JayB Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 The real players in that region are going to be Japan and China, and Korea will be a minor leaguer, exept with regards to N. Korea. Jay, you're smoking demographic crack. Japanese don't even have sex anymore. On the other hand, what's the country with the fastest growing population? hmm? Yeah they're both getting older fast, but doubt Korea's demographic profile is much different. The fastest growing population in the Far East or in General? I'd put my money on India for the fastest population growth in absolute terms, and in terms of YOY growth I would bet the leader is somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa or somewhere in the Middle East/Greater Muslimosphere. What either has to do with Korea being a bit-player relative to Japan and China is not clear to me, as even if Korea's population was growing by leaps and bounds it'd never be the key player in the region, even if they had a 10-fold increase in population density. If India is able to project power and influence throughout the region as a result of its population growth, that'd be fine by me. Quote
Jim Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Operational tests are where the entire missile-defense program has run aground. The last successful intercept-test took place in October 2002. Since then (and before, as well), failures have ranged from complex (it missed the target) to jaw-droppingly basic (the rocket carrying the interceptor wouldn't launch). In a February 2003 report, the Pentagon's own testing director wrote that individual elements of the program — much less the entire system — had "yet to demonstrate significant operational capability." Nothing has changed since then. (Tests were soon after suspended, to allow major redesigns; they are scheduled to resume late this year or early next.) Quote
JayB Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 So is your main beef with the program that it's impossible in principle and can never work, that it may work against a limited number of missiles someday but won't be worth the dough it would take to make it work, or that even if it did work it'd cost far too much and be ineffective against even the most primitive countermeasures? I think that old-fashioned deterence in the form of a 10,000-fold retaliation on any state that lobs an ICBM our way is the best defense against this mode of attack by rogue states, and the ICBM attack worries me much less than these states transfering a nuclear weapon to nonstate actors. So for the time being I'd be very in favor of mothballing the anti-missile defense outlays or significantly scaling them back, and investing the difference in securing the ports and vehicle entry points against a container/semi bearing a nuclear weapon. Quote
mountainmatt Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 McDonalds, FUCK YEAH! Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH! The Gap, FUCK YEAH! Baseball, FUCK YEAH! NFL, FUCK, YEAH! Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH! The Internet, FUCK YEAH! Slavery, FUCK YEAH! FUCK YEAH! Starbucks, FUCK YEAH! Disney world, FUCK YEAH! Porno, FUCK YEAH! Valium, FUCK YEAH! Reeboks, FUCK YEAH! Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH! Sushi, FUCK YEAH! Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH! Rodeos, FUCK YEAH! Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah) Liberty, FUCK YEAH! White Slips, FUCK YEAH! The Alamo, FUCK YEAH! Band-aids, FUCK YEAH! Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH! Christmas, FUCK YEAH! Immigrants, FUCK YEAH! Popeye, FUCK YEAH! Demarcates, FUCK YEAH! Republicans (republicans) (fuck yeah, fuck yeah) Sportsmanship Books Quote
Jim Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 So is your main beef with the program that it's impossible in principle and can never work, that it may work against a limited number of missiles someday but won't be worth the dough it would take to make it work, or that even if it did work it'd cost far too much and be ineffective against even the most primitive countermeasures? I think that old-fashioned deterence in the form of a 10,000-fold retaliation on any state that lobs an ICBM our way is the best defense against this mode of attack by rogue states, and the ICBM attack worries me much less than these states transfering a nuclear weapon to nonstate actors. So for the time being I'd be very in favor of mothballing the anti-missile defense outlays or significantly scaling them back, and investing the difference in securing the ports and vehicle entry points against a container/semi bearing a nuclear weapon. In short - it's not a feasible program or cost effective. And I would agree with your assessment of how to make better use of those wasted dollars. The current program is only good for defense contractors, not our defense or taxpayers. Quote
cj001f Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 So for the time being I'd be very in favor of mothballing the anti-missile defense outlays or significantly scaling them back, and investing the difference in securing the ports and vehicle entry points against a container/semi bearing a nuclear weapon. Sounds reasonable to me Quote
foraker Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 So is your main beef with the program that it's impossible in principle and can never work, that it may work against a limited number of missiles someday but won't be worth the dough it would take to make it work, or that even if it did work it'd cost far too much and be ineffective against even the most primitive countermeasures? Yes. If you've ever worked for a major government contractor (I subbed to Lockheed for 2 years) you'll realize that Job #1 is "Suck the government teat as hard as you can for as long as you can". I'm not even sure if "Quality" is even on the list. The trick is presenting enough 'progress' to keep them interested. The other problem is that contractors will basically lie through their teeth to keep the money coming. I've seen too many cases where the execs made sky-high claims to the government and the tech guys all shat their pants collectively. We lost out to another contractor and I just read that the entire multi-billion dollar project is now in jeopardy because they are having problems making good on their promises. The problems with missle defense systems these days are several. First, it's designed around old thinking that someone was going to be lobbing technically sophisticated missles at us by the hundreds if not thousands. No one's really in a position to do that now except our ostensible allies. While we're busy building expensive solutions to Cold War problems, our current 'enemies' are thinking of quick, dirty solutions that don't require a military-industrial complex to solve and implement. Then there are all the technical problems with shooting down a missle (well covered elsewhere). Oddly enough, the same contractor involved in the missle tests also won the contract I just mentioned....hmmm.... What we need now are good stealthy weapons delivery systems (e.g. smart bombs, cruise missles, stealth ROV's -- not B2 bombers and next-gen ballistic missle subs), superior human intelligence (people on the ground familiar with languages and culture, not spendy satellites), and special ops teams. Then, too, we need politicians who know when to use the scalpel and not the battle axe. Ah, if wishes were fishes. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Hmmm. Liberals that support MAD theory over a defensive missile system. Interesting. Quote
