? That wouldn't provide for people being "do-it-your-selfers" or whatever the current excuse for NeoCons to not care about others is these days. But somehow, a hightech, useless system that never works is a better use.

Can I be exempted from the national debt if I don't agree with how this money is wasted?

No?

I thought not.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Vitriol Angst]

OK. Here we go again. Criticizing the US means we want to be part of X country that is having a bad time. Why is the Third World so bad? Because of US policies, exploitation and crimes against them. Why is the US good? Because it had Liberals running things. Why do Liberals consider leaving? Because the "Neo Conservatives" are doing to us what we have done to the third world.

I've got a great country for you; almost no taxes, no stupid socialist policies like healthcare and welfare, no limits on company progress, no silly lawyers suing you for malpractice or pollution, no tolerance for criticism of wonderful actions of the productive wealth multinational corporations. Wow, sounds like heaven doesn't it. Well my friend, Mexico is just one fence jump away for you and all your buddies.

The fact that people from the "Exploited World" try so hard to enter America is that we have lots of money, and a few good things.

"Morality over moral relativism." Wow, that is code for; I want simple solutions and simple answers. I haven't met a Liberal who HAD moral relativism. They had fewer simple answers because they tend to know more history, or foreign people so they know there is more to the issue than a Fox news sound bite. I never heard "beer good, fire bad". See, now, that is pretty straight forward. Bin Laden had faith, clear purpose and moral certainty, just like you. How does a black and white morality make you any more RIGHT in the eyes of God? If you want simple Christianity then Love everyone as you would have them love you. And judge no one lest ye be judged. No excuses. No passage of Leviticus that mentions a guy getting a rock to the head. Seems like what Moral Certainty means is that Satan has given you marching orders and he wants no deviation on your trip to your fiery reward. I mean, if I were evil, I'd want my evil doers not to listen to anything that could make them think they were wrong. Go and worship Donald Trump.

And you are so unbelievably ignorant if you think Iraq and Afghanistan are better off right now. That would have required a good Liberal planner to pull off. Liberals have a much better track record of winning wars and creating prosperity. Not that the distinction really matters in politics these days, but I thought saying it might piss you off.

So, when America finally does suck, it will be because of the criticism, right?
--
--Social Ills are never worse then their cures.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

> Many people agree with me.

And those that don't should get the hell out?

Interesting interpretation of "Freedom of Speech" you got there. Can't help but wonder what the Founding Fathers would have made of it.

(I suspect they'd have kicked your ass.)

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We had the Patriot Missile system covering a small area where we knew where missiles were coming from. Even then, it was a massive failure.

Patriot was not designed for that kind of mission, it was drafted into duty with lots of fanfare for PR purposes, which is why there is a lot of bogus PR about how succesful it was. Frontline did a bit on it quite a few years ago.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why is it so fashionable to hate the USA?
Why is it so hip to hate freedom, and to resent success?

Hate is love.
Slavery is freedom.
Failure is success.

We have always been at war with Oceania.

You wear the hood of the winked very well my friend.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[quisph]

Seriously though, you really think 300+ tons of cocaine is mainly smuggled into the US that way year after year?

No. It was a joke.

Time to trouble-shoot

[rideaurocks]

Were they using software provided by a certain "soft" company... a 1x10^-6 "soft" company?

404 - ICBM not found

Re:Time to trouble-shoot

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a retard.

Change of attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the poster inadvertantly highlighted the real issue:

"The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

Industry seems to have forgotten that "software glitches" are just as catastrophic as "major hardware malfunctions" Is it just me or has real software engineering gone with the glory days of DEC, SUN, HP and IBM? Working in high tech I wonder if any of us engineers are given the right amount of time to do our jobs properly anymore. I can't think of many electronics since 1999 that I have any confidence in.

There are several ways to interpet the saying, "time to market"

How Dare They!

[waldoj]

But it's kind of embarrassing that a Web site that purports to carry "news for nerds" should just parrot the misinformation carried in the wire service report.

How ridiculous that Slashdot should believe the media coverage about a secret event held in a highly-controlled military zone off the coast of Alaska! Why, Rob or Jamie or somebody should have been in a little rowboat, monitoring the whole thing themselves.

And they call themselves geeks... Feh!

-Waldo Jaquith

All these big weapons....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

and the terrorists that did Sept 11 used $20 of box cutters.

What really frustrated the military and Busg about Sept 11 is that they had nobody to point the might of aircraft carriers at.

Long Arm of Chinese Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

The American government should immediately "vet" its missile shield program by removing all Americans who were once Taiwanese nationals. The Taiwanese immigrant community has supplied the majority of spies for Beijing, and a Taiwanese immigrant was the culprit who gave neutron bomb technology to Beijing in the 1990s, according to the Congressional Cox Report.

A Taiwanese immigrant may well have sabotaged the missile that turned itself off.

welcome to the new defense department

[Edmund Blackadder]

This is evidence of the Bush's administration new policy of testing and deplying at the same time. The idea is that when the government used to test before deployment, Boeing would actually have to create a working system in order to get the bulk of their money. But they would much prefer it if they start getting their money before their system even works.

There were several tests of the missile defense system some of them succesful some not, but there were certainly not enough tests to ensure that the system would be operational. Yet the DoD decided to go ahead with building the system before testing was complete.

Now we know there is some kind of problem but we can't make major design changes because the whole thing is already being build. Lets just hope it is a software glitch.

Now everyone knows that a system as complex as that cannot work on the first time, but that is why you do tersting before you actually start depoying. This way you can iron out the bugs before you spend several billion dollars on a bunch of hardware that might turn out to be useless.

On the bright side...

[Mikito]

...the missile successfully hit the ocean.

Wouldn't You Outsmart A Smart Bomb...

[E-Rock-23]

...by lobbing something utterly stupid at it?

In which case, we'd have plenty of ammo stockpiled in Washington, DC...

The Simpsons

[Mlasky]

I, for the most part, support this program, but this came to mind... KENT BROCKMAN The rocket foolishly soared too high, and lost control of its servo guidance mechanism, leaving us with some... (looking at his watch) six hours to live. (A screen behind him displays a countdown timer) So, let's go live now to the charred remains of the only bridge out of town with Arnie Pie and Arnie in the Sky! ARNIE With the bridge gone and the airport unfortunately on the other side of the bridge, a number of citizens are attempting to jump the gorge with their cars. It's a silent testament to the never-give-up and never-think-things-out spirit of our citizens.

Obliberation - a new slashdot vocabulary entry?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject

a comment from Tom Tomorrow:

[discogravy]

from http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w eek_2004_12_12.html#001936:

"So the Reagan-era dream of a space umbrella keeping us all safe from harm is about to be realized...as long as the enemy attacks us on a sunny day and gives us the target coordinates in advance."

Catastrophic Success

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess this is just another one of those "Catastrophic Successes" we keep hearing about?

This bugged me earlier..

[cliveholloway]

This seems to be the quote:

...shutting itself down automatically because of an "anomaly" of unknown origin...

The tautology bugs me. I mean, is there any way it would have shut itself down *without* there being an anomaly?

Why not just say, "It shut itself down automatically for unknown reasons".

cLive ;-)

Stupid NOD

[Sentry21]

I'd guess that the NOD blew up their power plant at their main base and the defensive systems went down. At least they've still got guard towers and cement walls to defend themselves until they get another one up, but if someone choppers an engineer into their base, it's all over. Careful guys!

No Confidence

[phalse phace]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but has anyone else noticed that the previous five (out of eight) tests of the tracking and targeting system were highly scripted?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

The chief weapons tester doesn't even have confidence in the system.

The current chief weapons tester, Thomas Christie, said in a written reply to Reuters that the test, if successful, would increase confidence that the system "has some operational capability against a North Korean threat ballistic missile."

Coyle said the tests so far and the coming one gave him no such confidence.

"The target launch time and location, the flight trajectory, the point of impact, what the target looks like, and the make-up of other objects in the target cluster have all been known in advance to plot the intercept," he said. "No enemy would cooperate by providing all that information in advance."

I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc. What a waste of taxpayer money. People should be outraged.

Re:No Confidence

[EinarH]

I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc.

If you look at the nuclear deployment strategy of the nuclear countries you will see that most of them both friendly to us and less friendly are moving to mobile launch systems.
Russia: Mobile ICBMs mounted on a huge truck.
France: Sea based; sub and hangar ship.
UK: Sub.
Israel:Sub.
India: Russian design with mobile trucks in the future?
China: Plans to escalate large sub-production/development.

I can't see any reasons why Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and North Korea won't follow the same strategy in the future. so even if they can get it to work against a stationary treat, the need to upgrade cold come very fast. Imagine NK launching their first mobile sea based platform a year after the NMD system is "finished". Auch.

Russia is also experimenting with a combined ICBM in the first stage and than later as a cruise missile in the homing in phase.

Re:No Confidence

[withoutfeathers]

phalse phace said "I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc. What a waste of taxpayer money. People should be outraged."

Why would it be impossible? It's just physics. There were three "insurmountable" problems in the 1960s when work began on missile defense: 1) Resolving power of RADAR; 2) Computation power of tracking equipment; and 3) Dynamic control of interceptor vehicles.

The RADAR problem was solved in the late 1970s with the introduction of pulsed F-band, phased-array and other advances. Current RADAR systems are more than adequate to the task and can even distinguish some decoys from actual warheads.

The dynamic control problem was solved in the late 1980s with pulse thrusters that have been repeatedly demonstrated successfully.

The last issue was computational power. Well, we all know what's happened on that front in the last decade or so.

In the first Gulf war, Patriot missile systems had a "hit-rate" of about 40% and a "kill-rate" of about 20% against ballistic missile targets. In 2003, upgraded Patriots had a "hit-rate" of virtually 100% and a "kill-rate" of over 90%. The biggest problem with the system was that it was failing to distinguish friend from foe properly and was shooting down everything that came into range. That proved to be a software problem that was fixed relatively quickly without otherwise compromising the performance of the system.

Defense against ballistic and high-speed guided threats is not all that difficult. Even Canadian warships have demonstrated the ability to shoot down high speed drone targets. Vulcan guns mounted on U.S. and allied surface combatants have been demonstrated to be very effective even countering 5inch (125mm) shells traveling at Mach 2.

All we're talking about now is scaling up and integrating existing technology. It's almost irrational to suggest that such a system could not be effective against threats from North Korea, India, China or even France within a few years.

Obviously, Russia is a differant matter because of sheer scale, but the system was never envisioned to thwart a full-scale preemptive strike from Russia or its predecessor (USSR).

Re:No Confidence

[Luyseyal]

Philip Coyle, a former chief weapons inspector in the Clinton-era (1994-2001), has an interesting perspective. Whatever his politics, his understanding of Q/A seems relatively straightforward.

• Brief Bio
• NPR Audio Interview from Dec 15, 2004
• 2001 Press Conference Speech

Cheers,
-l

Re:No Confidence

[Epcoatl]

It just won't be physics, because if a missile system even looks like it's coming close to working, it'll have to deal with human ingenuity in addition to physics. Plain ol non-engineering me could come up with a few ways to counter the system (blind the system, convining decoys, lots of convinicing decoys, etc).

The simple fact of warfare is that defense costs so much more than offense, and is usually more specialized and hence more prone to obsoletion should any shifts in technology or tactics occur. Hell, the last really impressive and effective defensive weapons system was the wall.

The point is, how wise is it to spend untold billions of dollars to come up with a counter to a paradigm of the pre Sept 11 world, when you can spend the same billions to help you own people and allow them to come up with the next great offensive weapons system?

Now if this entire thing was energy-weapon based, it would be worth it. But throwing missiles at each other? C'mon...

I'll bite

[PsiPsiStar]

How bugfuck nuts is Castro?

Guy seems pretty sane to me.

Re:I'll bite

[UranusReallyHertz]

Well, he actually thinks his system is a legitamate competitor to the US. Makes him pretty bonkers in my book.

Re:I'll bite

[tftp]

He is out there, proving his point for last half a century. How good a competitor - this is another question, of course. But he is clearly entitled to say what he says.

