backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Tavoc.. on Oct 21 at 4:34 PM


A Northrop-Grummond built DSP satellite. These current satellites only detect ballistic missile launches, rather than shoot them down.
New $5M study is first allocated since work was halted 15 years ago.

Congress recently approved a $5 million grant to begin study of space-based missile defenses. This marks the first time money has been allocated to the program since work on space-based systems was canceled in the 1990s by President Clinton. Two years ago, Congress rejected a similar proposal.

According to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the threat of missile proliferation has grown rapidly since the 1990s. A total of 120 nations now have ballistic missile technology, he said, and nations like North Korea and Iran are not only developing the technology, but selling it on the open market. Missile defense systems are growing as well; 27 nations now have some form of missile defense.

The most recent annual report from the Pentagon highlighted the growing threat of accidental or intentional launch of ballistic missiles, as well as the vulnerability of U.S. satellites to attack, as evidenced by China's 2007 missile test, which destroyed a satellite in orbit.

A defense official commenting on the proposal told the Washington Times that space-based ABM systems are necessary for global, rapid defense, "It's really the only way to defend the U.S. and its allies from anywhere on the planet". The official said such defenses were last considered during the late 1980s, as part of the Global Protection Against Limited Strike, or GPALS, a multi-prong system which used ground and sea-based interceptors, along with space-based platforms. The plan was cancelled by the Clinton Administration, which focused all work on short-range missiles only.

The U.S. announced last year that its ground-based Star Wars' missile defense system was operational and ready for use, though capable at present of covering only parts of the U.S. Plans to expand the system in Europe are under way.

Despite claims to the contrary, China is also apparently working on similar proposals, says China military affairs specialist Richard Fisher. The program, which China says it halted in the 1960s, has apparently been restarted with such systems as the SC-19 anti-satellite missile. According to Fisher, China is also trying to deploy space-warfare weapons, aircraft carrier groups, and a much larger MIRV'ed version of its nuclear ballistic missile arsenal.

Fisher, author of the new book, "China's Military Modernization: Building for Regional and Global Reach", says that by 2020, China "will be well on their way to assembling all the elements of global power that [the U.S.] has today".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sounds great but...
By reader1 on 10/17/2008 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 5
...biological weapons can fit in a coat pocket.

Safety is now and always will be an illusion.

The only way to keep a country safe is by eliminating the incentive to harm it, which is impossible. As long as humans are civil, they will hate each other.




RE: Sounds great but...
By thepalinator on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great but...
By InvertMe on 10/17/2008 2:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
All the military in the world wont save you from an airborn virus that you can see, smell or know it's there until you fall over dead. (I know a little dramatic)

I kinda think that's what the OP was getting at.


RE: Sounds great but...
By jadeskye on 10/17/2008 2:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
i agree. safety always has been an illusion. in my opinion the whole purpose of 9/11 was to shatter that illusion and i'd say it did a fairly good job of it.

Shame that in this case theres little one can do to prepare for such eventualities.


RE: Sounds great but...
By 67STANG on 10/17/2008 5:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
Sure there is, at least on an individual basis.... move to a small city or town.


RE: Sounds great but...
By onelittleindian on 10/18/2008 1:41:25 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
safety always has been an illusion. in my opinion the whole purpose of 9/11 was to shatter that illusion
I've never heard such a load of fatalistic, runny-nosed, flower-power whooey in my life. Safety is not an illusion. We've stopped a lot of terrorist attacks since 9/11, and pretty much everyone in the world knows that if you want to attack the US, you better plan on it being a suicide mission.

All 9/11 did was prove airplanes make great weapons. IF you're willing to die to use them. And with locked cabin doors, federal air marshals, and all the other new safety procedures, they ain't so great any more. Pretty soon jets will have autopilots that prevent them from being intentionally crashed at all.

If your dumb *** thinks safety is all "just an illusion" its only because you've lived your whole stupid life in a country that keeps you safe. Try living in a country that's gone through genocide, civil war, or something really dangerous and you'll won't ever say anything so stupid again. That is, if you live...which I seriously doubt you would. Low intelligence has a way of being weeded out of the gene pool in situations like that.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2008 1:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
^^ +6 post.


RE: Sounds great but...
By spuddyt on 10/19/2008 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are misinterpreting his meaning - he means Total safety is an illusion, like america almost believed that no one could touch it in any way back before 9/11, but now people feel the need to have extra security at airports, look out for suspiscious characters on trains, etc. you can almost always increase your relative safety, but as long as human beings are mortal, and as long as people can come and go as they wish, total safety is impossible


RE: Sounds great but...
By thepalinator on 10/17/2008 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 5
When that virus has to be researched, weaponized, and then delivered, a military will certainly help save you. You think brewing up some world-destroying killer virus is quick and easy?


