| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 851
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 2:13 pm: | 
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Not at all. An expensive and failure-prone weapons program will generate years of pork barrrel contracts, especially if the failures can be blamed on problems that will be solved for the next test.
Moreover, since these systems don't protect against any meaningful threat, they will never suffer the embarassment of failing in action. The make-believe can go on indefinitely.
What you observed was a complete success, just not for you. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Name of the new missile system: The Maginot Line. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Name of the North Korean 1994 Payoff that was really the work of a renegade Jimmy Carter, endorsed by Madeline "Nations of Concern" Albright and signed by William Neville Clinton: "Peace In Our Minds." |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 711
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
cjc, why must you defend Bush by comparing him to Clinton and others? Fine. Clinton sucked as a President. Can you defend Bush on his own merits, rather than constantly refering back to Clinton? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Rastro -- to dismiss my comparison of Bush's foreign policy with that which proceeded him merely as Clinton-related bashing is akin to writing off Scott Ritter because he tried to sleep with a 16 year old. Please, please -- what of the merits of my argument? Nixon, Bush 41 or anyone pursuing the policy of appeasement before Bush took Kim Jong Il for the lying nut that he is would also get slammed by me, for I believe that a strong, active, military-backed foreign policy is the only way to deal with armed, lying dictators, and especially communists.
The thread was started to cheer on failed missile tests, and perhaps throw a party if a US serviceman died in the process for all the juicy political points it may offer Democrats. It's a political thread, Rastro. As was my response.
"Constantly" referring back to Clinton, do I? An objective person wouldn't even grant the use of "frequent" in relation to my postings. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 712
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
cjc, you're kidding, right? When we talk about Bush lying, you talk about Clinton. When we talk about Iraq, you bring up Bosnia. The only reason that "constant" might not be fitting your sheer volume of posts.
And your analogy makes no sense to me. What does Scott Ritter's situation have to do with comparing Bush to Clinton?
I can't speak for RL's motives (though I do agree they are typically suspect). And maybe he was cheering about a failed test. but I see no where that anyone says or implies that they would be happy if a soldier was killed or injured. That is you projecting what you think people here are thinking.
Finally, the merits of your argument? You didn't make an argument. Snide comments are not an argument. Had you said that in the first place, I wouldn't have jumped on your comparison. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3136
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Rastro -- I'm not aware of me allowing a Bush lie because Clinton was a liar. Please show me.
I bring up Scott Ritter because many discount him (like referencing Clinton tangentially or specifically) because he's an alleged pedophile rather than examining the merits of his WMD claims.
And my shorthand goading for someone to take me on by supporting the 1994 policy of appeasement with N. Korea wasn't obvious enough. I'll try to be more thorough so it doesn't appear only as a snide comment. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 713
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, I can't search MOL for author and content at the same time. So I retract my previous comment, since I don't have a cite.
As for your other comments, thanks. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
"and perhaps throw a party if a US serviceman died in the process"
Some of you are absolutely addicted to bull-••••.
You want someone to engage you in a debate? To weigh the merit of your arguments? Well then CUT THE CRAP. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Sex with a 16-year old girl isn't pedophilia.
In two states, Hawaii and Pennsylvania, 14 years is the age of consent.
In Virginia, 18 is the age of consent. However, a person can only be prosecuted for rape if the victim is under 13 years old. It is also considered only a misdemeanor if a person over 18 has consensual intercourse with a child aged 15 or older.
In Indiana, where the age of consent is 16, there is no longer a crime of statutory rape. Instead, the state can charge an adult with child molestation if the child is under age 14, or with sexual misconduct if the minor is 14 or 15 years old. However, the sexual misconduct charge can only be leveled at people 18 years and older.
The legal age of marriage with parental consent is 16 in many places, and in some cases (the Canadian province of Quebec) as low as 14.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2925
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:28 am: |
|
Montagnard,
Somehow, I think your post ended up in the wrong topic. But I wanted to add that any of Scott Ritter's alledged misdeeds would be considered youthful indiscretions if you were a Repbulican member of Congress. Ah, Henry Hyde made such a contribution to our moral fabric with that comment. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
And now... back to the topic.
Monty's sarcasm aside... does anyone know why the developers of the system were allowed two years between tests? That, combined with the unfortunate lack of success, make this immense and costly project appear to be something of a boondoggle.
I support the development of a system that can effectively protect the entire country from long-range missile attacks... but it would appear that this ain't it. We're talking about mind-bogglingly complex systems and the absolute cutting edge of technology, and it is only reasonable to allow some missteps along the way. But doesn't there also have to be some accountability when there is so much money and effort being spent? |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
I worked on some of these systems while in the Navy. Well worked on them is a strong word. I held up a telemetry cone on the deck of the ship for hours at a time. A year or two between tests isn’t that long of a time. The data picked up from one test is immense. Well this particular test may be different. But all of the data being crunched and all of the scientists putting together new tests that they need run take a while.
These missiles aren’t Skin-to-Skin. Meaning there is no intention of hitting anything with the missile. Explosives, shrapnel, Radio waves, or anything else is used to bring down the incoming missile. And trying to calculate the disperse patterns is a time consuming effort.
As for cost. Government contractors. This thing is starting to cost way to much, but once the project is started and has gotten this far what is the option?
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Interesting, I would have thought that today's computers could chew up a test's worth of data in at least a few months.