Re:I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you've gotta admire someone who has pretty limited resources and holds off a hostile superpower neighbor's cold war (embargo/blockade and CIA dirty tricks), plus various asassination attempts, for 30 years.

Cuba has an impressive education and health setup, despite their lack of money. He's stayed pretty close to 'revolutionary ideals' for that time, you can't say he's living high off the hog. While I detest Cuba's repression of dissent, you have to admit that nations under the pressure of war and lurking invasion are all pretty bad at civil liberties.

Re:I'll bite

[PsiPsiStar]

Why? Because he doesn't let the US kill him and install whoever they want in a puppet government?

Because he managed to get an agreement from a nation intent on invading Cuba and posessing it that they would never invade?

There are a lot of Banana republics in S. America that went along with the U.S.'s desires and aren't that much better for it.

Flawed reporting

[bonch]

From Power Line:

"The interceptor missile did not shut down because of some malfunction, it was shut down intentionally because of inability to monitor performance of a boost stage rocket detected during pre-launch system checks. The boost stage might have been set to work properly or it might not have, but a test of this magnitude and expense demands ability to monitor all mission critical systems so that all necessary data is available for post-mission review. When it became clear that this would not be the case, the mission was scrubbed, not failed.

Unfortunately, a very expensive target drone was lost, and somebody is presently being chewed out because of that. But the kill vehicle and its delivery system remain intact for future use, and by far most of the test hardware funds were expended there. As for schedule delay, expect this test to be rescheduled as soon as a replacement target is ready."

Earth to Twirlip...

[occamboy]

Typical fringe-right attempt to obscure reality with facts that are irrelevant. Let's look at the big picture:

• Tens of millions of dollars were wasted on this test. Since this target was lost, another will be needed, no?
• Untold billions were wasted in this program. (Probably put into the Bush family's coffers.)
• We were promised that this worthy successor to the equally non-functional Patriot missile would be deployed this year. As if...

• This is yet another catastrophic attempt by the Bush Administration to circumvent the laws of physics and human nature. And like the other attempts, it is a (really, really, really expensive) failure. Why do we in the US put up with this? Boy, are we dumb.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Tens of millions of dollars were wasted on this test.

"Wasted?" No. Spent. Would it have been good if we'd been able to get more useful data for that investment? Sure. But that's not the same as saying we got none at all.

Tests are sometimes successful and sometimes they fail. This one was in between.

Untold billions were wasted in this program.

No, again, you're evidently unclear on what "wasted" means.

Probably put into the Bush family's coffers.

Hey, it's good to see that Michael Moore is still working.

We were promised that this worthy successor to the equally non-functional Patriot missile would be deployed this year.

Um. Promised by whom? Also, this system has absolutely no relationship to any variety of the Patriot.

Finally, you need to pick up a newspaper sometime. What you refer to as the "non-functional Patriot missile" was no such thing; when PAC-1 was deployed in the Gulf in 1990/1991, it was about 40% effective against incoming ballistic missiles. That was obviously not perfect, but it was 40% better than nothing.

The PAC-3 system which we used in Kuwait in 2003 was 100% effective. Every incoming missile targeted by a PAC-3 battery was intercepted and destroyed.

Boy, are we dumb.

You're absolutely right there, but not in the way you intended, I think.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[-noefordeg-]

".. was 100% effective."

This brings up memories about some new system for scanning luggage at airports I read about.
The system found 100% of all decoys placed in the luggage. Which the people in charge thought was pretty good.
Reading a bit farther down the article you found an interview with one of the security people working with the system. He said that the system did find every decoy, but it also found 100+ false positives for every decoy. In reality the system was 100% useless.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to hand it to you madam (or sir, but somehow I picture you as a girl), you vs. the whole of slashdot.

I may disagree with your assessments but I can't really fault your arguments.

Duly impressed.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[Anonymous Coward]

With so many whiny nerdy liberals, they may seem like the little girls here. Actually, it's one big liberal circle jerk 'cause it's only them that mod each other "insightful", "informitive".

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[The_Spud]

It was also very effective at shooting down coalition planes because the on board software couldn't tell the difference between a Tornado or a Scud missile despite the Tornado having a transponder, flying at a completely different altitude, trajectory and speed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3613319.stm
"Mr Riggs said the US Army claimed the RAF airmen had not turned on equipment which tells radar systems like patriot whether a plane is a friend or an enemy. "But what the army never disclosed publicly at the time was that the army Patriots were mistakenly identifying friendly aircraft as enemy tactical ballistic missiles", he added. "

I remember claims of 100% effectiveness being made about the original patriot at the time which were debunked in later analysis.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[Mant]

Doesn't the Pentagon count a Patriot intercept as a "success" if the Patriot detonates within a certain distance of the target? Even if that doesn't stop the incoming missile?

The failures of the Patriot have been pretty widely publicised (not actually taking out missiles, shooting down friendly aircraft because of the flaws in the automatic recognition system). Or maybe it is all the liberal media conipirercy?

I wonder if they will count nuke interceptors the same way? I'm sure that would be a great consolation if you were killed by an ICBM, that it was officially intercepted.

Re:Earth to Twirlip...

[Anonymous Coward]

AAAAWWWWWW! Poor widdle AC. Has you widdle pee-pee caused you to resort to calling anyone who disagees with you a girl? Get off you fat ass so you can actually use your brain.

Needless bashing

[statemachine]

The editor was just quoting the AP article. The interesting part is that the NYTimes has the same "anomaly" explanation also.

Do you have a better, just as (or more) reputable source? If you're going to bash, you should back up your opinion.

The big news is...

[Edward Teach]

Firefox just blocked a pop up ad on slashdot. When did they join the darkside?

ICBMs are so last-century

[Anonymous Coward]

ICBMs are not the way to go for your average budget-conscious terrorist state.

1. Let us not forget the cruise missile you too can make for under 2000 NZD with plans bought on the internet.

2. Hobbyists have flown a autopiloted model plane from Canada to England. They had a hard time making it into the 'model plane' category because that category is strict about maximum weight (10 pounds max). If you don't care what category it officially fits into, make it any weight you want.

3. Did you see the remote-control plane they found in Iraq and tried to claim was a DIY cruise missile? Were they right or wrong?

4. The drones the US has fit three-to-a-cargo-container.

5. These interceptors don't *do* cruise missiles.

6. Terrorist dream machine: Cargo ship, lots of cargo containers, each with 3+ cruise missiles. Launch them all at once. Good luck defending against that, guys!

how about nukes?

[apostrophesemicolon]

what happens when the interceptor hit "nucular" missiles above or near our coasts? Wouldnt there still be fallouts?
I'd propose for a program that creates maybe something like an EMP blaster or force firewall that virtually disables the incoming missiles..

it amazes me that a simple interceptor, that i thought is already an old technology, fail..

Re:how about nukes?

[djmurdoch]

what happens when the interceptor hit "nucular" missiles above or near our coasts? Wouldnt there still be fallouts?

If the incoming missile managed to detonate, there would be lots of fallout, but nuclear bombs are fairly delicate things, so chances are it wouldn't. In that case there would still be a little radioactivity from the radioactive parts of the bomb, but not very much. Nuclear reactions create outputs that are a lot more radioactive than the inputs.

Parnas predicted this in the 1980s

[gtoomey]

David Parnas predicted in the 1980s that software for missile defence was impossible to test.

Re:Parnas predicted this in the 1980s

[mOoZik]

I call bullshit. Software runs on programs that guide missiles and have since the 50's, and hey, they seem to work quite well. What he said was that software can never be free of error, which is not the same as software not being compatible with a missile defense.

Re:Parnas predicted this in the 1980s

[gtoomey]

Missle guidance software using, say, gyroscopes is straightforward.

But this software is at least 100 times more complex. It has to detect missile launches on the opposite side of the globe and work out whats heading towards you, using satellites; work out which are decoys; then fire your missles to hit the incoming missiles. You then have to hit the incoming missiles travelling faster than the speed of sound.

Hitting a bullet with another bullet is about the complexity cinvolved.

Re:Parnas predicted this in the 1980s

[mOoZik]

I wasn't referring to ICBMs, but SAMs, like the Nike.

Don't spend it

[PsiPsiStar]

We're already deep in debt. Running up the debt is the same thing as raising taxes. Bush wants to take the credit for tax cuts but unless you cut spending, you're just signing people up for a huge loan that they have to pay back later.

This debt was run up under Republican presidents and it is now skyrocketing under a Republican president and congress (while it decreased under a Democratic president and congress). There's no longer a Democratic red herring in the mix to throw people off the scent.

The big problem is that corporations are a lot more moblie than people are. Manufacturing is relocating overseas, but our workforce just can't do that. Guess who's going to be stuck at home to pay off the tremendous bill?

Re:Don't spend it

[nelsonal]

AFAIK the debt declined under a republican congress (that lost a ton of political capital shutting down the government) and a very, very savy treasury secretary (who must laugh daily at the current leadership of the treasury). If anyone should get the credit for the balancing of the budget, I'd suggest that its Perot (who convinced almost a fifth of the population that skyrocketing deficits were a major problem. Unfortunatly at this point I'm cynical enough to think that the only difference between democrats and republicans is the programs that get the excess spending.

Re:Don't spend it

[Forbman]

The national debt went from $1 trillion or so to over $4 trillion under Reagan.

Perot got the credit, to which the Republicans co-opted the idea to try and screw up Clinton, who then proceeded to co-opt the whole notion himself to help screw over the Republicans in Congress. If you can't fight them, join them.

Budget deficit was shrinking under Clinton, even with a Rebublican-focused Congress.

What is US debt at now, $7.5 Trillion?

Tell me where this "unsecured" radioactive materia

[melted]

Tell me where this "unsecured" radioactive materials are in the former USSR. I grew up there, and I can tell you right now - there's not a single warhead lying anywhere unguarded.

Re:Sooo funny

[AusG4]

Though to be fair, it's hard to categorize the language spoken by Americans as "English". "Americanese" or just "American" is proabably a better name.

Re:And so... MOD PARENT UP

[GreyWolf3000]

Posts with "<group of people> are no better than <something said group doesn't like>" in them should always get modded up.

That way passers-by can learn how hypocritical <group of people> really is.

Dodgy Software

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have put Linux on it. It might have taken too long to startup, but atleast it would work.

China

[DigiShaman]

It's really that simple. Do YOU trust the CCP? I sure as hell don't. Just keep in mind the Chinese culture is one of patience. Either the US will collapse in on itself so they can swoop in for the conquest, or we will be at war with them over Taiwan.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust China about as much as I trust the US...

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust the US less than China. they haven't been lying to me and pissing me off lately.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

In China, ignorance is blissful...and deadly. In the US, at least you have the option to be pissed off.

Has Bush never heard of the Maginot Line?

[BrianMarshall]

Even if it worked, it wouldn't work.

There is more than one way to deliver bombs - boats, for instance.

Ha I told ya, it wouldnt work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kim Jong-il...a bets a bet, you owe me 50 bucks and a crate of Remy.

No use

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I have no technical knowledge on this, I doubt it would work satisfactorily. Yes, this system may be able to stop some missiles, but obviously a lot of them are going to get through.

If the "enemy" has enough missiles at their disposal, the harm will be enourmous with or without this system.

Effort should be spent on other things...

To the men upstairs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear U.S. Government,
I heard recently you had some trouble "getting it up". Two words: Sildenafil citrate, it did wonders for the Ruskies.

Love,
Generic pharmaceutical company.

Re:To the men upstairs...

[dunkelfalke]

even if it is offtopic, the word "ruskies" is twice grammatically uncorrect.

first, "russians" in russian is "russkie". two "s".
second, russkie is already plural. no need for the plural "s".

Target practice for the military

[Jugalator]

Back to practicing, I suppose...

It Just Goes To Show You...

[NormAtHome]

That nothing made in America is worth a damn anymore, cheap components, lousy manufacturing, design or workmanship.

"American components, Russian components... all made in Taiwan" - Lev a Real Russian Hero

ya know, there's just something about that guy I realy like...

But you miss the point

[3l1za]

Doesn't matter. It isn't needed. It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be.