RE: Sounds great but...
By sgw2n5 on 10/17/2008 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 1
Not near as difficult as one might think it is. There are at least 10,000 people in the US alone that could do this.

Microbiology isn't rocket science.


RE: Sounds great but...
By thepalinator on 10/17/2008 3:42:38 PM , Rating: 5
Nowhere near that many. Yeah, cultivating a virus isn't hard, but making and distributing a succesful weaponized one is a LOT harder.

Compare the anthrax attacks on the US. The FBI estimated that only about a dozen people had the skills to do that, and even still it only killed five people. The guy would have better luck with a gun in a crowded room.

Making a virus that kill millions (and not kill you in the process) IS rocket science. It's harder, actually.


RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great but...
By 1078feba on 10/17/2008 10:30:46 PM , Rating: 5
three words: it's a movie.


RE: Sounds great but...
By onelittleindian on 10/18/2008 2:01:54 AM , Rating: 3
Most people think all those things you see in Hollywood movies are really true. Things like "grenades explode in big clouds of flame" or "cars blow up if you shoot them" or "all big corporate CEOs have gangs of hired thugs willing to commit murder for them".


RE: Sounds great but...
By Chillin1248 on 10/18/2008 5:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
I always wished my Quartermaster would ask for some "Hollywood Grenades" to be shipped in, they seem to be 15X more effective than any grenade I've ever seen.

Alas, we are still stuck with the M61.

-------
Chillin


RE: Sounds great but...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2008 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
My favorite Hollywood myth is the shooting victim who gets knocked back several feet from the bullet's impact.


RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great but...
By energy1man on 10/18/2008 8:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Anthrax is a bacterium, not a virus. Overall your point is still mostly valid, though a bacterial infection would be harder to spread than a viral one.


RE: Sounds great but...
By bfonnes on 10/18/2008 8:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recall that time you're talking about killing anyone... Article?


RE: Sounds great but...
By Josett on 10/20/2008 12:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Pick [insert harmful substance], fill up some syringes with it, go to a supermarket and stick it in the fruit/milk/... packs.
There you have it.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Sumanji on 10/17/2008 2:04:40 PM , Rating: 3
lol maybe we should ask Japan to invade China again and see how the fare second time round?

I don't think they will have as much luck as 1937 ;)


RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 9:47:44 PM , Rating: 5
Well, let's see. To expand on your cute little joke:

We ask Japan to invade China.

They tell us that they have no offensive military, per the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and that we, the U.S. handle all of their Offensive military capacity.

They we say "Oh."

/

The Japanese weren't working on luck, they were working with a superior military, which has for the most part been dissolved into a small defense force which is bolstered by several US bases throughout the Far East. In the time of China (which for those who don't know, started several years ago), any country in the world who would attempt to invade China, including the U.S. would be squished like a bug. Look at how overextended we are already with just the Middle East. If we, and every other ally we have poured every available troop into China, they would make Vietnam look like the battle of 2004 Red Sox vs Cardinals (and I'll tell you we aren't the "RED" Sox in this battle.)

The only way we could hope to win in China would be a massive nuclear launch, which would be the worst Genocide in U.S. History, topping the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Slave trade, and of course the Extermination of the Native Americans.

But something tells me if it did go down, it wouldn't go down either of these ways. I find it more likely that China will just become the Economic center of the world in future years, with a well educated youth which has focused on strong ethical/moral values.

We should be worried more about the education, stabilization and infrastructure of Africa and the Middle East, which is the biggest threat IMHO.


RE: Sounds great but...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2008 2:09:25 AM , Rating: 3
> "We should be worried more about the education, stabilization and infrastructure of Africa and the Middle East, which is the biggest threat IMHO"

Middle East aside, I'm curious how you regard an Africa lacking both education and infrastructure as a serious threat to the US.


RE: Sounds great but...
By bfonnes on 10/18/2008 8:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Any region that is not stabilized can be used a base for an attack. Maybe not a physical attack, but there are much more ways to cause mayhem than just physical attacks in today's internet world. It'd be naivete not to think so. Respond if you like and I'll respond and tell you how.


RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/18/2008 8:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
I meant the middle east as a global threat, and the poor education/infrastructure of Africa south of the middle east more as a regional problem. Thanks for bringing my attention for the need for clarity. But you don't disagree with me do you?


RE: Sounds great but...
By LeftSide on 10/18/2008 7:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to China? I know they boast a million man army, but most of them are untrained farmers. Once you get past the main army, the rest of them were trained with sticks. Unless they have gone through a massive overhaul of their training program in the last 2 years, I wouldn't be worried.

