> Mark:
> If, however, you are making an oblique reference to the fall of nukes,
> well, what good would it do to ask for US assistance?  The damage would
> already be done.  And the US couldn't stop the missiles in any case.  NMD
> will not work and will not be built.
> Dan:
> Actually, it would work, (has in multiple tests),

Tests that would not pass scientific scrutiny, because the criteria were
ex post facto. Put into plain English, the tests failed miserably and the
Pentagon went into full spin control. Not a single test missile fired from
Kwajalein has ever hit a target when decoys were present. So the Pentagon
took that requirement out of its criteria, and, bingo! Success!

I think that you might be relying on old information about the use of
decoys during testing.


Complex systems require complex test plans. Testing is done in steps; as
the requirements for that step are met, complexity is added to either the
system being tested, or the test that it must pass. There is still a large
number of tests that need to be conducted before the system could be
fielded. We've barely started. The 2 failures reported in the mass media
were instances of manufacturing failures, not design or concept failures.
So far, other than those two, all of the missile tests have passed the
testing requirements; proving that the portion of the concept they were
_intended_ to validate is indeed valid.
Could you point out where you got the information that the test firings
have been such abject failures? I detect some major spin here - based on
personal knowledge, not relying on my "right-wing" news sources.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to