Originally it was at least partially conceived as a bargaining chip.

Perhaps you're familiar with the disarmament agreements between the erstwhile USSR and the US during Reagan's term? Then perhaps you are aware that during negotiations in Reykjavik, Gorbachev was willing to agree to HUGE concessions (destruction of ICBMs, ...) on one condition: that the US abandon its SDI efforts. Reagan said no (to the utter horror of the short-sighted folks who saw Gorbachev's concessions as "too good") and later of course was proven correct in his non-blinkingness.

True story; look it up.

Canada sould invest in bio/nanotech life extention

[Anonymous Coward]

We are so close (in under 10 years most likely) to solving the problem of how our cell age and intervention methods so slow, stop and reverse the aging biological process...so why are we all investing billions and 1000billion (a trillion) on wars and usless war machines? The researchers and companies that use the emerging biotech and nanotech to fix aging cells in people, first the people who have money and then, the rest of us....after all, when you get to 40, most high-tech companies might consider you old-wood and may want to dump you for younger workers...we are just understanding how to work at the level of cells (how they work, eventually, how to take them apart and put them back together). Check out www.betterhumans.com and www.methuselahmouse.org for starters. We are at the level where it looks possible to fix aging, if we blow all the money on bad wars and more useless mil hardware, the other countries like UK, Singpore, china, india will do it and own all the patents...a fix for aging would be worth 100's of trillions, who is going to be the next microsoft of age-revesal technology and what country will they be working from?

Massive losses?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might try playing a WWII game (I think you might be able to find one or two nowadays) or even (horror!!) read a book to understand what "massive losses" look like. Probably more people died in WWI from changing tires incorrectly than have died in all of Iraq.

Since you posted AC I might as well follow suit.

Re:Massive losses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted AC because I lack an account.

I know how many people died in previous wars. Guess what? They were actually fighting opponents who were vaguely evenly matched! If we had done anything but steamroller them it would have been an embarrassment (not that it isn't now)!

If you're going to make an argument that we've suffered acceptable losses, try pointing to something that isn't a senseless bloodbath. I mean, sure, I can make up a number bigger than the national debt and say that it isn't bad as compared to the made-up number, but that doesn't make it good.

Re:Massive losses?

[westyx]

well, granted, the us army isn't experiencing "massive losses" in iraq compared to world war 2. I'm sure the fact that there is no end in sight to the current war in iraq, nor the devastation that is occuring to the cities and public infrastructure of iraq, the failure for the iraqi police/army and the american army to keep the oil pipelines actually pumping oil rather than spewing crude into the desert, nor the continual attacks on iraqi police and military has nothing to do with the original AC's comments.

More on this...

[3l1za]

From here:

"At their face-to-face summit of October 1986 in Reykjavik, Reagan went far beyond Gorbachev's proposal of a 50 percent strategic-arms cut. To the alarm of some aides, who were not let in on the discussion, he suggested that the two sides get rid of nuclear weapons altogether and jointly build an SDI system to guard against a nuclear revival.

"Gorbachev initially dismissed the idea. 'I do not take your idea of sharing SDI seriously,' the minutes (which were declassified by the Soviets 12 years ago) show him saying. 'You don't want to share even petroleum equipment, automatic machine tools, or equipment for dairies, while sharing SDI would be a second American revolution--and revolutions do not occur all that often.'

"'Reagan replied, 'If I thought that SDI could not be shared, I would have rejected it myself.'

"The Reykjavik talks finally fizzled. Gorbachev said he'd accept the zero-nukes plan if Reagan pledged not to test nuclear weapons in outer space (a crucial element of SDI). Reagan wouldn't accept that condition.

Settle down Mr Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afriad you are going to have to calm down a little or we're going to make you inspect the rat-infested containers by hand, covered in a fine layer of goat-cheese. Report back when you find something.

I thought the party line was that there was no danger from terrorists anyway, as it was all imagined Can't you make up your mind?

You totally missed the point

[3l1za]

"Peace in our time" is repeated today as a mockery of Neville Chamberlain thinking. The way it was used by grandparent poster (your parent) was not in support of this idealism but in defense of leaders' decisions to continue proliferating nuclear weapons...

Those actions are based on real fears and should not be looked back upon in hindsight as having been totally unnecessary.

I implore you to read more carefully before slamming someone next time. (And don't assume that just because he uses all lower case letters, he's some passive peace-nik).

Re:You totally missed the point

[konekoniku]

thanks for clarifying that for me :)

Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If other countries at least THINK the missile defense works, then it is money well spent.

Anomaly my ASS!

[TiggertheMad]

but crashed harmlessly into the ocean as the interceptor missile based on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean shut itself down due to an unknown "anomaly".

Whatever, I know the government tries to cover up his activites, but this one has Superman's hand writing all over it. Bruce would have blown it up with the batjet.

So..

[mysidia]

A system that doesn't work cost $85 million... How much more for one that actually works?

Re:So..

[pawnIII]

$85 million isn't the real figure. We are spending $6 billion a year on missile defense, and that started back in the 1980's with the Star Wars project. So, the real estimated cost is in the close to $100 billion. $85 million was probably just for this test.

Here's the problem with missile defense. It doesn't stop all those people carrying nukes by hand, or ship, or on trucks. Sure, they can fire conventional missiles at the those targets, but it's alot harder to tell who is carrying a nuclear weapon, than when some country fires an ICBM.

Personally, I'm more worried about someone buying an old used russian warhead, or suitcase bomb the russians produced to use on us, and have them walk into a major metropolitian area.

Yes, having a MDS would but some at ease, but remember. Russia still has appox. 3,000 ICBM's, China has 200+ warheads. No, system has a 100% success rate(the patriot missile had a pretty low success rate). So, even with an operational MDS, it would be hard to take down an all out nuclear strike.

Re:Tell me where this "unsecured" radioactive mate

[bucky0]

Not to disagree with you if you're confident about that, but I do remember a while back a story that went something like this:

The russian government (or another forumer USSR government) offered a cash reward for people to return any weapons they had around. A scientist who worked for a nuclear lab around the fall of the USSR walked up with a sizeable quantity (half a kilo, IIRC) of plutonium. Apparently, when the soviet union fell and all of the security around their labs evaporated, he didnt want it to fall into wrong hands, so he took it and buried it in his backyard. I'm trying to find the link, but the world's conspiring against me right now :(

Ha! You have it so backwards

[theantix]

You think this is supposed to addresss a threat? So backwards. "Hare" brained dictators are trying prevent a US invasion of their own country by being able to promise wide-scale retaliation. The USA's missle defense program (if they ever get it to work) is a way to allow them to bypass this potential problem and let them invade other countries at will.

Why else do you think they invaded Iraq instead of North Korea? Or more directly, why do these countries have such a strong urge to develop nukular weapons? Once the US military can be assured of NK's impotence, nukular-bearing countries will be just as fucked as Iraq is now.

Re:Sooo funny

[miu]

We got Standard American English, Media English, New England American English, Black English Vernacular, Politically Correct American English, American Corporate English, and 39 other flavors.

What do the Brits have - just standard English and that silly dialect where people call things after other words that rhyme.

Our dialects alone outnumber theirs :)

Software glitch?

[wertarbyte]

Perhaps that's the problem?

Re:Sooo funny

[AusG4]

What do the Brits have - just standard English and that silly dialect where people call things after other words that rhyme.

Cockney? Cockney rules.

Barney Rubble. Trouble!

Would we have heard about a success?

[haut]

Everybody loves to hear about failures so they can complain, but would we have heard about this if it was a success? I'm not saying that its a good use of money and resources (its not) but if this thing actually worked, would it have made the main page on Slashdot?

Usefulness of Foreign Aid

[Anonymous Coward]

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

Foreign aid, can and does yield tangible benefits. For one, it's the best advertising you can get (look at the good will engendered every time it happens). For another, nation building, (for as much as it left a bad taste in many people's mouths not so long ago...)

After WWII, MarshallPlanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_ plan stabilized Western Europe (Axis and Allied alike), helped entrench democracy, and gained allies (in the form of NATO). For those naysayers who say 'some allies they turned out to be!' remember that while many (okay, most) of the NATO countries [France, Germany, and my own, Canada] didn't go to Iraq, we were there September 12th ready to go to Afghanistan (where we *still* are)

So not only is foreign aid a charitable thing to do, but judiciously and generously (note that these aren't mutually contradictory) it can also be a major long-term investment.

Re:Usefulness of Foreign Aid

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, hit the submit a little too quickly...

US Gov Would Want It This Way

[nostromo.operator]

Now they have a frightened public to spend more money on the military industrial complex and space effective weapons systems. WHY? TO PROTECT US FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL THREAT THATS WHY! :D it goes: 3rd world countries, terrorists, asteroids, aliens. All based on lies. all supported by the frightened people. but don't take my word for it. take Werner Von Braun's name instead. actually, don't take anyone's word for anything. ...but don't ignore it either.

General ICBM Failure

[Quixadhal]

Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.

And in other news....

[trondaks]

USA was today struck by a massive terrorist attack initiated by internal forces. Early investigation suggests that the missile shield activated a few days ago turned against its homeland.

Wrong title!

[Mathiasdm]

Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch

"The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction." You should change the title! "First Longhorn test partially successful!"

Obligatory Clippy joke

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like you're trying to intercept an incoming ICBM. Would you like help with that?

Sounds familar

[lashi]

But the vast majority of the work needed to be done in US is on things like the electricity grid and the water network, infrastructures that crumbled under Bush's woeful misrule. Not to mention building things like schools and hospitals which Bush let literally fall apart over the past 4 years. He decided he would rather spend the country's treasury on war with Iraq, than on things like roads and power plants.

hehe

Re:essentially unguided

[zmollusc]

"Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided."
I think that you are thinking of artillary shells.
IIRC the inertial guidance system of an ICBM isn't easily knocked up in ones garage. Those things go from one continent to another at a fair rate of knots and climb out of and fall back into the atmosphere. Try doing that accurately without fancy electronics.

A note about the cost

[flamingweasel]

I couldn't find much information about the cost of this boondoggle, but a figure I found on CNN was $100 billion dollars for design, testing, and deployment. I'm not going to add the customary 50% budget overruns here. Every billion dollars the feds spend is about $3.44 from every person in the United States. Gross oversimplification, I know -- it's probably costing most of you more, as there are plenty of folks (ie, children) out there not contributing.

So this useless piece of junk is costing you (and me and all the ACs that're going to respond to this) $344. How's that feel? $344 out of your pocket in order to not solve a problem we don't have and probably isn't solvable anyway. $344 you could have used, through the government, on your local school, buying some soldier part of an armored Humvee, or paying down the monstrous federal debt.

Re:Sooo funny

[deletedaccount]

And how's your missile defense system going?
It works just as well as yours, but at a fraction of the the cost!
hehe.

Re:Sooo funny

[TheLink]

"What do the Brits have - just standard English and that silly dialect where people call things after other words that rhyme."

Do a search on english dialects and you'll see how wrong you are. I'm not a Brit and even I know that.

For a _start_ you can check this site out.

I wonder if they put something in the US tap water. That might help explain a few things...

BSOD

[kezze]

It must have been the blue screen of death.

Arms race continues....

[Dark Stranger]

so when the USA is confident it can shot down the Bad guys Nukes, it can happily Nuke the Bad guys. But then when was the last time the Bad guys fired a missile at the USA?

Re:Sooo funny

[miu]

Hmm, I may need to start putting some sort of disclaimer in my posts when attempting a joke.

This post is a joke, it may contain exaggeration or outright lies for humorous effect. This post may contain sarcasm, naughty language, puns, lies, mocking speech and anecdotes of a nature unsuitable for young persons. Any resemblance to facts or serious discussion is incidental, accidental, and improbable.

Probably needs some work, but I think the idea is sound.

A Chance Against What?

[SerpentMage]

I am neither a supporter nor a nay-sayer of missile defense. I just find it missing the point. Lets say that this actually works. The enemy has twenty missiles and you have fifteen anti missiles. Well, there are five missiles that will get through. If those five missiles are nuclear, we have a problem! Ok, less than twenty, but five is enough.