Numbers mean nothing. The U.S. didn't take out the entire Iraqi Military by shooting every one of them, they took them out strategically . They took out their communications, then sent out pamphlets giving instructions on how to surrender. It was very effective. The actual war was very, very short. Its the Rebuilding of Iraq that is taking so long. I don't think the U.S. is going to war with China anytime soon, but I also don't think every Nation is afraid to invade based on numbers.


RE: Sounds great but...
By bangmal on 10/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great but...
By Ryanman on 10/19/2008 4:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah... your "mom with a baseball bat" rant holds up, especially since we've killed something like 20k insurgents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Effe...

Your entire post should be focused on how the war in Iraq is unjust, not how much ass coalition forces kick.
I'm sure whichever country you're from has a much more effective army than us.../sarc


RE: Sounds great but...
By B3an on 10/17/2008 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah because the US really won in Vietnam didn't it... just like with Iraq, how long was that meant to last again, a year? i also see that they have found Bin Laden and these imaginary Nukes. You couldn't even invade Canada in the 1800's.
WW2 is pretty much the only clear win the US has had in a war, and even then you missed atleast half of it, and were far away on a separate bit of land so were not bombed. The US military doesn't exactly have the best of records. But for some odd reason you yanks seem to think you're so great and will win easy... maybe thats why you get into so many wars and lose many.


RE: Sounds great but...
By bhieb on 10/17/2008 5:13:28 PM , Rating: 3
Wow really.

Assuming for a moment that your British (judging by Yanks). How dare you of all people claim we are arrogant and cocky. If I don't recall there was this shithole of a island in North West Europe that stroked its Naval penis for centuries around the globe. Dominating and killing thousands for Queen and country. If I'm not mistaken there was this little dispute with some colony in 1776 or so that you used the lame "they're too far away" excuse for as well.

All I'm saying is Like Father Like Son, where do you think we learned it from. Don't site back on your now high morals and pretend to be innocent in the matters of war.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Chaser on 10/17/2008 7:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Great Britain could not have survived without U.S. aid and without the specter of the US joining the conflict of WW2 outright. I'd say for your sake you should be very grateful for that record.

But it's short term memory, a complete lack of context from younger generation, anti-war, often anti-American euro historical revisionists that has replaced gratitude with contempt for the U.S.


RE: Sounds great but...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2008 7:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Very true, for both the previous posters. As stellar as the US military's record is, Great Britain's naval reputation during the Age of Sail was even more incredible.

I recall one battle where a British admiral attacked a substantially larger French fleet, won the fight, sinking, burning, or capturing a majority of the enemy forces -- yet was court-martialled upon returning home, for allowing several of French forces to escape.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Guttersnipe on 10/18/2008 1:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
bingo, just something to remember next time some european begs us to vote for obama so we can be "loved" again.

hundreds of thousands of americans died keeping europe and the uk free in the last century.

and now they all whine when they suffer a few losses in their half assed efforts in afganistan. there are cries to pull out, and that its hopeless. thats the love hundreds of thousands dead for their freedom buys. just remember that.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Dove2Three on 10/18/2008 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 1
The Europeans whine because they've been protected free of charge so long by the American military that they now think a military isn't needed. God help them when history reminds them otherwise.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Sandok on 10/18/2008 1:40:29 PM , Rating: 1
And the US has forgotten that without the French, they wouldn't be independant right now

And the French forgot that without barbarian invasions from the East, they wouldn't exist.

And the barbarians forgot that without blablalblabla.

Things go round and round people, stop being so embarrasingly stuckup on little facts.

Oh and Europe currently isn't really attracting any attention, the US is. And I'm just talking terrorism here, let's not go into the economy or such.


RE: Sounds great but...
By straycat74 on 10/18/2008 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Do a little research on the terror attacks in Europe.

Then look at the muslims essentially taking over European countries by simply moving in and multiplying. Check out the birthrates between muslims and citizens.

The muslims are woring their way in there, just like the socialists have been working there way and pushing their agenda here. Worst thing about the socialists/communists is they told us they were going to do it.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Note #'s 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24-32, 36, 39-42.

Notice how they need more and more people to give control to the government. Turn needs into rights. Housing, health care, food, shelter, "education" (my son (10) recently told me Columbus came here to steal gold from the Indians, which he learned from his teacher. You can say what you want about the events following his introduction on the Americas to the world, but you need to look at it through the eyes of the time in which it happened.)


RE: Sounds great but...
By tehbiz on 10/18/2008 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
except that the French monarchy that supported the independence of America was quickly overthrown during our country's birth and early development. Those people to whom we do owe gratitude were all beheaded long ago, only to turn France into what it is now.


RE: Sounds great but...
By theendofallsongs on 10/20/2008 12:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the French monarchy that supported the independence of America was quickly overthrown. Those people to whom we do owe gratitude were all beheaded long ago, only to turn France into what it is now.

