> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
>
> Pretty obvious to me that the rest of the world has been impoverished by
> corrupt governments, and is not nearly using their fair share of energy.
There was a smiley missing after that statement wasn't there John? Being as
I live in a nation that has had democratic government for more than 130
years and amazingly little evidence of corruption. Certainly not endemic
corruption.
Please say there was a smiley missing because I think we ALL live in
countries that have democratic governments - one sign being the free and
easy accesss we have to forums like BRIN-L - and to paraphrase the Brin
hisself, democratic governments are far less likely to suffer endemic
corruption.
And one little thing: if you see that a problem has one extremely large
component and a whole lot of much smaller ones, which is the most cost
effective part of the problem to tackle? On any business oriented analysis,
tackling the big producers of greenhouse gasses, and especially where a 5%
population group produces about 25% of the problem, is the most effective
option. I thought you studied Economics?
>Doug:
> >Not my desire for a system who's $100 million tests (which
> consist of trying
> >to hit the lamest excuse for a target that they could get away with,
> including
> >a "decoy" that actually aided detection) have all been miserable
> failures.
>
> This is simply a lie. I don't know if you are lieing, or just repeating
> someone else's lie, but the above is simply not true. Almost
> all previous
> tests of the missile defense system have been successes, save for the most
> recent test (or possibly the most recent two, if a test occurred that I am
> not remembering right now.)
John, none of the tests have previously been close to being a success.
The on-ground laser tests against missile boosters had the booster segments
so thouroughly over-pressurised that it was a wonder they held together
until the test was run. An air-rifle hit would have destroyed those
boosters, yet the lasers took many, many minutes from a range of just a few
metres. Not at all a real-world experiment.
Others have already pointed out how the targets were steered as close to the
impact point as the anti-missiles were.
Study of the Patriot effectiveness during the Gulf War proved that not ONE
SINGLE interception was achieved. Nil. Nada. And that was a point defence
weapon, where you worry only about those missiles - in every case, a single
missile - coming into your area. And you expect to provide HEMISPHERE
protection??
>In the test that failed, moreover, the
> failure was a result of a malfunction in the booster system of the
> interceptors. Given that we have been using missile boosters
> for decades,
> the failure of that test has almost no bearing on the potential merits of
> the missile defence technology.
Er, again, the most tested part of the technology - the booster - fails but
does not reflect on the overall usefulness of the technology. Am I missing
something here? A little bit like the "mishap" that occured for the X-43.
Can I assume then that the X-43 test was actually also a succes?
>
> Moreover, your above paragraph suggests a profound illiteracy
> regarding the
> scientific method. Care to identify a single new technology that was
> developed by skipping all the simple tests and going directly to the most
> difficult test? Care to identify a single new technology that was
> developed without ever failing a test?
True, you start from the simple and work up to the complex. But think, man.
What is the whole point and intent of Theatre Defence? If it doesn't work
FULLY it DOESN'T WORK. Believing otherwise is a fool's dream. Basing your
whole defence on that belief is worse - it is criminally insane. And when,
along the way you start breaking treaties that have at least kept an
equilibrium, then... It is just stupid.
>
> >Not my desire for a system that could be avoided by the simplest
> of ploys. I
> >mean, really, come on, tons and tons of drugs are smuggled into
> this country,
> >you don't think that if a "rogue" country wanted to it couldn't
> sneak a nuke
> >in? Hell, they could probably disguise it as drugs to get it in.
>
> This suggests that you have a profoun misunderstanding of the mechanics of
> delivering nuclear weapons. First, how many of those drugs are coming
> from the Middle East and Asia? More importantly, if smuggling is such a
> cheap and efficient way of delivering a nuclear weapon, *WHY* are all the
> rogue states on the planet vigorously pursuing more and better missiles?
Because the big boys have missiles. To have missiles means you are one of
the big boys. You get to stage parades where long lines of pointed
cylinders, full of thrust, awaiting the urge, pass by in rigid order. The
world gets to admire YOUR long line of missiles. Ever read any Freud?
Missiles fit in very nicely to the psychology of the Saddams of this world.
Doesn't mean that they are the most effecctive method of delivery.
>
> >Not to mention the forign relations nightmare that the whole stupid idea
> >threatens to trigger. Is there a better way to trigger a new arms race?
> This
> >whole thing has more to do with grown up kids wanting new toys
> to play with
> >than anything else.
>
> This is, of course, as opposed to the current situation, where Iraq, Iran,
> Pakistan, the DPRK, etc. have absolutely no desire to pursue
> nuclear-tipped
> ballistic missiles. Yeah, triggering an arms race is a real
> risk here.
Try living in the neighbourhood John.
Brett