I would rather promote a strong and agile military. For example, you attack us, we kick your butt. I have seen some of the things the military is investing in, eg networked soliders, person-less tanks, or planes. That is the way to go. Imagine a full army of robots! No loss of life and we still get to kick your butt. Imagine having an enemy think about attacking you, and the response is an army of kamakazi robots. The enemy thinks twice at that moment.

Or I would even prefer to think about long term space travel, like going to Mars....

Re:A Chance Against What?

[hedge_death_shootout]

The enemy has twenty missiles and you have fifteen anti missiles. Well, there are five missiles that will get through. If those five missiles are nuclear, we have a problem! Ok, less than twenty, but five is enough.

Psheh, 5 cities, 20 cities - same difference.

Re:A Chance Against What?

[schemanista]

Imagine a full army of robots! No loss of life and we still get to kick your butt. Imagine having an enemy think about attacking you, and the response is an army of kamakazi robots. The enemy thinks twice at that moment.

Now imagine beowulf clusters of all of the above!

Re:A Chance Against What?

[Vitriol Angst]

More like, you need 20 missiles to be sure of killing one enemy missile because most likely they will have multi-warheads that will disperse before re-entering the atmosphere (available now for about 30 years).

Each one of your anit-missile missiles, in the good American military tradition, will probably cost 10 times the enemy ICBM.

Thus, to make this really effective, you will spend 200 times more on an anti-missile defense than your enemy. So, a conservative estimate would be about $2 trillion. That would defend against a moderate threat, not a full-scale attack.

I think it would be much more cost effective to end world hunger, pay for education of about 1/2 billion foreign children, and refinance all the debt of every third-world nation. You would still have about $200 billion left over. Much cheaper to actually be a good country again than an empire. Make their kids like us again.

Glitch vs. Malfunction

[Sindri]

Why is software failure a glitch and hardware failure a major malfunction. The results where exactly the same, the missile missed. Whatever the reason is its absolute malfunction.

HAIL TO THE CHEIF

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha Bush won and Kerry lost. This means that you can whine and bitch all you want for 4 more years, but it WON'T DO ANYTHING, HAHAHAHAHA. Go back to Soviet Russia, commie!

Re:HAIL TO THE CHEIF

[Anonymous Coward]

You could at least spell "chief" correctly. Dumass.

Re:HAIL TO THE CHEIF

[smithmc]

You could at least spell "chief" correctly. Dumass.

Oh, sweet irony...

If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Shivetya]

an idiot.

Sure Iraq's military wasn't a threat to the US. However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.

Where do you think most terrorist come up with their cash? Bake sales? No, they are sponsored by governments.

Your ignorance is only outdone by your anti-American screed. France invaded New Guinea (?) I believe without UN authorization. Did a fair job of helping the wrong side when they did. Russia has been in Chechnya for how long? Russia has also been indirectly causing problems in Georgia and Ukraine as well. China still throttles Tibet and threatens Thailand all the time.

So the US invaded Afghanistan, is it better off than Tibet or Chechnya? How about all the countries in the former Yugoslavia/Chech areas? Are they better off after US action in the 90s of which the UN didn't approve?

The UN is a joke mainly because of countries like France. How many times do you see the UN condemn Russia of Chechyna? The UN is simply an anti-Israel and anti-American institution. It turns its head when homicide bombers kill civilans in Israel and then condemns Israel for striking back. It condemns America for invading Iraq but gave Saddamn a free pass at murdering his own people. It gives Sudan a free pass in genocide just like it ignored Rawanda.

Sorry bub, but the world sucks and most of it is not the fault of the US. It is the fault of countries that face away from genocide because they are afraid to get their hands dirty. Ignoring problems like the UN has done is far far worse than the US being in Iraq.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see there's some people out there who are intelligent.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry bub, but the world sucks and most of it is not the fault of the US.

Actually, a rather significant amount of the sucking in the world today is the fault of the US, or more specifically certain policies adopted by recent US governments. Their supporters then come up with every sound-bite under the sun to try to justify their actions in defiance of all reasoned argument, and rely on the fact that you're bigger and stronger than the next guy (at least for now) and therefore you are unlikely to be subject to the same retribution that would befall a smaller state adopting the same policies.

Before you go bashing the UN, you might recall that the objectors were actually correct when they said you hadn't made the case against Iraq's WMDs, and that it was the US and its allies that lied and broke international law by invading a country with the goal of regime change. Like many in my country, I am digusted that our leaders played along, but we haven't yet had an election to make our opinions clear. You guys have, and look where it got you.

You argue that the money or weapons or terrorists in the Middle East are a threat to you, and yet you forget that the US supplied much of their firepower to fund its defence industry, and trained many of their operatives for its intelligence services to use.

You argue against Kyoto, when you are the biggest polluter in the world. You make absurd arguments about how your economy justifies this, yet continue to drive around in trucks with engines 2-3x the size of everyone else's cars.

You refuse to accept the International Criminal Court, and then act all surprised when the rest of the world gets upset about your illegal detention of people in Guantanamo bay.

You claim you're under threat of terrorist attacks, yet your own government has done more to strike fear into your citizens than any terrorist network ever could.

You allow copyright and patents to become more powerful by the day, and force other countries to sign up to your own ideals, yet you fail to prosecute the big media corps for their cartel-like price-fixing behaviour.

I could go on, but really, the point should be pretty clear by now. Clean up your own backyard before you go blaming everyone else for the world's problems, eh?

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Vulcann]

Your ignorance is only outdone by your anti-American screed...

Wow. I think a village somewhere is missing an idiot. I am not anti-american. A lot of my best friends are American. I even work in an American firm! But I am strongly anti-stupidity and you seem to spew as well as Bush does. Clinton was a much better president and was admired the world over despite his scandals.

Sure Iraq's military wasn't a threat to the US. However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.

Oooh so now the WMDs arent the problem but the money is? Hmm. You should run for Parliament. Tell me something ...when a country like Iraq has fought wars conseqtively for the last 30 odd years (one recently in 1991 with a much bigger foe - the US), followed by years of sanctions, how much "money" could I possibly have. Yeah. So you're solution is, pay you're military BILLIONS to bomb Iraq till the place is level forgetting all the civilians you kill? Listen "bub", the population of Falluja alone is 390,000 . And you're "ignorance" leads you to believe that you're armed forces only "killed the terrorists". When you bomb a city lifeless you will AT THE VERY MOST OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE kill at least 1% of the innocents. Thats 3,900 people. More than September 11th. And_that_is_just_Falluja. Imagine the whole of Iraq and Afganistan and all the other places you lot set out to "liberate". I'd easily estimate at least 10 times that number and I still probably wont scrape the surface.

Dont give me horseshit like Tibet is worse off. China may be repressive but it hardly qualifies to be as bad. They never cluster bombed tibet by any stretch of imagination. And as for Russia, if radical extremists who are usually foreign mercenaries try to foment trouble in you're country I'd squeeze them too. What the hell do you know about Chechnya. Russia doesnt have the advantage of being on another continent. If I have foreign militants pouring through the borders creating trouble I'd use my arms as self defence. They are NOT invading the place. The place IS THEY'RE OWN COUNTRY.

And Oh China threatens Thailand eh? Well did they invade it ? No. What the hell have you been smoking - when you bomb the place its far worse than "threatening" last I checked.

...but gave Saddamn a free pass at murdering his own people.

For you're obtuse lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, heres a little dose of reality. Did you know that the chemical weapons Saddam used on his own people and the Iranians were..in fact...supplied by the US, and that too, in the HEIGHT of the Iran/Iraq war ? Why the hell supply those kinds of weapons to anyone in the first place and especially when you know they will be used. Also did you know OBL and his little band of troublemakers were originally trained and financed by the very own Uncle Sam ? Remember "Rambo" and all the "mujahideen" who helped him ? Oh yeah, then they werent terrorists but freedom fighters, hmm..damn convenient if you ask me. You're goverment switches opinions of weather people are heroes or villans at the drop of a hat.

The UN is a joke mainly because of countries like France. How many times do you see the UN condemn Russia of Chechyna? The UN is simply an anti-Israel and anti-American institution...

If I didnt know better I'd say you're a bloddy xenophobe. Go look that up in the dictionary "bub". The whole world isnt stupid. And barring a few countries who didnt want to piss off uncle sam for the fear of being "liberated", everyone was against the war. Sadly people like you fail to see this and vote for the mass murderer who perpetuates the problem of terrorism instead of solving it.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[patches]

Before you go bashing the UN, you might recall that the objectors were actually correct when they said you hadn't made the case against Iraq's WMDs, and that it was the US and its allies that lied and broke international law by invading a country with the goal of regime change. Like many in my country, I am digusted that our leaders played along, but we haven't yet had an election to make our opinions clear. You guys have, and look where it got you.

Funny, how about the eleven years of UN sanctions that Sadam totally ignored, of course all of those sanctions and UN orders had on them that shoudl he ignore it that any member of the UN may use military action against him, yet for eleven years he ignored them. Then we actually do something about him, and all of a sudden we didn't have a right to do it.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Anonymous Coward]

Does everyone forget that Iraq violated the peace treaty signed after the gulf war in 1998, when they kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors. Up until that weapons inspection was a joke, as they had to notify the Iraqi authorities ahead of time and they were guided during inspections. That certainly lends credence to the WMD search arguement.

We aren't talking about constitutional rights, at any rate. Sadaam was deemed dangerous and was told not to muck with chemical weapons, biological agents, or nukes anymore. He kicked out inspectors and the U.N. failed to do anything when it was their treaty he violated.

Along with the Turkish holocaust, Somolia, Kosovo, and many others, I think the U.N. has proved that it is an ineffective organization in need of serious reform.

GW is a cowboy and he was hoping the WMD theory paid off, but it didn't and yes the intelligence was speculative at best. At the same time, don't forget that when we retreated in the Gulf War and allowed Sadaam's troops to suppress the Shite rebellion, we kept him in power.

BTW you can blame FDR for Guantanamo bay. It was his actions trying US Citizens caught up in circumstance that led to all of that mess. And, last time anyone looked, Russia was the biggest polluter in the world, but you're speculative statements are interesting.

Yea! Ignorance!

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clinton was a much better president and was admired the world over despite his scandals. "

Clinton was also, in many ways, rather ineffective regarding many policies. He pulled troops out of Somalia, rather than continue to help UN peacekeepers and aid workers because of a few bad incidents. And, in terms of Iraq, he pretty much just let the embargo stand, and tossed in a few cruise missiles whenever he needed to distract everyone from his troubles at home.

One point that I think is often ignored is that for about a decade, we've had a significant embargo against Iraq. It was put in place because sometimes they work against repressive regimes, and bring about a peaceful change in power better than by military action (eg. South Africa). However, sometimes they don't work (eg. North Korea) and you have to ask - at what point do you need to give up on the embargo and have yourself a little "regime change"? You can't just pack everyone up and go home and say "ok, Saddam, you win; bye!". Now, I'm not arguing whether this was the right time to give up on the embargo and go to war; just that, at some point, something had to give. You can't let an embargo go on forever; it's not fair to the citizens of the embargoed country.

Few if any countries are blameless. But that doesn't interest me much - what I want to know is, what do we all do going forward? History is interesting - it tells us what we should really try to avoid doing again. But, it doesn't change current situations.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[necrognome]

United States != Israel, no matter how much you want this to be the case! Last time I checked, those of Palestinian origin have civil, property, and voting (if they are citizens) rights anywhere in the US.

There are large numbers of Palestinians living in Dearborn, Michigan and the NYC metro area who don't live in fear of airstrikes or having their houses bulldozed, and SURPRISE! no suicide bombings.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[arevos]

Sure Iraq's military wasn't a threat to the US. However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.

I'm curious. Do you think that there are less terrorists in the world as a result of the invasion of Iraq?

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Does everyone forget that Iraq violated the peace treaty signed after the gulf war in 1998, when they kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors.

No, but we do also notice that

1. that didn't cause two successive US governments to act before
2. the inspectors were back, and operating under far fewer constraints, before you guys started this war
3. several senior weapons inspectors have said, correctly, that there was insufficient evidence of violations to justify the war.

