Missile Test Hardly The Real Thing
Posted in Latest Stories & Articles by H.L., Main Blog (All Posts) on September 1st, 2006 10:38 pm by HL
A Ballistic missile launched today from California shot down what was called in the press as a “target†that in “some respects resembled†the war head on a North Korean missile. A target, not an actual missile, this “target†only resembled a missile, and it only resembled a missile in “some respects†so in many respects it did not resemble a missile.
The “Star Wars†Missile Defense program if it is ever successful, will only be able to prevent limited attacks. In an all out attack our cities will still be hit. The test today was hardly the real thing.
This is from tomorrow mornings New York Times
But critics said that the test lacked key elements of realism and that its main objective had been to allow the Missile Defense Agency to claim the program was back on track after the interceptors in the last two flight tests, in December 2004 and February 2005, failed to leave their silos.
Even General Obering, after calling the test “as close as we can come to an end-to-end test,†said that the target missile did not deploy decoys or other countermeasures meant to confuse the interceptor from striking the actual warhead.
Decoys involve relatively basic technology that a potential foe like North Korea could be expected to employ, said Stephen Young, a missile defense specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes deployments of missile defenses.
“This test was as scripted as it can be,†he said. “It’s a very complicated test, technically, but it’s much simpler than dealing with an actual missile launch would be.†In a real-life attack, he said, far less would be known about the timing, trajectory and characteristics of an incoming warhead.
So what will end up happening is they find a way to beat one decoy, then the other side comes up with a new decoy, so we have to find a way to beat that decoy, it keeps going back and forth with both sides sending the defense industry tons of money (with plenty of kickbacks of course) but it may never actually work. It will be like computer viruses, and anti-virus programs. They invent a virus, so the software makers invent a way to stop it, then they come up with a new virus, and it keeps going back and forth. You can still get viruses, and the only one making money is the virus program makers. We would never know if it really worked unless we got attacked, and if it didn’t work it would be too late by then. So our best bet is to try to make peace with those who have the weapons so we don’t have to find out.
September 2nd, 2006 at 6:49 am
Trial and error. Trial and error.
‘ Its a very complicated test, technically but its much simpler than dealing with an actual missile launch would be.’
In short this arguement is defeatest because it implies that since the possibility of missing exsists that we should not try. If ten missiles got launched and we were only able to knock down some, critics would regard that as not working. Aint that right? How dumb of yall to be like that! If we knocked down some that is a success for what ever American city that was in the crosshairs of those go**am missiles.
So, anytime we fail dont try again. Target a gun then miss then dont build more guns. Try to fly a plane then crash then to hell with building planes! Fail fail fail. Defeatest defeatest defeatest!
Our best bet is to keep the system deployed and improve upon it as we go. Because the time is comming with North Korea and Iran. I set in awe at this strange world. Some of my fellow citizens dont want the nation we share to even TRY to defend against missiles. Funny how the nations of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iran dont want us to even TRY either. Now how about that??