Apparently, the recent failure appears to be in the ground equipment, not in the missile itself, which is encouraging. But until they can get one of these things off the ground, we really have no indication of how good the missile itself is. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
The computer obviously help but the data that we collected on the ship took up about 100 drive packs (it looks like 5 vinyl records stacked on top of each other). It would have been unreasonable to fly them off the ship because of the size. So we held them for about a month or so (Until we got to a port that had the capability to fly them to CA). We could have figured out a way to fly them off or pull into port early but that would have been expensive, and taken the ship off patrol. So all told I would guess that the data didn’t even all get to the labs for 2-3 months.
Then if the computer could read it all and produce read able results, maybe another 1-2 months. Then the Scientists read it and run thought some other data for a another month or two. Time really does start to pile up.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 714
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Having worked as a Defense contractor, I can attest to everything Brett is saying and then some. The really tough part is not just sifting through the data, but coming up with corrections without scrapping the entire design and starting over.
That's not to say the design is necessarily flawed, but consider what must be done:
-Data gathered from test
-Data crunched to identify cause of malfunction
-Design fix to cause of malfunction
-Model new fix
-Computerized testing of new fix
-Build new system components
-Unit test new system components
-Assemble new missile
-Integrate new system into ground station
-Schedule missile test so that all the bigwigs that want to be there can be there
-Prep for test (set up sensors, telemetry recorders, etc. to gather data so you can start the whole process over again).
Throw in delays in the process for funding, design reviews, meetings, and general administrivia and logistics(such as the process Brett describes in getting the data to the vendor), and a year or two is not all that long.
Note that even if the test had worked perfectly, there would still be many more tests to go. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3139
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
notehead -- that 'throwing a party at the death of a US serviceman" wasn't directed at the well thought-out, reasoned and highly patriotic people on the Left that populate MOL. Rather, as Kurt Andersen of New York Magazine put it:
"But for our local antiwar supermajority, the Iraq elections were simply the most vertiginous moment of a two-year-long roller-coaster ride. By last November, they’d hoped the U.S. would see things their way—and it was some solace that by January, a solid majority of the country apparently agreed with New York that Iraq was a mess and a misadventure.
Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team. (I may prefer the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, but I cannot bear the spectacle of Steinbrenner’s gloating.) Three months after failing to defeat Bush in our election, plenty of New Yorkers privately, half-consciously hoped for his comeuppance in Iraq’s. You know who you are. Last week, you found yourselves secretly . . . heartened—and appalled—by the stories of the Marine general who said it was “a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people” in Afghanistan, and about the possible Islamist drift of the Shiites who will now govern Iraq. When military officers show themselves to be callous warmongers, and neocon military adventurism looks untenable, certain comfortable assumptions are reaffirmed."
I was referring to some on this board who inhabit the 'nutty fringe.'
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Until somebody actually indicates that loss of innocent life would be desirable, just because it would taint Bush in some way, it his the height of rudeness to ascribe that feeling to them.
That general's remarks, by the way, were totally out of line. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 879
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
 |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Rastro & Brett: I guess I should have realized that two years might not be so long after all. Especially after all the time I've worked in Dilbert-esque companies -- the largest of which is, of course, the U.S. government.
One has to wonder, however, when it is time to pull the plug. On a purely financial level, there must be a point at which too much money has been thrown into a project and there is not enough indication of likely success to keep going. I suppose that point has not yet been reached, but I wonder who is keeping a close eye on this?
On a functional level... who do we need this system to defend ourselves from? There's still plenty of instability around the world, but I can't see any long-range missile threat against us at the moment, except for N.Korea, or possibly China a few years down the road depending on how various things go. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Brett & Rastro: Thanks for some inside info on how this stuff actually gets tested. Very informative perspective. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3143
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
It may turn out that parts or even the whole of this system won't work. I believe it wasn't designed to render an advanced nuclear system worthless like that of Russia, China or even France but more like rising and primitive systems like N. Korea and Iran. To wait until systems of hostile countries develop real capability would be too late. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Missile defense is a dumb strategy because the attacker can devise countermeasures much more cheaply than the defender can devise additional defenses. It's an arms race that drives the defender into ever-increasing expenditure just to preserve the status quo.
You can see, possibly, why it has such appeal for defense contractors and their paid shills. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 880
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
Missile defense made much more sense when we were contemplating an enemy who'd sit in their country, presumably the USSR, and hit buttons that launched bombs at us. You know, Global Thermonuclear War.
How is a missile defense system going to stop a suitcase bomb in the subway? |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Actually, it never made any sense. The reason that the ABM treaty was signed was the fear of the destabilization that would result from the development of an ABM system. Without getting into a whole discourse on deterence theory I will give one example. The day before the US put an effective ABM system in place the USSR would face the prospect of using its missles, or finding them useless in the face of a US that still had missles.
Now this never came to pass because no effective ABM system has ever been developed. There is not even the faint prospect of developing a system that could stop even the current Russian ICBM force.
Indeed, it seems unlikely that any of the proposed systems will be effective, not just because of the technological problems which cause failure in all but rigged tests, but because of the coutermeasures that an opponent can take. From slightly complex, like decoys, to the utterly simple, like putting the bomb in a shipping container. All the other side needs to do is fire one more dummy missle than the system can stop, and the fire the real one. Bush said at one point in talking about his budget cuts that he was going after failed programs. This boondogle should be on the top of his list. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
I think this letter to the editor of the NYT is on point:
Our current system of missile defense - known as "mutually assured destruction" - has worked flawlessly night and day for half a century. It promises nuclear annihilation for any country that attacks us with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Yet the Bush administration persists in its efforts to spend a reported $50 billion over the next five years on a new system that has failed to work even in carefully planned tests. In other words, the president would inflict $50 billion of damage to our economy without our enemies having to fire a shot.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page