For heaven's sake, the "material breach" of the UN resolutions that the war-mongers were so keen to point out was the equivalent of having a water pistol that shot 5.5 metres, when you'd been told nothing shooting further than 5 was allowed in the playground. It wasn't NBC. It wasn't even something that could reach a whole load of targets that were out of range according to the rules they were given. The UN certainly doesn't get everything right, but apparently it was getting Iraq's WMD right until you guys waded in in your M1A2s.

And, last time anyone looked, Russia was the biggest polluter in the world, but you're speculative statements are interesting.

Not according to any statistics I've seen. Care to share?

(/me notes in passing that this doesn't diminish the argument that the US is polluting far more than it needs to, and in fact it's a prime example of the kind of argument given to "justify" not signing up to Kyoto.)

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Qrlx]

I agree with a lot of what you said, except for Iraq and the UN

I don't think Saddam was really spending all that much (if any) in support of terror against the United States. If you have proof, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, your argument is nothing but FUD.

You're wrong about the UN. The UN was created by the United States to promote US foreign policy. This is a historical fact that you seem to be unaware of. If the UN ignores world problems, it is precisely becuase the US wants them ignored. Try and find an example to the contrary.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Qrlx]

Does everyone forget that Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998 because they turned out to be CIA spies?

The peace treaty called for inspections, not letting spies set up a clandestine listening network at all of Iraq's military bases.

Re:If you believe Iraq offered the US no harm your

[Eunuchswear]

However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.

Repeated assertion without evidence is not proof.

Where do you think most terrorist come up with their cash? Bake sales? No, they are sponsored by governments.

Which terrorists? If you mean OBL and his merry men then the only states that directly aided them were Sudan (and Bill stopped that) and Afghanistan (and George stopped that, aided by just about everybody ("we are all americans now", remember?)).

You could make a case for indirect aid from Saudi Arabia, but they're your allies.

Your ignorance is only outdone by your anti-American screed.

Ignorance? Wow, pot, kettle, black:

France invaded New Guinea (?) I believe without UN authorization. Did a fair job of helping the wrong side when they did.

What on earth are you smoking? I am totaly unable to imagine what you are talking about here.

French troops are currently stationed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Côte d'Ivoire, Kosovo, Lebanon and Chad.

They're just back from Sudan and Congo.

These are all UN authorised operations or as part of bi-lateral agreements.

Russia has been in Chechnya for how long?

Oh, a few hundred years.

What's the matter? You like islamist terrorists when you're not the target? You think those nasty russkies had Beslan coming? Didn't you get pissed when some idiots used the same argument after 11/9/2001?

The UN is a joke mainly because of countries like France.

Uses of veto in UN security council (since 1984):

China, 2; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council

It [the UN] condemns America for invading Iraq but gave Saddamn a free pass at murdering his own people.

Oh, so the UN sanctions on Iraq never happened in your timeline?

It [the UN] gives Sudan a free pass in genocide just like it ignored Rawanda.

Just exactly what do you think the UN is? The UN is the US (among other countries). The UN did nothing in Rwanda because the US refused to recognise that a genocide was taking place.

its your $$$ at work

[Anonymous Coward]

your tax money at work in the hand of weapon manufacturers.
soon available to a dictator near you!

Re:Is it worth it? - link

[jrumney]

link (didn't come through in the last post for some reason)

The name of the atol is Kwajalein

[noc007]

For those that are curious, the name of the atol is Kwajalein. It's part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and is about 7 degres from the equator. If you can get a contract job down there, generally with Ratheon, and you don't have anything tieing you down, I say go for it. There are a lot of benafits you get and if you scuba, there are some of the best coral you will ever see. Also, the whole purpose of leaseing the atol from the Marshalliese is for missle tracking. Often the US Government will ransomly pick a missle from our current defense system, left over from the Cold War if I'm not mistakem, disarm it, put in some telemetry and launch it into a bay near the atol. For more information on the atol and its operations, see this site or Google it: http://www.smdc.army.mil/RTS.html

Re:Sooo funny

[Golantig]

Typical, a British website with only English accents.

Actually, the anti-missle missle is just a front..

[raehl]

The *REAL* anti-missile program is we sell these missiles to North Korea. Then they fail to launch when the Koreans try to use them.

A Stunning Success

[Dean Edmonds]

Without even leaving its launcher, the interceptor was able to cause the ICBM to fall harmlessly into the sea.

I'm impressed.

Anti-missile technology sure has come a long way since the Patriot's near-perfect record in the first Gulf War.

Regardless of the cost...

[b00le]

... this system is ill-conceived - technically, strategically and politically. Scientific American has an article from last month that drives a horse and cart through the whole miserable boondoggle.

Re:essentially unguided

[Anonymous Coward]

missles are cool
ever played tau ceti?

It just didn't want to die in a fire ball.

[thbigr]

Maybe the missle got scared and chickened out.

Re:essentially unguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Unguided ballistic missiles exist(e.g SCUD).
But guided are more precise, I agree.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How to test it properly

[dackroyd]

Gather up the bosses of all the companies that are receiving contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars for building it.

Put them in a house.

Target the house with an ICBM - it doesn't matter if it doesn't have a warhead, having it impact at supersonic speeds will do the trick.

Setup the missile defence.

Ask the bosses if they want to go through with the test or whether they want to admit it's not going to work and for them to stop taking free money.

Test if it works or not.

--- --- ---

After a few tests you'll probably find the new people in charge of the companies admit they're selling snake oil.

Re:How to test it properly

[OldCrasher]

I'm not sure our ICBM's are accurate enough for what you want. A Minuteman III had a CEP of about 300 ft. That mattered little if the 500Kt warhead went off. But landing 500lb's of dummy warhead concrete 300ft from a house is not going to do anything but make a loud noise and make a small hole.

But that makes a great project for these guys to get on - improving our ICBM accuracy so we can put concrete blocks in the nose instead of thermonuclear devices. Yes, another way to spend billions!

Re:How to test it properly

[dackroyd]

My bad - change it to a peacekeeper missile (cep of 90m) and fill the house with sweaty gelignite. Should do the trick.

Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[cybrthng]

Typical of right-wingers with an agenda instead of a cause.

You see the Agenda we can't stand is the smoke & mirrors of these projects. You know the smoke that a missile defense "shield" will make us stronger/"safer" and the mirror that the failure of the program that Bush wants isn't Bush's fault. Take a vote, and I bet the public would drop this for the pork project it is.

If this were a cause, it would be an international & consorted effort of defense of democracies against known enemies and terrorist groups. Instead it's an agenda to line the pockets of specific groups and agenda makers.

Instead we're told pork-barrel projects such as Social Security, Medicare, Health-Care and welfare are a huge waste of tax dollars yet ALL of them could have been solvent for our lifetime had we not insisted on these useless "defense" programs and wars.

Scramjet is completely different than missile defense programs and dummy ICBM's being wasted. Scramjet is a technology that could potentially increase our feasibility of cheaper exploration of space and faster transportation. I guess Scramjet falls under that useless "science" category huh?

Remember, It's a democracy and we can voice our opinions just like you. Dissent and questioning government is the only defense and expectation of a true democracy.

If Bush didn't want us to think his policies were useless then its up to that man to turn those views around. I'm tired of the pointless defenses of this man without any sustenance.

If your not a right-winger or a neo-con I must apologize. However as a citizen of this country and someone who is fitting the bill for our government my voice should be heard and democracy doesn't mean the blind leading the blind.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you really wish you were the voice of some great underground movement, don't you? you even have all the propoganda memorized... I can see you now, shouting over the crowd of hungry, huddled, helpless masses, "wir wünschen einen platz in der sonne!" you may want to look up cause versus agenda and find out which one you'd rather be led by. just that you feel obligated to apologize to the audience most likely to accept you shows your willingness to detach from your own standards of decency to make your point in a percieved stronger way. you would not do any cause or agenda (except violent rebellion) any good.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[cybrthng]

wtf are you talking about?

Cause:

A goal or principle served with dedication and zeal: "the cause of freedom versus tyranny" (Hannah Arendt).

Agenda:

A list or program of things to be done or considered: "They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process" (Daniel Sneider).

A Cause for Democracy is completely different than an Aegnda for Americans. Sorry you can't see the difference..

If anyone was throwing propaganda, you sure hit it on the head with a nail. Defamation of character with no merit.. your spot on!

woooo go tiger!

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

May want to take your own advice there, bub.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

The number 1 priority for the Federal government is to protect the United States of America.

That is it's number 1 priority. That is where the bulk of the dollars should be spent. That is what the FEDERAL goverment is for. Social programs should be ran at the state level, imo.

You left wingers that don't want a missle defense are the same folks that blame President Bush for not defending us from the 9/11 attacks. You can't have it both ways.

We already have stealth ICBM's (or do we? hehe) So we can launch an attack against China, and no-one would be any the wiser.

Pony one up with missle defence and you ensure the USA as a leading world power for years to come. Negate these responsibilities, and China will be the next world superpower, with America taking a back seat.

That's my .02.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent post.

Because this is Slashdot the post will be modded down/ignored because it attacks the left.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[orim]

"You left wingers that don't want a missle defense are the same folks that blame President Bush for not defending us from the 9/11 attacks. You can't have it both ways."

Let's see... missile defense is for shooting down incoming ICBM's. 9/11 was done with passenger planes. Future terrorist attacks will be done by weapons carried by anything *but* ICBM's. Probably a truck or a train.

Uhm, hello? So how's that not a waste?

As a "left winger," I don't blame Bush for not being able to stop 9/11. I blame him for fucking up so badly in everything he's done since, and not holding other people responsible when they grossly fuck up. To him, everybody's doing a superb job, including Rummy [Abu Graib, Iraqi war] and Condi (not being able to process written word that's not on a yellow to-do postit). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Anybody who doesn't read the newspapers daily doesn't deserve to be a Denny's manager, let alone the president.

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[glitchvern]

Instead we're told pork-barrel projects such as Social Security, Medicare, Health-Care and welfare are a huge waste of tax dollars yet ALL of them could have been solvent for our lifetime had we not insisted on these useless "defense" programs and wars.

The Social Security trustfund runs out of money in 2042. I was born in 1979 and reach retirement age (67) in 2046. Social Security starts paying out more money than Social Security taxes takes in in 2018 and the rest of the goverment will have to start paying back money it borrowed from Social Security under several (all?) Republican and Democrat administrations. It will be interesting to see if that happens. Medicaid and Medicare are even worse off fiscally. The Social Security debate isn't that these programs are a waste. It's that they have their own taxes (payroll taxes) by which they are funded, and if those taxes are not increased, benefits cut, or some other measure taken they will go bankrupt. These programs go bankrupt on their own with or without "useless defense programs and war".

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[PatientZero]

The number 1 priority for the Federal government is to protect the United States of America.

Let's accept that at face value for this discussion. Given that, why does the U.S. administration insist on implenting a foreign policy that increases world hatred of America's policies, making it unsafe? By letting our multinational corporations dictate policy, we increase the divide between "us" and "them," creating jealousy and hatred the world over.

This does not make me feel safe by any means. Neither does the knowledge that the rich of this country continue to get richer in comparison to everyone else. Sure, they're happy, but I feel unsafe.

That is it's number 1 priority. That is where the bulk of the dollars should be spent.

Your logic is flawed. That it's the top priority doesn't mean that it will require the most amount of money to fund it. If we decided that the top priority was to ensure that every person in the U.S. gets a one dollar tax refund next year, that would cost only about $300 million.

There's no reason to spend more money on it than necessary simply because it's the top priority. Being the top priority only means that it gets higher priority of funding -- not necessarily more funding.

The other problem is how the money is spent by the administration. $200 billion to colonize Iraq so far (not counting roughly 98,000 dead Iraqi civilians and over 1,000 American soldiers) has increased the threat of terrorism for years to come. This seems to have been the goal all along, for now there's reason to increase our "defense" spending in a never-ending cycle.

the same folks that blame President Bush for not defending us from the 9/11 attacks.