Yessir. And don't forget the French were only helping to try to revenge themselves on the British, not because they were interested in spreading freedom or democracy.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Guttersnipe on 10/18/2008 1:32:43 AM , Rating: 3
not really, the military was achieving victories after suffering some propaganda losses. the vietcong were recieving unsustainable losses, but they basically won because they convinced the anti war crowd that the couldn't be beaten. their bluff worked. a people unwilling to fight cannot win, esp with a massive amount of folk basically pushing propaganda for the other side.

if the anti war movement were as strong and active during ww2 we would have lost that as well.


RE: Sounds great but...
By 1078feba on 10/20/2008 2:06:29 PM , Rating: 3
Bravo.

Well said.

In 'Nam, we won all the battles, yet we somehow "lost" the war. The only real problem with how we waged that war was that the Commanders on the ground had to phone D.C. to get permission to go to the head.

We learned our lessons on that. With over 10 years in the Marine Corps, believe me, those lessons were shoved down our throats. Unity of Command, Commander's Intent and the felxibility to make decisions on the fly as events on the ground require.

"An adequate decision made in a timely manner is far better than a great decision made too late."
Fleet Marine Force Manual 1.1 - Warfighting

The only thing really asked in return is that you learn from your mistakes. No more flushing a good man and his career down the john for simple failure. And no more Monday morning quaterbacking.


RE: Sounds great but...
By SiliconAddict on 10/17/2008 8:18:31 PM , Rating: 5
As Iraq has shown military force can not stop terrorists. If you think that we's stopped terrorist activity in Iraq think again. They are simply laying low. I've always found it humorous anytime I hear sabre rattlers claim we are seeking out terrorists in Iraq. Oh really. So I guess terrorists all wear red shirts that says Down with the US on them so its easy to target them....retarded.

No the reality is you want to stop violence and terrorism you need to give people a reason to not want to commit violence. Yes there will always be a Krazy Kim in the world. But the actions of the US over these last years....terrorists are created through despiration. And of course no one in Iraq EVER feels like they have run out of options. Right? Right?

That said. There is something to be said for having a big stick of your own. But it doesn't mean you pull it out and wave it around like an asshat. And there is the crux of the situation. America is seen as the asshats of the world, and to a certain extent over the last 8 year there are factions of this country who HAVE acted like asshats. Fix our relations, our standing in the world, and how people see us before we start rolling out new defensive measures. No one trusts the US as it is. How would a missile defense shield make things better.

I swear to god. Does anyone even know what the word diplomacy is now a days? Bush's concept over the last 8 year has been to threaten them, and take like a good 'o boy.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Manch on 10/17/2008 9:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I guess terrorists all wear red shirts that says Down with the US on them so its easy to target them....retarded.

Well one of them at least does!

http://www.circulosbolivarianosbr.kit.net/imagens/...

quote:
No the reality is you want to stop violence and terrorism you need to give people a reason to not want to commit violence.


Well by Nov 14th there will be no more Marines in Fallujah.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html


RE: Sounds great but...
By whiskerwill on 10/17/2008 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As Iraq has shown military force can not stop terrorists
Iraq has shown just the opposite. There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on the US since we invaded. They're all too busy in Iraq. And even there, the US military surge has been so successful that even the hardcore democrat doves in congress have admitted it was a success.

quote:
But the actions of the US over these last years....terrorists are created through despiration.
Nearly all the terrorists in Iraq are from OTHER countries in the region. We didn't create them, their own religion did that.

quote:
Does anyone even know what the word diplomacy is now a days? Bush's concept over the last 8 year has been to threaten them
Did you never read a paper before 8 years ago? Clinton launched far more military actions than Bush did. Invasions in Bosnia, Serbia Kosovo, attacks on Afghanistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, plenty of others. Clinton even threatened Haiti with the largest airborne assault since WW2. Clinton even bombed Iraq, in Operation Desert Fox, and signed a law to fund opposition groups to overthrow the government there.

Learn some history and stop embarrassing yourself.


RE: Sounds great but...
By 1078feba on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great but...
By cmdrdredd on 10/18/2008 10:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how every left wing liberal dumbasscrat around the place gets rated 5 and everyone with a brain and an understanding of the world with a conservative view gets rated down.

shows how far the US has dropped in both education level and common sense. Pathetic...simply pathetic.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Muirgheasa on 10/19/2008 6:55:29 AM , Rating: 1
Or possibly it's not really funny, because they have a point? The idea that the US may be partly responsible for terrorism because of its actions isn't really all that crazy you know, equally not the idea that through good faith you might encourage good (or at least better) international relations...


RE: Sounds great but...
By 1078feba on 10/20/2008 2:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
No worries.

