Mark, I can remember naysayers on this blog a couple years ago decrying missile defense as a total waste of time based on a couple unsuccessful initial tests. Guess they were wrong, heh.

How many successful tests?
They're blowing smoke Noonan -- you know it and so does everyone else.
The system has NEVER been tested successfully except against prearraneged targets -- that will be the legacy of Bush and Reagan -- incompetence!

"How many successful tests?
They're blowing smoke Noonan -- you know it and so does everyone else.
The system has NEVER been tested successfully except against prearraneged targets -- that will be the legacy of Bush and Reagan -- incompetence!"

FYI Sal,
All missile tests are against prearranged targets. The only tests not against targets arranged by us are when the enemy actually fires at us, and it sounds to me from libs that until that happens, we don't have a right to build a missile defense. I think if you're going to make this kind of point, we're going to need a retraction from you when this actually works, think you'll be able to handle it?

I personally know engineers working on SDI at the(unnamed) company.

When asked if it works or ever will with current technology they simply chuckle and say, "No, but it's a paycheck."

Wade

Morris, thanks for pointing out the obvious to ol' Sal. Duh. I guess he thinks the only way to test a defense system is to wait till we're fired upon?

The absolute obtuseness of the BS crowd never ceases to amaze me. It's like the example I gave of the terrorists going from house to house killing people, with the LLL's house next on their list, and his response was that he "would go away for the weekend".

I do believe the BS motto is "Dare To Be Dumb".

Regarding prearranged targets, Sal is right, and Morris and Amiranta are the ones ignoring the obvious.

When we send a "prearranged target" to be intercepted by an SDI test, the SDI counter-missile knows the missile's launch time, trajectory, and target in advance.

It is absurd to think that the enemy would send us the time, launching point, and trajectory of its missile in advance -- yet this is precisely the information that the existing "successful" SDI test have relied upon.

A more realistic test CAN be constructed without waiting for our enemies to fire upon us (and surely Morris and Almiranta know this). We could have our SDI engineers put a system into “standby mode” and then tell other divisions to fire an unarmed test missile, at an unknown time and with an unknown target destination, and see if the system in standby mode can intercept it.

So, you see, we really don’t have to wait for our enemy to fire upon us in order to have a realistic test of our anti-missile systems. But so far, we have not had a successful test except against pre-arranged targets whose launch times and targets are known in advance.

...that will be the legacy of Bush and Reagan -- incompetence!

Reagan brought down the Iron Curtain, and he was incompetent? You're a boob, Sallie...

LOL Almiranta!!

I'm glad to hear the missile defense system will be ready next year. This is good news for all Americans, including Sal (although I would bet $1M he won't admit it).

They say it'll be ready next year, but you know how these guys operate. That sucker is already operational; you can bank on it...

This is the same hogwash argument about homosexuals.

You can hate the sin (of being gay) while not hate the sinner.

Yeah, right.

Wade

A partial system is currently operational apparently. They have a few interceptors up and running for "rudimentary" protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense

I heard about it from someone on the program years ago.

I am surprised they never promoted the fact that SDI is up and running...

yekepyt,
If you go to the MDA webiste, you'll see the amazing progress of missile defense. You may think that Sal doesn't see it because he's being a tough consumer of information, but that's not it. It doesn't fit Sal's political perspective, so he dismisses it. Negotiations failed dozens of times with Saddam, but people like Sal say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we should have kept negotiating. Missile defense has had success after success, but just because it doesn't fit his manner of organizing information, he's going to throw it out.

If they made a test like the one you describe, it would be prearranged. The very research design you describe is arranged in advance. Further, you're confusing two phases of the program. There's the detection phase where our satelites discover a launch and then there's the phase where once it's discovered we send a missile to shoot down their missile. This most recent test showed the integration of two systems, that is the integration worked. The detection phase could be tested in the way you describe, although of course it would be dangerous on several levels. The detection phase has several components in place, and others come on line later this year:

"Two STSS research and development satellites will launch into low earth orbit in late 2007 on a single Delta II launch vehicle. These satellites will demonstrate the key functions of a space based sensor and will aid in closing the fire control loop to the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The satellites will pass missile tracking data to missile defense interceptors with the accuracy and timeliness necessary to enable them to successfully intercept missile targets."

I suspect that even if it was successfully field tested in warfare, Sal just may decide that our having such a defensive system is provocative in itself. Libs tend to hate weapons, they hate the military, they think it means we won't negotiate, and they tend to be rigid and inflexible when considering other ways of solving. This comes perhaps from deep rooted insecurities for which they compensate by requiring that they behave in what they believe to be a morally superior fashion, viewing others who engage in violence as primitive and inferior, even when such violence is defensive. IMHO, Sal would spend the money going into a functional missile defense on some other program he believes is more humane. Am I wrong?

God bless you President Bush for keeping us safe. Over 5 years with no more attacks. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.

Missle defense depends upon low orbiting satallites, like the one China shot out of space on January 11th of this year. A ground-based missle shot 800 miles into space and took out one of their own weather satalites. This is an acomplishment the U.S. has yet to achieve.

This even of Jan 11th made SDI obsolete.

Morris, you have to remember that if we were attacked with a dozen missiles and only shot down 10, it would prove the absolute and utter failure of the program, blah blah blah.

Which is why I don't want utopians making policy decsions for the country. While a pragmatist will find 80% accuracy better than none, a utopian will say if we can't absolutely guarantee 100% success every single time, immediately, we should not try at all. And anything short of total unqualified success is utter and absolute failure, proving once again the folly of trying.

CW,
Warfare is always adaptive. That is, right now somewhere in Los Alamos some scientist is working on how to defend our satelites from such missiles, by stealth, by using chaff, by moving out of the way, by shooting down incoming missiles. Let us not forget where China got the missile technology to shoot down their satelite.

"How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?" Goss asked.

"We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don't know is what they expected to gain from that investment," Goss said.

Ally,
In my experience, the only pragmatic utopia is finding perfection in the world as it already exists.