While I believe he acted foolishly in ignoring his own presidential security briefings, I didn't expect him to be flying an F-16 shooting down jetliners to save us. That would be unreasonable to expect given that it's not his job. But I do blame the system and power structure for provoking the terrorists in the first place. You can't keep kicking someone and expect them to never fight back.

And no I do not condone violence against civilians to achieve political aims. My stance on this is clear; read my criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. But I'm not surprised that terrorism is used by people without power -- it's the only option that the U.S. leaves them. The real question to ask is Why does the U.S. employ terrorism so eagerly?

We already have stealth ICBM's

And so how long until the Chinese develop or acquire this technology? By the time we get the ABM system working, everyone will have "stealth ICBMs" too. And we've just spent another couple hundred billion on useless crap. Good job!

And this ignores the other point brought up in the other threads: ICBMs are the least likely attack vector. Great, if France nukes us, we'll be safe. And how likely is that? Again, good job!

Re:Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[ahdeoz]

Daily indoctrination into a certain belief system is required for a restaurant management position?

Tactics...

[CustomFort]

Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.

Yes, it is pretty amazing what you can do when you hold a gun to someone's head. Literally. Or maybe you forgot. This was a man whose son would grab women off the street and rape them. He tortured people by the thousands, for no good reason.

I think that if you had to seriously worry about your entire family "disappearing" because you didn't meet an impossible schedule, you would meet it too.

Re:Tactics...

[Anonymous Coward]

He tortured people by the thousands, for no good reason.

Would you give an example of a good reason for using torture against people?

Re:Tactics...

[The One and Only]

Would you give an example of a good reason for using torture against people?

Spammers?

FUD

[argStyopa]

I read the eminently-predictable responses here on /. and have only a couple of questions:

1) are *any* of those criticizing this program people who otherwise would support it? Not that there's any monopoly on objectivity here, but there are tons of people for whom these 'technical' objections or 'financial' objections are simply massive red herrings for a political/social/'peace' agenda, or, who simply hate Bush and *anything* his administration attempts, no matter how worthy or valid. You people are no better than the shallow fools who hated Clinton and used personal character flaws to taint and functionally derail his presidency.

2) pardon me if I find the disingenuity of the "it's too expensive" responses entirely too precious. It's all a matter of priorities. One might say that giving millions of $$ of food aid to people in 3rd world countries, the most of whom are going to contribute nothing more to this dirty rock of a planet than another squalling bunch of starving chidren, is a complete waste. Some might say that spending $billions$ on 'big science' like supercolliders or space telescopes is a waste.

and finally
3) for those who say "it will never work anyway" either you're being stupid or disingenuous. Probably the latter. see also "We'll never fly faster than the speed of sound!", "If man had been meant to fly, God would have given us wings.", etc. The idea of shooting down a missile with a missile is simply a matter of computing power, specific impulse, and vectors. There's no intrinsically unknown science required (ala fusion, space elevators, etc.), simply a relatively predictable development of current tech. "BUT OMFG THE TEST FAILZORD!?!!?!?!?" well yes, that's called "development". Not many complex systems work the first time, nor even the second, nor even the 10th. All the /.ers who've programmed a million lines of code that worked PRECISELY the way you wanted it to without trace of bug, flaw, or error, please raise your hand.

Re:FUD

[Mant]

Your three questions were not, in fact, actually questions, but here we go.

1) Yes, if it could work without costing too much. Not that it is my country or anything, but it wouldn't seem as stupid as it does now.

2) Food aid feeds people, big science discovers things. The non-functional missile shield does what?

3) It is true that people said "it will never work" about many things that did later work. However, they also said "it will never work" about lots of things that did not, in fact, ever work. There may be no unknown science, but it is a very hard problem, and one that can be countered relatively cheaply.

If I May Paraphrase Chris Matthews circa 2001

[geoffrobinson]

At least I think it was Chris Matthews...

pre 9/11...

To those opposing missle defense: If a missle from a rogue nation is launched, who do you think is going to take the political heat for that?

No, let's just wait for nutjobs like North Korea and Iran to significantly improve their missle technology. We'll send our good energy wave thoughts towards them while we dance with sugar plums and the happy elves.

Don't most people here support all that wasteful spending at NASA in the name of exploration and scientific side-benefits? Is that better than protecting the country? Don't you think we'll learn a lot from this project?

Slashdot crowd pans iNterceptors and iPods.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Slashdot's track record and all the bitching I see here about the concept of missile defense, my prediction is that in three years, missile defense will be widely adopted and available in a wide variety of colors.

IT CAN'T BE DONE

[topical_surficant]

I don't know why more people aren't aware of this, and I know that I'm a day late and a dollar short posting this, but...THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY did an in-depth analysis on the feasiblity of a boost-phase ballistic missile intercept system, and you know what they found? IT WON'T WORK. They physicists are saying that the entire concept is simply impossible. WHY THE HELL ARE WE SPENDING MONEY ON THIS?

Will someone please explain to the Bushtard that you can't change the laws of physics, even for matters of national security? I mean, seriously. This is getting out of hand.

Re:IT CAN'T BE DONE

[withoutfeathers]

The system currently being tested is a re-entry phase interceptor, not a boost-phase interceptor.

The Air Force is looking at airborne chemical lasers for boost-phase interception.

The APS study explicitly states: "The Airborne Laser currently in development has the potential to intercept liquid-propellant ICBMs..." and notes that none of the boost phase proposals are more than "possible element[s] of a National Missile Defense system."

I can't find any record of a boost-phase, ballistic interceptor, anti-ICBM program. Can you point to a program or project that is attempting this? Are you confusing the joint U.S./Israel Arrow system with an anti-ICBM system? The Arrow system is strictly for short to medium range interception.

The Physicists Aren't Surprised

[kravlor]

I'm surprised I haven't seen mention of several publications by the American Physical Society regarding the missile defense shield. As a physicist, I looked forward to the APS' findings, as it is one of the most prominent and well-respected professional organizations of physicists.

Physics Today has several articles dealing with the subject, and the actual report can be obtained here.

The verdict: living under the physical laws we all have to obey, boost phase missile defense really doesn't work -- even if the interceptors can get off the ground. Continuing on in with the fiendishly expensive and marginally beneficial program (beneficial in terms of the defense contractors' job security) in the light that it is not physically possible to expect a reasonable chance (or sometimes even a chance) of success is a demonstration of the Administration's ignorance of science and fact, as well as pork-barrel spending at its worst.

So, I'm not surprised at all about the failure -- and wouldn't be even if they launched the interceptor successfully. It's too bad that we won't see any sort of rational discussion of the topic of missile defense in Congress now that the topic is so politically charged.

Re:The Physicists Aren't Surprised

[OldCrasher]

This is just contorted mumbo-jumbo!

it is not physically possible to expect a reasonable chance

It is either possible to hit something or it is not. Throwing chance into the equation is fence sitting.

While the tests have proven that the task of vaporizing an incoming warhead is hard, they have also proven it to be possible

At a tactical level, making sure that the right bits are hit, and not decoys, becomes something that will eventually fall into place. However, that is possible - we do it in other areas of missile interceptions.

What I object to in all of this, is that we will not be attacked by a missile force, therefore this method of defence is useless, and an extreme waste of money. If China or Russia wanted to nuke us with missiles, this system would not shoot down enough. And if North Korea wanted to shoot at us, the return address is easily read. If a terrorist launched a scud missile from a ship in the Carribean, it couldn't be detected or intercepted anyway - it would be coming from the wrong direction and be too low

Re:The Physicists Aren't Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mumbo-jumbo"? Who the hell cares whether it's theoretically possible? The question is, how likely is it to work, and how much is it going to cost to get a certain level of reliability? Chance is everything in a cost/benefit analysis.

Re:The Physicists Aren't Surprised

[sshir]

boost phase missile defense really doesn't work

It's not "boost phase" - it's other way around.

For boost phase they want a freaking boeing 747 whith a laser thing.

Its the new kind of smart missile.

[JustNiz]

Its just following Asimov's 3rd robotic law.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Unnecessary and obsolete - think ships

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If I wanted to blow up New York City using a nuclear device, it would be by far easiest to load it into a container onto a container ship, offload it onto a speedboat off-coast (probably drop it off and have the speedboat pick it up so that the security people can't see what happened on the radar) and have a suicide bomber set it off inside New York harbor. Of course, you'd need a collusive captain on the ship.

However, answer me this: If you had an atomic bomb, wouldn't you agree that this is an easier and cheaper way to destroy New York City than to aquire, arming and sending off an ICBM?

You can't, or I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush does every day in Iraq.

Re:You can't, or I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

War is wrong! Unless it's "Class War!"

You crybaby pansy, you lost, get over it.

Re:You can't, or I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

that's awesome

-jlg

Shot down perhaps?

[medazinol]

Please will probably not beleive this but there is, another possibility....

Lt. Robert Jacobs in 1964 describes what happened to him during a similar test @ Vandenberg AFB.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/sdiarchive /vandenberg.ra/

We're fighting Muslims not Russians

[CrazyJim0]

I doubt this system will shoot down a suitcase nuke.

Oh yeah, and the Russians have begun a project to make nukes that dodge our anti-missile system.

So basically you have a system that does nothing and angers political allies.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A "serious" setback?

[rm007]

While the subject of whether or not a missile defense system is practicable is debatable (i.e. a worthy subject of discussion with arguments to be heard on both sides), I do not propose to join it at this point. However, having RTFA, I can't help but wonder at the characterization of the failure as a "serious" setback. The missle shut itself down. Maybe it was a software failure, maybe it was a hardware failure. In either case, while a lot of work may have to go into searching for and fixing the problem, it is not a huge technical challenge - the technology exists to get a missle to launch and do so reliably and with high confidence (why else would you even need such a system). A serious setback would have been if the system had launched and missed the target by a wide margin or been unable even to track the target. The technical challange is tracking and intercepting the target, launching a missle is not. This was a bug or a screw-up at most.

Re:A "serious" setback?

[saddino]

No, it is indeed a "serious" setback because the system has been deployed (due to executive order from the White House) without ever being succesfully tested in two years . This post-deployment test was critical to quell the critics of the program, and now due to its failure, its clear that although we have a system in place, it doesn't seem to do anything useful but fail.

why else would you even need such a system

Welcome to politics at its finest.

Re:A "serious" setback?

[rm007]

So it's embarassing that it doesn't work and the controversy about the program remains - but when has the current administration ever let controversy about what it wants to do get in its way? In context of the current administration, a reliability issue that does not likely require substantial technical development is not a "serious" setback, certainly not something that might jeopardize the program. A possible delay in activating the system is a minor embarassment at worst - it is not as if the deadline was responding to real world conditions. At any rate, who's to say that the system won't be declared "active" anyway. It wouldn't be the first time that political requirements rather than hard data have driven policy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Confused - Why was this approved?

[engywook]

I guess I don't understand slashdot as well as I thought. I attempted to report on this at 8:01 am CST, but the article (which included a link to a news story for more details) was rejected. So, if the story wasn't interesting at 8am, why was it interesting 15 hours later? Thanks.

Clarke's Perspective

[LukePieStalker]

"Now, looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total defense might indeed be possible in a century or so, but the technology required would produce, as a by-product, weapons so terrible that no one would need any longer bother with anything as primitive as ballistic missiles."

- Arthur C. Clarke

Love and war

[TippyTwoShoes]

As far as the Missile Interceptor goes, I'm all for getting the system up and running. I figure if we really are under fire, we won't be pussy footing around with one anti-missle at a time. Launch a sheit load and hope it improves our chances of making contact.

Now on to your topic, better to have gone in with some intention of doing good. Would you have preferred this war be fought over a woman (or man to be PC)? How about over a religion? Oh wait, maybe that's the real reason we are there...

Re:Ha! You have it so backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once the US military can be assured of NK's impotence, nukular-bearing countries will be just as fucked as Iraq is now."