jon Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Operational tests are where the entire missile-defense program has run aground. The last successful intercept-test took place in October 2002. Since then (and before, as well), failures have ranged from complex (it missed the target) to jaw-droppingly basic (the rocket carrying the interceptor wouldn't launch). In a February 2003 report, the Pentagon's own testing director wrote that individual elements of the program — much less the entire system — had "yet to demonstrate significant operational capability." Nothing has changed since then. (Tests were soon after suspended, to allow major redesigns; they are scheduled to resume late this year or early next.) Smoke and mirrors. We've had a missle defense system in place for over a decade. Quote
G-spotter Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Since the 1940's - Reverse engineered from UFOs Quote
cj001f Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Hmmm. Liberals that support MAD theory over a defensive missile system. Interesting. Missile Defense = MAD + shitton of $ poured down the shitter Quote
foraker Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Hmmm. Liberals that support MAD theory over a defensive missile system. Interesting. Reichwingers who prefer dead bodies over diplomacy. Have I got you in the right pigeonhole? I'd hate to undersimplify your nuanced political views. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Nice dodge, but you're the one who seems to be against a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable, would likely negate the need for massive nuclear retaliation against a small state. Who wants dead bodies? Sounds like you do vis a vis your knee-jerk reactionary opposition to any and all military programs defensive or otherwise. You may not believe this, but there are actually scientists and engineers who are smarter than you. BTW, you still haven't addressed a question I posed to you and Murray on another thread - and I've never seen any nuance in any of your politcal views whatsoever. Just left-wing spew. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Nice dodge, but you're the one who seems to be against a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable, would likely negate the need for massive nuclear retaliation against a small state. Are you suggesting that the current system under development is reliable?Or that it would be difficult to defeat? Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Are you fucking dense...or just another brain-dead undergrad? How did you come up with your reply when I clearly posted this: "...a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable..."? If you're simply trying to annoy, you are succeeding - but if you really want to be Foraker's lap-dog you should be getting a paycheck....or at least a moist towlette to clean off your chin. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Are you fucking dense...or just another brain-dead undergrad? How did you come up with your reply when I clearly posted this: "...a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable..."? If you're simply trying to annoy, you are succeeding - but if you really want to be Foraker's lap-dog you should be getting a paycheck....or at least a moist towlette to clean off your chin. No Fairweather, I've actually dealth with the current MD programs They are a joke. A fully functional missile defense program is a chimera; a fantasy born of a senile brain. A chance to squander 10's of billions, perhaps 100's of billions. In cased you missed it the greatest threat to the US is no longer states but nonstates - who've shown them quite capable of transcending national boundaries. Quote
foraker Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Nice dodge Actually, it wasn't a dodge. It was a rejoinder. Wouldn't expect you to know the difference seeing as how you only recently realized that ShrubCo has been lying to you all these years. you're the one who seems to be against a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable, would likely negate the need for massive nuclear retaliation against a small state. I'm not against missle defense systems as a rule, I'm simply against wasteful spending on a hugely complex and easily spoofed missile defense system predicated on antiquated Cold War scenarios, especially when better solutions exist for asymmetrical threats. Who wants dead bodies? Apparently the chickenhawks in DC. They seem to be doing quite well for themselves in this regard. your knee-jerk reactionary opposition to any and all military programs defensive or otherwise. That's a pretty stupid comment even for you. Please note my comment above about the need for smart weapons, better human intel, and special forces instead of expensive high-tech satellites and slow-to-mobilize ground forces. It would also be good if we could coordinate our anti-terrorism efforts with our allies better without pissing them off so much. You may not believe this, but there are actually scientists and engineers who are smarter than you. Actually, I'm a scientist and I know this even better than you do. I've also spent more time around the guys who design the systems than you have (both the hardware and the software). I may not be the brightest kid on the block, but when it comes to science, I think I can say I pretty much pwn you six ways from Sunday. Just left-wing spew. Actually, I consider myself to be more of a progressive libertarian with a conservative fiscal sense. Not that you'd understand how nuanced that is though..... If I don't respond to all of your verbal gymnastics, it's because I choose not to spend another six years trying to show you that you are wrong about something else. I have better things to do. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Cj Frankly, I doubt your claim - at least that you would be involved in the missle defense program in any meaningful way within your status as a student. But let's assume that you are: Your statement that a missile defense shield is a chimera - that is, an unacheivable fantasy - demonstrates a lack of optimism I rarely see in a scientist or engineer. With that kind of "can't-do" outlook I'm glad you weren't helping with the Apollo Project. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 If I don't respond to all of your verbal gymnastics, it's because I choose not to spend another six years trying to show you that you are wrong about something else. I have better things to do. ...yes, like cry on another thread about how the evil GW has cut funding for earth sciences as if he were the only president in history to dampen some poor scientists project - and then refuse to answer a valid counter claim? Yes, I understand; your time is very valuable. We should all read your posted tripe and not dare expect someone of your stature to clarify his position. You seem to me a science geek in the classic sense - missing a pretty big piece of the socially adept pie. I'll see you 'six ways from Sunday'. Quote
Crux Posted June 26, 2006 Posted June 26, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. So would the terrorists Terrorists with ICBM's? You're right - showing your enemies that your defenses don't work is a smart idea. It worked in Iraq, didn't it? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.