Sometimes, around here, it's like a badge of honor.

Just ask FITCamaro.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Samus on 10/19/2008 4:33:40 AM , Rating: 1
I'd argue our intelligence, especially during the cold war-era, saved us more than our military ever could. Look at our military's success in other facets during that period...


RE: Sounds great but...
By omgwtf8888 on 10/20/2008 11:42:53 AM , Rating: 1
We have the best defense against China that anyone could ever thing of... Get them to invest all of their money here, and then they would never do anything to harm us.... LULZ


RE: Sounds great but...
By danrien on 10/17/2008 2:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
nothing that you just said made any sense.


RE: Sounds great but...
By whiskerwill on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great but...
By Myg on 10/17/2008 4:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Made sense up till the "As long as humans are civil, they will hate each other."

Kinda lost me there, but the general perception is good.

Seems like you just found a Practical use for Christianity ;-)


RE: Sounds great but...
By rippleyaliens on 10/18/2008 12:38:27 AM , Rating: 4
Well, here it is in simple english..
If you are walking with your buddy, down a street, and a guy wants to beat you up. If you are the weakling looking person, boom you get jumped. simple strategy, you fight the person you think you can easily win.
NOW if you had a gun, and the guy made a movement to you, and you pulled out gun, the bad guy, will probably stop in his tracts. Unless he had a gun himself..
This story goes back and forth..

The reason for having a huge military, and a heavy defense, how ever the illusion, it is a BIGGGGGG message, that will stop 99% of whoever is thinking of attacking us, or an ally.

You can get killed walking your doggie. (heat)..
the key is showing your potential attacker that hitting you would be a veryyyy bad/costly idea.

Why do we need a missile system. EASY,, We arent worried about the country with 10 nukes, we are VERYYYY worried about the country with just 1, and wants to use it.

A Bio Weapon, (we alreaddy have a TONNNN of them), the key is that we have it... So does china.. so does russia.. Why arent anyone using them, well, goes with the first statements.. if you have something, and your enemy doesnt you have the power, but if you both have it, you are less likely to want to deploy anything, for fear of it happening to you. Terrorist=Freedom fighters. Technically, the USA's forefathers were terrorists against England. Religious fighters.. Same thing, Christians/Muslims/other.. Been fighting for over 2000 years, and will continue.


RE: Sounds great but...
By tehbiz on 10/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great but...
By Dribble on 10/20/2008 5:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
So you spend billions producing the ultimate missile defence system and said enemy just delivers their nuke by some other method - just stick it on a plane, boat, van, etc. Missile defence is useless.
The restart of the project and the 5 billion has got more to do with political lobbying by defence contractors looking for some blank cheques to spend.


RE: Sounds great but...
By JediJeb on 10/20/2008 3:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's easier to throw a rock over a fence and hit your target than to throw a rock through a fence and hit your target. This would just help put a fence over our heads to make it a little harder to hit us, not impossible.


RE: Sounds great but...
By William Gaatjes on 10/19/2008 7:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
And that is why education is the most important thing.
Every country children must go to school to learn to think independently and objectively to make the right choice.
To have the freedom to learn to think before you act.
This is not always the case and feeds frustations and emotional outbursts, and many people in the wrong emotional state are (ab)used. I don't think the human race will automatically hate eachother. I do think that being able to conversate on a mature level helps a lot. And objective media is most important.

I always found a certain piece of text from the bible interesting. It is written that people once spoke one language and then where seperated and forced to not understand eachother anymore (Genesis chapter 11).
Now it is not relevant if this is true or not but...
I just want to say with this that we not only speak different languages but also have different cultural behaviours. Therefore empathy and using your common sense must be number 1 on the list of things to do. And for all good reasons, certainly not on the bucket list.

Trust far outways paranoia and now that more countries are coming out of the dark area, less people will be interested in war as long as they have the freedom to think before they act and an enjoyable life. We will build our tower of babel once again. And what then will happen who will know...


Idea
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2008 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 5
Just a thought, but I'd say we use the funds to build a giant laser satellite that can strike anywhere in the world and name it SOL.




RE: Idea
By Fronzbot on 10/17/2008 1:40:12 PM , Rating: 5
Even better:
Train a bunch of kids via video games so one of them can rise to the top and then command a fleet to defeat the Buggers!


RE: Idea
By Myrandex on 10/17/2008 1:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Who would run for Hegemon then?

Jason


RE: Idea
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 2:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
What a fantastic Ender's Game reference. How I loved that book.


RE: Idea
By Manch on 10/17/2008 9:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Remember "Full Spectrum Warrior"?
Based off of a Army training "Game"


RE: Idea
By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 10:00:22 PM , Rating: 4
The Last Starfighter FTMFW


RE: Idea
By ianweck on 10/19/2008 7:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Last Starfighter FTMFW


yeah!


