![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. A technical analysis found "no basis for believing the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack," the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a 76-page report titled "Technical Realities." The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency rejected the report. "It will provide a defense against incoming missiles for the first time in this country's history," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman. BOEING CO. is assembling the shield, which would use the interceptors to launch "kill vehicles" meant to pulverize targets in the midcourse of their flight paths, outside the Earth's atmosphere. Using infrared sensors, the vehicles would search the chill of space for the warheads. So far, the interceptors have scored hits five times in eight highly controlled tests. (Reuters 10:00 AM ET 05/13/2004) Mo http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=960...a&s=rb0405 13 ================================================== ============== -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come out with a report like this. I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:07:23 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote in Message-Id: : "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come out with a report like this. Here's the web page: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...fm?pageID=1403 I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take? You can examine the full report he http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...ageID=1403#Top -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:07:23 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in Message-Id: : "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come out with a report like this. Here's the web page: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...fm?pageID=1403 I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take? You can examine the full report he http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...ageID=1403#Top The *really* funny part is that they keep unfavorably comparing the new missile defense system to the one the Clinton administration was working on (that the UCS also didn't like when it was on the boards, but which is apparently now the "gold standard"). There's a lot of handwaving in the UCS report, most of which is "we're not sure they can ever fix the US BMD system, but we are sure that places like North Korea will easily handle the similar technical problems inherent in making useful decoys without significant research efforts, and it won't impact their missile payloads, even though nobody else has demonstrated such countermeasures without a lot of missile flights." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Cub Driver wrote: Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps? Yup. The same folks who have been telling us to listen to them for most of the Cold War, and who have been wrong for almost the whole time. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:48:46 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote: The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the report. The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps? Oh I don't doubt they are scientists but they are scientists with an agenda. Would you consider a scientist that is incapable of being objective a *good* scientist? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-4 Missile Possibilities | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 42 | January 23rd 04 05:40 AM |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
Airborne ballistic missile defense? | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 1 | August 20th 03 09:17 AM |