But that's why deploying this "SDI Reloaded" system is so bad -- it drives the insane dictators to develop nuclear weapons even faster/sooner, and, once there, develop and deploy more missiles and countermeasures to be more confident of overwhelming a defense -- and then the defense is useless. It is *increasing* the motivation for countries to do it now while they can and in greater numbers. It is making the problem worse, all for the sake of a "defense" system that doesn't actually work!

Conspiracy Theory

[Red_Janemba]

What better way to make the world think that the US has failed in missile interception technology than to "fake" a failure. Kind of like how the Confederacy in the US Civil War conducted cannon battery tests on low-grade metals to simulate a failure for the metal plating on the civil war Ironclad ship. You know... you've got to throw off those spies somehow. Just a thought.

Re:Actually, the anti-missle missle is just a fron

[DownTownMT]

The *REAL* anti-missile program is we sell these missiles to North Korea. Then they fail to launch when the Koreans try to use them.
>
This idea was actually made into a movie called "Deterrence" (1999).
Bassically, the U.S. sold mal-functioning nukes to France, knowing that they will sell them to Iraq, and in the end when Iraq sends them to the U.S. in a nuke war, they never go off.

Clarke's Perspective

[LukePieStalker]

Now, looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total defense might indeed be possible in a century or so, but the technology required would produce, as a by-product, weapons so terrible that no one would need any longer bother with anything as primitive as ballistic missiles.

- Arthur C. Clarke

The only thing better than a succesful test..

[Anonymous Coward]

is a failed test. Because it means more money for the defense industry.

Knock not, let ye be knocked.

What really happened....

[THESuperShawn]

There was a software glitch and the interceptor did not launch.

Just "trust me" on this one, if you know what I mean.

Yes, the test failed, but there was a bit of human error involved.....

Re:What really happened....

[/dev/trash]

Uhhh huh. We all know it was the aliens from Area 51.

Excellent

[Safety Cap]

You try the playground denial tactic of painting your team, the Republicans, as "falsely accused as evil" ~.

For an administration that pledged to "bring honor back to the office," they've done anything but; no one takes responsibility for anything. In fact, it is all Clinton's fault: Iraq, OBL, 9/11, Global Warming, and now, the failure of the "missile defense" pork barrel program.

The Reds now own the congress and the executive branch--they're the ones responsible for funding this stillborn dog. We've poured boatloads of cash into this stupid program that, as someone else pointed out, can be easily circumvented (all it takes is one direct hit for the US to lose, whereas the defense system must be accurate 100% of the time. Good luck with that 100% from any govt. program). No serious, respected scientists have ever claimed that this was a viable program, but Ronnie Raygun got it into his pointed head that he was Luke Skywalker, defending truth, justice and white, blonde virgins from the Evil Empire. The rest is history.

Oh, and nice way the Grandparent tried to spin this out as having some kind of residual benefit. He is correct, it will be residual, but unlike actual legitimate research programs, the nuggets of knowledge we can salvage from this POS will be worth much less than the amount of hard-earned taxes we paid into it.

You know, these tax-cut and spend Reds are really annoying. I wish there was a party that was all about fiscal responsibility.

Re:Excellent

[Doc Ruby]

The only way to stop this crap is to end the tolerance of informed people of ignorance by the misinformed. That is, of course, the rationale behind the rightwing media takeover, political takeover, military takeover, religious takeover - everywhere a minority of ambitious fascists can game a centrally organized American institution already under threat by economics and social evolution. It might be selfserving, but it's effective - that's how they have won so much. The way to justify informed, socially responsible people, who love a free America, deciding that we're right, they're wrong - and must be stopped, is to fight this battle fairly, legitimately, and *in their faces*. That mainly means finding ways to reach the insular Red neighborhoods with positive reinforcement of the positive values we of course hold in common: personal freedom, community responsibility, and the truth. The current crisis is largely a consequence of the braindrain of talented, expressive people from rural/suburban communities, and the insular media those alienated Red neighborhoods get from the media monopolies that bait them against their own self-interest.

We must spend time outside our own comfortable media enclaves. Visit some boring Red State chat room, and set a good example of acceptance of differences, appreciation of the exotic, and self-confident pleasure in thinking for yourself. Engage your friends' friends, in the hopes of hitting someone who hasn't yet found the chance to live a real, free life, without the monolithic social oppression that breeds alienated, aggressive rightwing dupes. We have a lot going for us, a lot of history of beating the fascists in America with a spring in our step and a song in our hearts. That doesn't mean we can't be angry when they piss us off, or we have to pretend that we love them selflessly when we don't. We just have to feel our connection to them, like it or not, and evoke their own communication with us, and each other. Instead of letting their untapped anger at anything get channeled by the media masters that use them against themselves, and against us.

Dumb

[N8F8]

If your supposition were true we will have knocked out the easily identifyable ICBM silos before the first offensive strike. We surely wouldn't wait till their birds were halfway here.

Re:Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they have submarines (North Korea and Iran both have subs, I don't know if they have silos), in which case we're still screwed.

The really funny thing about the test

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that it was initially delayed because of "bad weather". If they can't even test it in bad weather, do they really think it will be reliable?

our project motto...

[Anonymous Coward]

here @ mudnuts* should be:

"building the maginot line of the 21st century"

*missile defense national team/systems

Re:If I were a two bit dictator with a nuke....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry about attacking the U.S. as I was going down. I probably wouldn't have a missile with the range to do so. I would just chuck my nuke or nukes at the closest major power and insure that someone with the ability to destroy the US had more than enough motivation to do so.

If you were China and you got nuked by someone the U.S. was invading, you would probably being thinking pretty hard about the potential of another nuke coming your way in the future. I'm sure China would take a frontline interest in what invasions the U.S. might be planning next especially if they were nuke capable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

TOE: Terrorist Olympic Event

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine there will be qutie an interesting terrorist Olympic event if this missle defense ever works:

Who can sneak a WMD inside the US and detonate it in a major US city, with the least cost?

I think the drug cartels already have a great system for getting stuff into the US, change the drugs with WMD parts and you have a winner.

Missle defense that.

No, the next arms race has already started.

[mcc]

This means we can procrastinate further on whether to help you guys start the next arms race.

America may not be out of the gate yet but Mr. Bush's arms race is already well underway. Before too long Russia will have missiles inherently capable of penetrating any missile defense shield we can build.

The White House, of course, will probably continue to claim there was no reason to continue those ballistic-arms-buildup treaties we had with the USSR.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"harmlessly" into the ocean?

[DigitalCrackPipe]

crashed harmlessly into the ocean

Umm, not to sound like a tree-hugger but I wonder if dropping junk like that into the ocean is really harmless; I don't know if anyone really considered the environmental effects of the materials in the missile. At least it wasn't a nuke ;)

And they were two months from deploying?

[tdhillman]

I've long since come to believe that regardless of the sound science that has shown the entire concept of catching an incoming missle largely impossible (anyone concerned with MIRV's?). What blows my mind (and should blow yours as well) is that we were a mere two months away from deploying a system that is, clearly defective in nature. Unless I've missed something, there aren't too many countries out there even capable of throwing an ICBM at us. Those babies are a little bit tough to hide....particulalry during any testing. We have a probability of a missle shield becasue this has been an agenda item for the Republican party for a good long time. For those of you who haven't taken an econ class lately, this is guns or butter at its finest. Let's just not piss anyone off without thinking it through first. And, hope that noone's going to throw an ICBM at us. Because gee, they've been doing that a lot since WWII......

Why is this a surprise?

[DaFallus]

When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion dollars developing a pen that writes in zero gravity upside-down on almost any surface including glass and at below freezing to over 300 C.

The Russians used a pencil.

Bob said it best

[Jeremi]

I think Stephen Notley says it best:

In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.

Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.

Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.

So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?

The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.

Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l

Re:Bob said it best

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It's crap to even think Bush will nuke a country without us getting nuked first.

We aren't that way. World War 2 was an exception - and the rest of the world didn't even seem to mind what we did.

We aren't going to nuke North Korea, etc, unless they nuke us first.

In which case, I'd hope you'd all support a full counter attack - to make sure that the threat from them is neutralized and to strongly dissuade any others from doing that to us.

Re:Bob said it best

[Tim C]

In which case, I'd hope you'd all support a full counter attack

Yeah - because their innocent civillians deserve to die just as much as yours did; their deaths will make the world a better place.

Re:Bob said it best

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - because their innocent civillians deserve to die just as much as yours did; their deaths will make the world a better place.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're right on the money. The idea is because all sides know--with absolute certainty--that this will be the outcome, no one fires first. Crazy, I know, but after all WWIII never did erupt between the USSR and the USA. Good thing, too. There would have been very little left of the planet.

It only works if both sides are deadly serious, though. So yes, many innocent civilians' lives are in jeopardy, but ironically they are safer because of it. That's the idea, anyway.

Re:Bob said it best

[innate]

Though the idea that we would launch a preemptive nuclear attack is far-fetched, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, especially given our preemptive war with Iraq. As long as someone *thinks* there's a *possibility* of it happening, it will act as a deterrent. So that's the good part.

The problem is, it's ultra-expensive, may not actually work, and it only deters state actors. NMD certainly doesn't hinder terrorists, who we're told could put a nuke on a shipping container sent to one of our ports (and it's not at all clear who we would nuke in retaliation). To use an old analogy, NMD is like spending a billion dollars to lock your windows, while leaving the front door wide open.

Windows

[Efialtis]

Another reason to NOT use windows in the defense of our country...

Can't be done.

[Blitzshlag]

Discover magazine wrote an article about this already. To save you from signing up and reading the whole thing, the conclusion was that we won't in the near future have the ability to shoot down a missile with a missile, and the government is wasting its time and money.
With current technology its almost exactly like trying to shoot a bullet in mid-flight with another bullet.

an even simpler perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

We could probably eliminate AIDS everywhere if we spent 1/10th of the money allocated to this useless missile defence system to medical research and distributing existing (and effective) drugs instead. We would save perhaps hundreds of millions of lives and gain respect with a peaceful expression of goodwill towards less fortunate countries.

STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, liberal.

thanks

[DM9290]

thanks.

My idea: telekenesis

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's spend 500 billion dollars to train psychics to use telekenesis to deflect missiles away from our country! Wait! I have an even better idea, why not do both!!!! If we had this missile defence shield AND telekenesis, then we'd be TWICE as safe! And as a side benefit, we could use our telekenesis to shut those damned liberal beatniks up once and for all.

limited liability

[DM9290]

Sounds dangerous to me. While I can imagine the Bush government being corrupt or stupid enough to go along with this, there is still the possibility that it will lead to a landslide in public opinion towards an anti-corporation party. Which might result in a more or less communist government.

hrmm... that already happened in Cuba.

That is part of the reason, perhaps all of the reason, Bush (and every American government in the last 40 years) has had such a hard on for crushing Castro. Any success in Cuba might inspire other latin american populations to revolt against their corporate controlled governments.

There is nothing close to a backlash against corporations in the united states. People are far to busy hating the government to notice the government is only doing what corporations pay it to do.

I disagree that any anti-corporate party is necessarily communist.

The Corporation is not the natural evolution of capitalism. There is NOTHING in capitalism which mandates "limited liability".

You can have a free market with full liability.

Taking responsibility for your actions is not "communist". It would make capitalism a morally viable economic system.

If you try to explain limited liability to any child I suspect they will think you are fibbing. It sounds like a scam. And it is just as much of a scam as it sounds.

There is nothing wrong with groups of people working together to achieve a common goal. But they are all jointly responsible for the outcome. Allowing corporations to evade liability for their screw ups simply is another form of public subsidy. Ultimately someone has to pay when corporations screw up. And that someone (thanks to limited liability) is not the shareholders. It is the PUBLIC (or other innocent bystanders.. i.e. creditors)

In exchange for limited liability, you would think that corporations would perhaps have to pay exhoribitant tax rates... but you would be wrong.

Corporations should follow the rules of capitalism and succeed or die trying. But in fact the PUBLIC will often step in to save a corporation rather than let it die.

Does the public then OWN a fair share of that corporation? (no. It is considered to be immoral for the public to own anything which makes profit because that would be COMMUNISM).

I suggest people read the book: The Soul of Capitalism by William Greider.