RE: Idea
By Chillin1248 on 10/18/2008 5:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, this is more true than you realize.

Recently I've had the privilege to operate a Remote Control Weapon System (RCWS):

====
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/...

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/...

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/...

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/...

====

And I got to tell you, it feels no different than controlling a video game; except with better graphics and higher stakes.

-------
Chillin


RE: Idea
By maverick85wd on 10/18/2008 6:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
we would still need to work on genetically altering intelligences so he's got a second in charge


RE: Idea
By curryj02 on 10/17/2008 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 3
then make the entire satellite system controlled by 'a golden psp' then give it to kenny...


RE: Idea
By jadeskye on 10/17/2008 2:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
can we name it the hammer of dawn? sounds more badass...


RE: Idea
By therealnickdanger on 10/17/2008 2:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what it is about that name, but "Hammer of Dawn" is probably the most badass name for a weapons system that I've ever heard.


RE: Idea
By MatthiasF on 10/17/2008 5:25:43 PM , Rating: 1
I dunno. I've met a few Dawns and I wasn't all too impressed with their hammers.


RE: Idea
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 5:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Got my preorder of GOW2 all set. :)


RE: Idea
By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 10:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Or the name of a pron about a Lesbian named Dawn with a strap-on, I'll let everyone's imagination take it from here.


RE: Idea
By KaiserCSS on 10/17/2008 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
Rather than a realtively expensive super-laser satellite, why not use kinetic orbital bombardment?

It seems like that would cause more damage, and besides, the Navy has been working on that railgun of their's to be deployed on ships. Only dropping, say, a tungsten rod from orbit wouldn't require much energy to send it shooting through the atmosphere. I believe this idea was proposed in the 60's, Project Thor, I think.


RE: Idea
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2008 4:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's right, Thor's Hammer. Bow down and obey!


RE: Idea
By 1078feba on 10/17/2008 11:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
MOLJNIR FTMFW!!!!


RE: Idea
By danrien on 10/17/2008 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 3
other benefits of this alternate plan include the ability to carve every single president's likeness into any landmass on earth.


Small correction
By TheCurve on 10/17/2008 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Jon Kyl is a senator for Arizona , not Arkansas.




RE: Small correction
By codeThug on 10/17/2008 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
from


RE: Small correction
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2008 3:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Corrected, thanks. AR/AZ is one of my perennial errors.


RE: Small correction
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 3:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Just as long as you did not mix it up with AK. Big difference there... :)


Building a space defense system is ludicrous!
By randomly on 10/17/2008 3:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
If China is building one, we should just buy one from them. It'll be much cheaper.




RE: Building a space defense system is ludicrous!
By mmatis on 10/17/2008 3:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Except they're smart enough to not give us a working model. Unlike the US was during the 90s, when we gave the Chinese significant missile launch and guidance capability.


By randomly on 10/17/2008 4:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
They owe us a favor after this launch of Intelsat 708
http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/vits/Long_Ma...

for telling them the problem with their rockets was in the welds. They said only 6 people died, but clearly from the footage it incinerated an entire village, non-official estimates for fatalities was in the 600+ range. BTW after that year 1996, the Chinese launch record has been flawless.

And it doesn't have to actually work, as long as people think it does. Everybody in American politics knows that's it's all about appearances, not substance.


By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 10:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
They'll give us a working model, but it'll be laced with the date-rape drug and covered in asbestos.

But that would just make them that much more effective!!


Missile Defense System Limitations
By SpaceJumper on 10/17/2008 2:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
Shooting down one missile may be easy to do but 1000 missiles at the same time is not. Missile defense has its own limitation. Missile defense will have a hard time chasing intelligent missile that can change direction if it detected danger ahead.




RE: Missile Defense System Limitations
By TheFace on 10/17/2008 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why you build a network of these satellites, in addition to the patriot anti-missle missle. While having those 747's with anti-missle tech, and various other technologies. You don't just build one thing.
Just look at the Maginot line, it had big guns and pillboxes for tanks AND troops. See how effective things are when you make them impenetrable?


By stryfe on 10/17/2008 3:41:55 PM , Rating: 3
“Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”
- General George S. Patton

The is no such thing as inpenetrable.


big stick
By codeThug on 10/17/2008 2:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait for "Rods from God"

http://orbitalvector.com/Space%20Weapons/Orbital%2...

There is just something way-cool about 20 foot long tungsten rods coming down at 36,000 ft/sec.

Plus it has a catchy sound to it.




RE: big stick
By TheFace on 10/17/2008 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only issue I have with this tech is that when the satellite "pushed" the rod out using an EM field, the rod would effectively "push" back on the satellite ruining it's orbit and trajectory. The satellite would need some large thrusters to overcome a launch.


