------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure they said the same thing to Al Gore before he invented the internet and changed the world.

It won't work because...........get this...........we haven't been able to build a viable particle weapon. Many physicists and engineers believe it can't be done unless we want ot go the route of the USSR and bankrupt ourselves building it.

Tesla was big into the whole particle energy thing. He lost his ass trying to develop it. And it's been worked on pretty extensively since and we still don't have a viable weapon. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that we'd be better off spending a trillion dollars ELSEWHERE on defense.

I picture it like this: We spend a gazillion dollars to try to build a particle-weapons system, and divert money from hiring qualified people to prevent the importation of radioactive material to build dirty bombs with. That is overwhelmingly more likely to happen than a rogue nation launching a ballistic missile at us.

There's only so much money.........we have higher (or should have) priorities now than SDI/Star Wars.

------------------------------------------------------------
I agree What was Lucas thinking ?

GH,
Did you miss the part in there that said "Limited" strategic ballistic missle? There are more classes to ballistic missles than just ICBM's. If you can hit a target about 5500 miles away, yep that is an ICBM. But a scud missle is a ballistic missle also. And there is probably a larger threat to our troops and homeland from limited range ballistic missles than there is from ICBM's.

And does everybody here think that the only missle defenses we have is "Star Wars"?

No, of course not. We've seen the PAtriot system operate, and the results weren't good.

If you want to check out some really good stuff on missile defense systems, click this link: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/

Like I said several times now........the idea has merit, but the cost isn't worth the security. We'd still be vulnerable to dirty bombs, portable nuclear devices, submarine-launched attacks and so on.

Too much money, too many other things to spend it on...............

Because the missle defense system that Bouche is talking about is for ICBMs. The one he stuck in Alaska already is part of the Star Wars defense debacle.

Hell, if all you're worried about is scuds, we've got mucho ADA batterys for that. Or that thing the Navy's got, the Phalanx? or something like that? It's like a fricken brass factory when it fires.

But if we're only worried about short ranged stuff, then again, we should just protect our borders so they don't get close enough or inside to use them.

So you're also against employers providing retirement benefits? wow...

And healthcare is at a high price... But from what I've heard, thats from Americans suing the pants off the doctors. I wouldn't pin the blame on any one man, especially a president.

Curtis

Harley, I was only using the scud as an example that there are other types of ballistic missles than the ICBM's. And if you think the Phalanx is going to help defend our borders with it's range of about 2,000 yards your nuts. That's why it is called CIWS (close in weapons system). With the stuff that ballistic missles can carry (nukes, bio's and chemical weapons), we might want to intercept those things just a bit more than 2000 yards from US soil.

Dan S. "Like I said several times now........the idea has merit, but the cost isn't worth the security"

You obviously lost nothing or anyone on September 11 did you? 7 or 8 years ago would you have said that the Government doesn't need to be spending billions of dollars on airport security? If it isn't worth the cost, at what price do you set the security of our nation and the lives of our people?

Oh, I almost forgot the Patriot Missle system......you're right, it wasn't the greatest defense against ballistic missle's, but that might have something to do with the fact that it was designed as an "anti-aircraft" missle system, not an "anti-missle" missle system. And cutting the funding for our Missle defense and other military programs is going to make our defenses better in what way?

Have we met? Well, thanks for making an assumption you can't back up.

Did you miss the part where I said we'd be better off spending the money making the country more secure against terrorism? Was a 'rogue nation' responsible for Sept. 11th?

You're reading selectively.

Huh? Did the words I typed above somehow display differently on your monitor there BBVD? :rolleyes:

Where does it say ANYTHING about me being against ANYTHING? I was merely attempting to make the point that it seems slightly ironic that a military veteran who has/had access to free healthcare should be criticizing the idea of government-sponsored or "socialistic" healthcare being provided to the 43 million Americans who don't have ANY health coverage. See BBVD, you have to be able to comprehend a post before you can effectively critique it.

UM, I agree the Phalanx wouldn't be worth a hoot against a ballistic missle, but would be a good defense against something like a scud.

So if we're talking about ballistic missles other than Intercontinental, what is the range of them? Where would they be launched from?

Harley,
Here is how Ballistic Missles are classified:
Short-range ballistic missile (SRBM), under 1,000 km : Medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) 1,000 to 3,000 km : Intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) 3,000 to 5,500 km : Intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) Over 5,500 km

And they can be launched in a number of ways, the most difficult to defend against in my oppinion would be lauch from a vessel at sea. Especially one not known to be a military asset of a forgein country, like an ocean cargo / container ship. They can also be launched off of land vehicles and it is believed that North Korea has done testing on an SLV (Space Launch Vehicle).

AM,
Yep, same NK. But if they wanted to take a pot shot across the DMZ I don't think they would need a SLV for that. Just a guess here but maybe ol' Kim Jong Il has other idea's of what he could do with it if they can make it work ( which I don't believe they have done do to the problems that might occur with the re-entry speed of a missle back into the atmosphere). But seeing as we have about 30,000 troops in Korea and NK has over 1 million plus another 5 million reserves, maybe pulling our troops back home might not be a bad idea. I think we have proven over the past couple of decades that we can move a powerful military presence to any place in the world in a very short amount of time if it is needed.

Okay, if we're talking less than 5000 Km then we're talking launching from Canada, Mexico, or a sea vessel.

I think we can safely rule out Canada and Mexico, so that leaves sea vessels. I personally have enough faith in our Navy intel capabilities that I don't worry in the least about that scenario. I think our seas are watched pretty closely, vessel-wise, together with the Navy, and the Coast Guard's drug smuggling surveilance.

I think ICBMs are the only real threat we have missle-wise outside of conventional war, and I think that possibility is extremely remote given the other threats that face the nation today. As crazy as Kim is, I don't believe he's crazy enough to preemptively push the button.

I do worry about container ships. That's why I'd like to see better security on our ports, etc. Maybe even some type of staging area off shore for inspection prior to entering the Sound?

With the number of containers that enter the US daily, the odds are pretty scary.