You don’t really keep up on current events, do you?
And more are being installed as we speak.
And banish a bit more of your ignorance here.
Rummy on combined deployment and testing:
Despite talk of deployment, the system is not quite minimally operational yet:
New job for 7th Fleet: Missile patrol in Sea of Japan (September 12, 2004)
You posted that yesterday, but since then I’ve seen the story many times in the media here. I found out about it from the news briefs in the Shinkansen and it had top spot in the news tonight. The problem is that no one’s sure what happened yet and nothing to show = not much of a story yet.
One thing that was mentioned on the news, though, is that the site is home to a weapon factory. One hypothesis that seems more likely than a nuclear explosion is that there was an accident at the factory and it blew up.
Alright, Brutus, rather than just posting links to the agency set up to create this program, why don’t we take a look at an unbiased third party:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/technology/basics.html
I highly encourage you to watch the program online if you have high-speed internet access to fully understand how overrated the technical abilities of our current systems are and how far the people running these tests have gone to misrepresent failures as successes.
Basically, a mylar balloon, of which dozens can easily be strapped onto an ICBM for a negligible amount of weight, and a mylar balloon with a nuclear warhead inside, look exactly the same to any set of sensors that we have right now. Unless you could go out, pick it up, and shake it around, you’re pretty well screwed. Opaque to radar, opaque to IR, and without the drag of the atmosphere, they travel in exactly the same types of trajectories.
This system won’t work. Period.
Did we ever find out what blew up that train in NK some months ago?
Two cites up there, you know. Unless, of course, you consider ‘Spacedaily.com’ to be the agency set up to create this program.
The evidence shows that the system can work. Stamping your foot and pouting about the matter doesn’t change anything.
The spacedaily.com was a fluff article merely explaining that rockets are being put into silos, it had nothing at all to do with an analysis of the likely efficacy of the system.
The evidence shows that a ground based launch intercept system could concievably work in the future if it were ever possible for us to develop technology to differentiate between decoys and real warheads. The system we have now can’t and won’t. IMHO, we should look more at the development of theatre-based systems that try to kill a warhead in its launch phase where decoys cannot be used. While it’s true that this system has disadvantages in terms of needing to have a ship in the area to attack a launched rocket, I feel that it has more long term chance for success. I’m not pouting, this is the reality of our current technological abilities in regards to a NMD. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we’re funding this POS and not even providing money for proven effective technologies like radiation sensors in port facilites.
Why don’t you go ahead and watch that Frontline and then get back to me.
Imagine if SH tried to “blow up a mountain” pre Iraq invasion, then it would have been a nuke. :rolleyes:
BTW Brutus, you’re smoking the purest crack if you think that NMD bullshit is going to work. It’s like hitting a bullet with a bullet.
As long as you’re after a missile and not decoy warheads, isn’t it like shooting skeet?
I think those missles move pretty fast.
Hmmm…I suspect that they actually had a large rocket fuel explosion.
Right place, right size, & nobody wastes huge amounts of explosives on one big blast, when many smaller explosions are more cost-effective.
Unbiased? Normally I have to wait for the afternoon to roll around to be sure I’m seen the funniest post of the day. Thanks for saving me time.
“Unusual”? No shit!
This starts to look less scary to me (But what kind of fucked-up country is it where if you’re going to blow a whole mountain to bits in a humoungous explosion, you don’t invite people over “Hey watch this! – neat huh?”)
'cept for those Crazy Canadians
That site stated the the Canadians used one big blast because they couldn’t drill into the rock, way back then.
Hmmm…I wounder what this says about the state of North Korea’s machine-tool industry?
Assuming it was a demolitions blast, which is far from proven.
Given that the N Korean gov is the kind that lies out of habit, even when it’s in their own interest to tell the truth, your scepticism is well founded, but letting foreigners examine the site – hell even admitting that there was an explosion, makes the scary scenarios that were posed at first seem less likely
Yeah, I’m surprised it wasn’t the people conjuring up the great spirit of his dead dad, and he took the form of a glorious mushroom cloud or something.
You skeptics all scoff so easily at things you don’t understand!
There are those who know better than you:
Best heed their advice, or face horrible, horrible DANGER.
So are you saying the explosion was his displeasure at being summoned without regard to protocol?
Why don’t you provide me with an example of where Frontline’s coverage has been politically biased or incomplete.