RE: big stick
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2008 9:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Such a satellite doesn't need to "launch" the rods at high speed; they're already moving at orbital velocity, after all. They simply need a small deorbit burn.


Actually makes the world far less safe
By Tavoc on 10/19/2008 6:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
The whole idea of building space based ICBM defense is expensive, unlikely to work, and if it were actually effective, would make America far less safe in the long run.

Lets say that our scientists develop an amazing system that can destroy thousands of missiles with a high rate of accuracy and reliability. Lets also ignore how easy it would be to destroy/disable a relatively fragile and vulnerable satellite.

Countries like China and Russia wouldn't simply let such an imbalance of power occur, they would defeat the system in the cheapest and most effective way possible.

Unfortunately for us (and the world), it would mean producing vast additional quantities of nuclear warheads, and emphasizing alternate delivery methods like submarine launched cruise missiles, airplane delivered bombs, and suitcase weapons.

So instead of the relative safety of having a few thousand ICBMs sitting in tightly secured silos that are in good communication with political and military leadership. You have hundreds of thousands of smaller warheads sitting at airbases, medium/short range missile launch sites, small naval vessels and vast numbers of submarines.

So you've basically just dramatically increased the chance that a nuclear weapon will be used by accident (poor communication or safety controls), or even more scary, stolen and placed in the hands of terrorists who would actually *WANT* to use it.

The fact is that the only people who are actually likely to use a weapon if they had it are sub-national Terrorist groups. Both because they have the ideological insanity to do it, and the ability to avoid any immediate retaliation and/or deny involvement. By building space based ICBM defense we are blocking a delivery method they would never have access to use in the first place, and increasing the number and size of weapons they are most likely to gain access to and use.

If we, as a world, have to have nuclear weapons, ICBMs are the safest way to do it, and we should be actively opposing any measure to decrease their effectiveness. The alternative is much more dangerous.




RE: Actually makes the world far less safe
By theendofallsongs on 10/20/2008 12:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole idea of building space based ICBM defense is expensive, unlikely to work
You fruitcakes said the same thing about ground-based ballistic missile defenses. And yet they're working just fine now. Space based missile defenses are even easier in theory than land based ones.

quote:
Lets also ignore how easy it would be to destroy/disable a relatively fragile and vulnerable satellite
If that satellite can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, its not exactly very easy. And any nuclear missile someone shoots at a satellite is one less they have to aim at NYC or LA.

quote:
So instead of the relative safety of having a few thousand ICBMs sitting in tightly secured silos that are in good communication with political and military leadership. You have hundreds of thousands of smaller warheads sitting at airbases, medium/short range missile launch sites, small naval vessels and vast numbers of submarines
Bad logic. Russia ALREADY has nuclear weapons sitting at airbases, submarines, and mobile medium/short range launch sites. Also there is nothing "safe" about having thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at you, hoping to hell the other side doesn't intentionally or accidentally launch a few at you.

Third I'm betting the US can afford to build more interceptors than Russia can build missiles. Now that oil prices are crashing, their economy (which was never anywhere near as big as ours to begin with) is in an even bigger crisis than we are.


By Tavoc on 10/21/2008 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You fruitcakes said the same thing about ground-based ballistic missile defenses. And yet they're working just fine now. Space based missile defenses are even easier in theory than land based ones.


Fruitcakes? I guess being reasonable about the most effective way to spend our military dollars makes you gay? By "Working just fine" do you mean that it has passed a couple of controlled tests after several decades of research and tens of billions of dollars? It is yet to be seen how effective it would be in combat against the wide array of countermeasures that are undoubtedly being designed for it. Even then its a slightly different argument since you can harden and defend your ABM sites, and once a workable design is completed, it could be scaled and deployed much more cheaply.

quote:
If that satellite can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, its not exactly very easy. And any nuclear missile someone shoots at a satellite is one less they have to aim at NYC or LA.


Um, they wouldn't be shooting down Satellites with ICBMs. They would be shooting them down with non-nuclear tipped, smaller, faster, specialized missiles which would be much harder to shoot down. I'm surpised you don't know this, we even allowed a documentary to be filmed about the shootdown of our own aging military satellite. These shootdown missles are far less expensive than an ICBM with MIRVs and waaay cheaper than a ABM satellite.

quote:
Bad logic. Russia ALREADY has nuclear weapons sitting at airbases, submarines, and mobile medium/short range launch sites. Also there is nothing "safe" about having thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at you, hoping to hell the other side doesn't intentionally or accidentally launch a few at you.


