Yes, but will we be able to download porn with it? That’s the important question!
Better – you’ll be able to intercept the porn before John Ashcroft destroys it… 
Yeah, I would separate the question into two issues:
(1) Should we deploy ballistic missile defense “now” (i.e., within the next few years)? This one is a no-brainer. We have nothing that will work under any realistic scenario so we should not deploy. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration wants to deploy anyway, presumably for political reasons (i.e., in time for the 2004 elections) and in order to essentially force our policy toward nuclear from arms control and negotiations to ABM defenses.
(2) Should we continue research on ballistic missile defense? This one is clearly more debatable. Probably most people would agree on continuing research at on the level of continuing to investigate the potential feasibility of various options. However, there seem to be good reasons to believe that if we do this, then we should not waste too much time going down paths where we are solving technical obstacles like “hitting a bullet with a bullet” but ignoring the fact that simple countermeasures will render the system ineffective. I.e., if we don’t have some sort of technical strategy to deal with simple countermeasures then I don’t really see that much point to going down that path. One could argue payoffs for theater defenses…but then we might as well stick to working more directly on them. One could also argue that a system that is susceptible to simple countermeasures is better than no system at all but I personally don’t think the costs, both monetary and in terms of impacts on arms control and so forth, make it worthwhile to do this.
That should be “…at least on the level…”
We should definitely continue proofreading posts before hitting the submit button.
No and yes. I’ll agree with you completely here. Living in California though, why do I get the feeling that there will soon be jokes about “who needs missile defense for the Californians? They won’t vote for Bush anyway!”
Yeah, but who here is involved in missile development?
physics and capabilities - time for another gear head comment:
Scientists said we would never be able to go faster than about 200 MPH in the 1/4 mile, then 250 MPH.
So while I agree that it seem pointless, except for some feel-goodness, to deploy now, it does not seem as though we should stop trying. Some new materials, ideas, technology and the answer may come soon - perhaps even in time to make a difference. Besides, there could be some spin-off technology that benefits socitey.
Although the U.S. has attempted at building a successful ABM system. We have not been really able to due to resolutions, and red tape which prevent such things just for the shear fact of ‘fairness’ (i.e. you can;t have a ABM system because that would make you defendable against my missiles, and I wouldn;t have one) I do not remember exactly what this was called, but I do know this is a big reason hwy we have not been able to create a system. Bush is trying vigorously now to create on ethat does work, and going against all of the
red tape". Because frankly the only real priority which he gives a damn about is protecting his country. And he is doing a fine job of it as well.
You do not see the aftermath of a presidential term until the next term. Thus we have seen the aftermath of two clinton terms back to back (and it might only get worse), yet we will not see the aftermath of Bush’s term(s) until the next president is in office.
Cite?
I don’t think you could call someone who said that a scientist. A mechanic perhaps, but there is no fundamental law of physics that limits land speed to anything near that slow. A real scientist would know that.
I’ll look for a cite
It is a theorem (proved wrong) that has been around since the early 60’s
I admit that I have trouble believing that a scientist would name a limit that low - but then I believe we should soon be able to intercept a missile
It is called MAD (mutually assured destruction) and the agreement not to deploy ABM systems (except to defend one local area) was codified in the ABM treaty.
You may know that this is a big reason why we have not been able to create such a system but that is simply an example of the saying that “it’s not what he doesn’t know that worries me but what he does know that just ain’t so.” As I have noted above in this thread (which I get the impression you didn’t read too carefully), you will have a hard time finding any hard support for your claim, particularly given that the ABM treaty allowed considerable freedom to do research on ABM systems.
Very touching. I’d say he also gives a damn about giving tax breaks to his wealthy friends and donors, letting the religious Right control our policies on abortion, world population programs, repealing or eviscerating lots of “bothersome” regulations protecting the environment and so on. But we digress.
How convenient. I guess we decide minor details like the length of the time lag in order to make our religious belief that the Democratic Presidents have screwed up the country while the Republicans have done great things. For example, I suppose it was Carter who was responsible for the huge budget deficits of the 1980s and then Reagan created the surplusses of the late 1990s and now Clinton policies are coming home to roost and creating big deficits now. I see how it all works now. Thanks for letting me in on this!
Yes, but my point is simply that these “they know things that we don’t” arguments are made by people outside of the program. People inside don’t generally seem to make the “we know things that you don’t” arguments.
And, by the way, while I don’t work on it myself. I have talked with a few people who have been pretty intimately involved, for example someone who recently retired and had been working on missile defense for one of the big contractors (Lockheed? Boeing?) And, have heard people like Phil Coyle speak, who was head of testing at the Pentagon under Clinton. Admittedly, these are people on the “same side” as me on the issue. But, like I said, I think you would even be hard pressed to find General Kadish (who heads the national missile defense program) or others making claims that there are important things that we don’t know about their capabilities. And, in fact, I think it is only natural in a political environment that classifying information is used more to hide deficiencies than capabilities…There is more incentive to let the latter see the light of day.
[nitpick]
The 1972 ABM treaty itself allowed two ABM sites each, one to protect the capitol, and another near an ICBM site. It was the 1976 Protocol to the treaty which limited each side to one ABM site.
The ABM treaty
The Protocol to the ABM treaty
[/nitpick]
-Sorry, someone nailed me on this very point here a couple years ago, so I’m a bit oversensitive to it.