You can also find an article by the same author published online here.

Re:limited liability

[Lonewolf666]

There is nothing close to a backlash against corporations in the united states. People are far to busy hating the government to notice the government is only doing what corporations pay it to do.

So far, that is not obvious. I was thinking of what happens if the state IS bankrupt and big corporations offer to help out at a price. That price being a lot more control over the country.

I disagree that any anti-corporate party is necessarily communist.

Not necessarily. But it is the one anti-corporate model that already has some mindshare, however flawed it is. So it seems the most likely candidate if the people are suddenly and desparately looking for something else than capitalism.

the USSA will disintegrate

[Khashishi]

when it's economy can no longer sustain it's military budget.

Sounds like a win-win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an obvious push for W think about it:

Case 1: Missile defence is put in effect everyone claims "it will work as it's supposed to", W has made the country "safer".

Case 2: Missile defence gets sacked, the U.S. does get attacked. "If we only would have funded that missile defence project..." This of course regardless if it would have worked or not.

Case 3: Missile defence gets put into place, missile attack is succesfull despite defence. Who is going to say "I told you so"? No one, and if they do, they'll be publicly destroyed for having so misaligned goals as to discredit the President during a national crisis.

O.M.G!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my God, so the weather must be okay when the US is under attack from missles, otherwise they can't shoot them down?

Beware for overcast skies and gusty winds, then.

Uhh No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, It's a democracy and we can voice our opinions just like you.
Actually the U.S. is a republic and you have no constitutional right to even vote. However, you may voice your opinion.

so...

[Anonymous Coward]

... why did they get Microsoft to create the software for the interceptor missiles?

Re:Actually, the anti-missle missle is just a fron

[elwinc]

Cute suggestion.

Unfortunately, the ugly truth is that North Korea bought some nuke technology from Pakistan, who has proven their nukes with underground testing. They've also been manufacturing plutonium since about 1990, which, unlike uranium 235, doesn't need complicated enrichment. As for their missile technology, they tested their first successfully in 1984. Some of Iraq's Scuds from the 1991 war may have been built in North Korea. Also check out their amusingly named "Nodong" missile. Here are some details.

Speaking of retarded lemurs...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Successor", not "predecessor". GWB1 was Bubba's predecessor, GWB2 is his successor.

Re:Speaking of retarded lemurs...

[the_mad_poster]

And yet, despite that early-morning fog, my post was still about fifty times smarter than the smartest thing Dubya has ever uttered or written. That smartest thing, of course, being his first words.

Yea, it's all been pretty much downhill from there...

WDMs

[rasz]

Hey, those are GOOD spend money. Just remember all those WDMs waiting to kill americans. Like those in Iraq :D

This just isn't possible

[default luser]

It's not too difficult to understand why, either. Just take a look at systems that actually "work", like the Patriot interceptor.

Step 1: track target during it's liftoff stage, but take no action.

Step 2: when the target is cruising or goes terminal, it has a fairly predictable trajectory. Fire up your tracking radar and you can converge on the target easily with a very small window of error, and lob a Patriot at it.

Step 3: Profit!

Anyway, now imagine the typical environment you're facing attempting to track an ICBM during the burn stage. You've got a fast target that's CONTINUOUSLY making course corrections, be it due to wind, mechanical instabilities, or just the normal flight path. The tracking radar is making guesses about the target's trajectory in order to converge the location of the target...but every time it sweeps the target the damn thing isn't where it expected it to be.

Thus, the error window remains too large to be accurate, and the interceptor missile might as well not be launched.

Now, imagine having this much difficulty with a single, well-known target...then make it realistic. The countermeasures accomanied with your ICBM are going to guarnatee you see TONS of viable targets to track.

And hell, you can't take the easy way out like the Patriot system does, because the ICBM doesn't cruise and depend on it's areodynamics to reach the target...the warheads just drop like a rock.

Yeah

[melted]

A _scientist_ buried _plutonium_ in his own back yard. Man, they put all kinds of bullshit in papers these days.

Re:How? Future of the USA

[labnet]

Ultimately the IRAQ war is about dollar hegemony. In 1999 Sadam started selling Oil in Euros which caused Bush's minders to have a fit.
The USD is Fiat, as are all foreign currencies now. Fiat means its only backed by a govenments goodwill, and not Gold as it used to be before currencies floated in the 70's.
The USA needs almost $2 Billion/day to flow in, which only comes from people buying US securities such as stocks, bonds and currency. It has managed to do this up until now buy making the major oil producers price oil soley in USD. So if Australia wants to buy a ship of Arabian oil, Australia must buy USD from the open market by selling goods, services or its own currency. See how important it is now to the USA to ensure oil is controlled, because it artificially keeps their fiat dollar valuable.
There are now roumers IRAN will start selling oil in EUROS, and perhaps Russia. There has also been a marked slow down by foreign governments buying US dollars and assets. So what may happen?

First interest rates will start going up (to try attract more investment in US assets), but this could tank the overinflated US property market. This is a real possibility because of the almost zero savings in the US, and the loss of blue collar jobs. A tanking property market will mean consumer spending cuts off. This causes loss of confidence by foreign investors and a possible run on the dollar. The US must print lots of real and electronic money to pay its debtors who own yeilding assets such as bonds. Thus starts a weimer like hyperinflation.
Will it happen?
Well nothing is guarunteed, but I'd be betting in the next 5 years, the US enconomy will tank big time causing a lot of pain and wealth redistribution in many western countries.

Exercise in futility

[NCFlipper]

So tell me which is cheaper/easier to make:
1) a missile to intecept another missile, or
2) a missile to avoid intercepting missiles.

My money's on 2. I can think of so many options without even trying hard: side thrusters to quickly dodge out of the expected path; chaff or decoys to distract the interceptor; a specially hardened casing to shield from the explosion of the missile; some form of EMP device to trigger the interceptor missile before it gets close. You might not think some of those are feasible, but you could say the same more readily about the missile defense programme.

And of course, who says someone is going to deliver a nuke with an ICBM? Other posts have mentioned terrorists driving it up to the target in a truck, which is much cheaper. And if you're thinking that security would spot it, who says the target has to be somewhere important enough to protect? The IRA perfected the terrorism technique of chosing low-risk, high-terror targets such as pubs and hotels; that kind of approach scares the public more than high-profile locations, since it destroys the idea that ordinary people are safe.

It seems to me that Bush is entering a technology race, in which his side has to work harder to keep up. And the race seems largely redundant, since the people America needs to protect itself from are unlikely to be launching ICBMs. I firmly believe that money would be better spent on improving international relations, so that America would have fewer enemies in the first place.

This WAS used in a movie

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 1974 John Carpenter film 'Dark Star' an AI intellegent bomb decides that it dosen't want to blow up the target planet. One of the crew members has to convince the bomb to do it's mission by teaching it phenomenology. (Pheonomenology is a branch of plilosophy that was popular in college in the late 60's and early 70s. It is a precurser to existentialism.)

Everything You Know Is Wrong.

[digitalmudras33]

Ever heard of the phrase "perception management"?

google on >>> perception management

Maybe this "test failure" wasn't actually meant for you. Maybe it was meant to draw out an enemy. Perhaps. Then again, everything *I* know is wrong!

18,000 dead Americans per year

[Dire Bonobo]

> Meanwhile countless americans don't have healthcare.

A counted number, actually; it's about 45 million Americans right this moment, and in a typical year ~75 million will lack health insurance for some of that year. (link)

So, what does that mean?

It means 18,000 dead Americans every year.

It means a 9/11 every two months.

But why should you care? It's only lazy jobless bums dying, right?

Contrary to expectations, most of the uninsured are employed full-time.

But we're saving money, right?

Not only does the USA spend $35 billion/year to treat the uninsured, much of that is for emergency treatment that could be much more efficiently (and cheaply) handled with an earlier diagnosis. Moreover, the lack of health care costs the nation about $100 billion yearly in lost productivity. (link)

But it would cost too much to insure everyone, right?

At an average cost of $9,000 for family insurance and assuming families of three, the cost to insure those 45 million Americans would be $135 billion, or very nearly the amount saved in uninsured medical costs and lost productivity. At the very least, $35 billion of that is already being paid for (uninsured emergency care), and about $20 billion would come back to the government in taxes, representing a maximum cost of $80 billion.

$80 billion for 18,000 American lives; that's $4,500,000 per dead American. In other words, each $1 billion spent on missile defense is equivalent to 220 dead Americans. The $10 billion per year we're spending on missile defense could save as many lives in two years as all the terrorist attacks on US soil have taken since the nation was founded.

In the richest nation in the world, is that acceptable?

Up to you. But know the facts before you decide how many American lives a particular government program is worth to you, and which is the most efficient way to save American lives.

We would...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe you freeloading gerks could get out and help push the car once
> in a while...then we might get there faster.

We would...

...but then we took a look down the road at where you're headed.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. And don't hassle your neighbour to dig faster.

Plinking

[Anonymous Coward]

> A nuclear North Korea is meaningless if any missle launched gets
> plinked before it can leave the peninsula.

And a missile-defense system is meaningless if everybody knows to either shoot dozens of missiles or pack 'em on a truck instead.

At least if someone shoots a missile at you, it's easy to tell who did it. If a suitcase nuke goes off in DC, who do you hold responsible?

Countries going bankrupt (was: Re:How?)

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAIEL (I Am Not An International Economist or Lawyer) but I think you're confusing the legal state of bankruptcy with the practical state of bankruptcy: not having enough assets to cover all your debts.

Don't knock it; countries can go bankrupt (in the sense that they can't service the interest on their debts any longer). In the past, bankruptcy led to the French Revolution (not directly, but through the actions taken to try and fix it). In recent history, bankruptcy has hit Argentina and many of the countries affected by the Asian financial crisis a few years ago (like South Korea and Indonesia). Generally, the currency becomes internationally devalued and stock markets crash as investors (domestic and international) lose confidence.

Bankrupt nations ('Countries suffering from economic crisis' in diplomatic speak) even get a bankruptcy trustee (in the form of the IMF) which gives further loans (backed by the World Bank) to maintain solvency and prevent the government from collapsing. The actual debt is then restructured and, in many cases, partially forgiven in return for economic reforms and following IMF 'recommendations' on economic and fiscal policy (hence the protests against both the IMF and the World Bank).

But as the World Bank is funded largely by the US and the IMF is at least partially controlled by it, global economic chaos will probably result if the US ever finds itself in a 'severe economic crisis'.

Missile Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia's developing a new ICBM package, as an Aviation Week magazine from this month revealed. It uses the current SS-25 Topol rocket to deliver a Mach 5+ scramjet-powered, maneuverable missile. This is in response to the President's move on missile defense. A new arms race is already in the mix.

Those counter to missile defense believe it to be "stupid" for any country to contemplate launching nuclear weapons at the United States. But, like security in obscurity, these assumptions are faulty. An IEEE article on Russia's missile defense stated that with the shutdown of various early-warning radars, Russian ballistic missile warning sectors had gaps. These would easily be penetratable by submarine-launched weapons, and thus, Russian command and control of their strategic rocket forces is in a greater bind to "use it or lose it." This was made frighteningly clear in 1995 when Russian early warning radars detected a European Space Agency sounding rocket launched from Norway as an American SLBM.

They went into launch mode, and only stopped when the commanding officer of the warning center took a bet that it wasn't an ICBM - he trusted that America would not launch an attack with just a single missile from that direction.

Missile defense is a can of worms - and with these new delivery systems, it'll be a whole lot more challenging to deal with. They benefits are high, and should we face a time where we are 15 minutes to midnight without a response, God help us.

test or real thing? so what?

[chicago_scott]

Just because it dosen't work in a test doesn't mean it won't work in real life!

"The cause of the failure...

[SoulSkorpion]

...could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

Mah nishtanah ha'laylah ha'zeh mi'kol ha'leylot...?

Re:Sooo funny

[TheLink]

Sorry. I mistook you for a typical US American.

My deepest apologies.

Re:Sooo funny

[Dun Malg]

And how's your missile defense system going?

It works just as well as yours, but at a fraction of the the cost! Heh. Touche.