Uh, yes of course they do, but to date that is a relatively small portion of their overall nuclear arsenal since it is not the most efficent and effective delivery method. It is the natural consequence of an ABM system that works that they are going to dramatically increase the number of non-ICBM nuclear weapons to compensate. I don't want any more small nuclear weapons under the guard of conscripted, poor, and disgruntled Russian or Chinese soliders than we already have.

quote:
Third I'm betting the US can afford to build more interceptors than Russia can build missiles. Now that oil prices are crashing, their economy (which was never anywhere near as big as ours to begin with) is in an even bigger crisis than we are.


Are you kidding me? You think it is a valuable use of our nations already strapped resources to get into an expensive and pointless arms race with Russia and China?

If you haven't noticed, the size of our economy will be smaller than China's within 10-20 years and thanks to exporting energy and weapons Russia will always have a steady supply of cash, no matter how messed up their economy is. We on the other hand have massive budget deficits, an astronomical national debt, and much better things to spend our money on.


Yet more spending...
By Screwballl on 10/18/2008 11:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
... by the liberal majority. Of course they will find a way to blame Bush somehow.
On the S.3001, there were more Democrats voting Yes on this bill (200) than there are total Republicans in the Senate (199).
I say this specific one is a waste. Put that money towards something more worthwhile, like building a highrise in a major metropolitan center that can house homeless people that also includes a mental health center, job training center and a chow hall. Think of the jobs it creates and extra money that can be collected for taxes and also help the economy.




RE: Yet more spending...
By dever on 10/18/2008 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, like Pruit Igoe.

You'd think the socialist schemes to diminish human rights would become a little more sophisticated over the years.


By roadrun777 on 10/18/2008 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 3
I think the experiment to divide them and keep them warring forever was a bad decision, it seems they wiped the planet of life. Maybe we should have tried to keep control some other way?
Diversity from adversity? Eventually adversity results in complete failure of the system especially one that is exponential. It's hard to rule a desolate planet, there is no one to rob from anymore. A never ending game to control everything or destroy it all? The legacy of the human, eventually they got tired of the game and stopped playing and their supreme ruler decided to wipe the earth of life, and just then a small rock smashed through the space station extinguishing the last of the human species.




By Fnoob on 10/18/2008 7:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
You just get a new batch of indoor sir?


$5 million dollars
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: $5 million dollars
By Shawn on 10/17/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
$5 million is only for research


RE: $5 million dollars
By djxtreme on 10/18/2008 12:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
cheap. Can be used to shoot down asteroids too.


tech transfer
By aapocketz on 10/17/2008 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
it sounds like like 5 million is probably just enough to retain a small group of people who are up to date on this technology. There are certain realms of technology which are very specialized where there are only a few experts who really have the knowledge to execute. You don't want those people going hungry. We don't need the space based weapon now perhaps, but we may need one really quick in the future. We are probably paying for updates to the blueprints and maintain knowledge retention, and effective technology transfer.




RE: tech transfer
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2008 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's for a preliminary study, yes...most likely to be done by Sandia, Los Alamos, or Brookhaven.


Satelite anti ICBM is so easy to shoot down.
By Ascanius on 10/18/2008 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 3
I find this proposal directly offensive to any kind of intelligence as most know that Satelite Anti ICBM is so easy to shoot down.

Both Russia and China can shoot down any satelite if they want to and have made clear statement about it, just as how hillarioues they fund the U.S. star wars program.

You can shoot them down with a whole array of things, right from laser, railgun, missile barrage "several missiles at once" and alst but not known to must, Zepto weapons, working on the Physics of the primary state of matter, Ether, call it what you want.

This is just another "lets make weapons/war to make the economy better" nothing else and it disgust me, especially when it comes so cheap, like here in Denmark where they want us building submarines that have no place in modern warfare worth talking about.




By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2008 12:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
> "Both Russia and China can shoot down any satelite if they want to and have made clear statement about it, just as how hillarioues they fund the U.S. star wars program"

Which proves how effective they believe it really is. If they truly believed space-based ABM technology was worthless, they'd just keep mum and allow the US to squander resources on it.

The fact is, the Soviets -- and now the Russians -- have fought the deployment of ABM technology bitterly. . . because they realize how such a widespread system would undermine their own military power, which is predicated upon their ability to decimate any nation on the planet with nuclear ballistic missiles.


Sounds like a waste of more money
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 10/17/2008 6:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
We already have SDI, it's called HARRP.




By Ammohunt on 10/20/2008 5:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
HARRP is weather control i believe


Uh oh
By Ammohunt on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Uh oh
By Dove2Three on 10/18/2008 12:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Rated down for speaking the truth. How sad.


I'm a bit disappointed here.
By rcc on 10/21/2008 11:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Northrop-Grummond built DSP satellite. These current satellites only detect ballistic missile launches, rather than shoot them down.


Is this the same as that little known company, Northrop Grumman?




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki