posted on August 24, 2001 01:27:28 PM new
I'm deeply disturbed by the so called "Missle Test". It was, no doubt, a farce, intended to get get funding for a program that isn't ready for production.
That said, I do differ from a lot of "Democrates", in that I want to see the USA have the absolutly best trained, best supplied, strongest military in the solar system.
In the "Solar System"? Yes, I think a well designed "space based" defense system is in our best interest. Ask any ground pounding buck sgt, and they will tell you (if they are honest) that having freindly forces controling the sky is a good thing.
I think we need (possibly a lot) more R&D before we try to but this system into production. But I think it's a good idea.
Defense is (IMHO) the number one job of the federal government. On this, I agree with GW. (god, I hate to say that, but it's the truth)
posted on August 24, 2001 06:09:55 PM newMicrobes...It takes a big person to admit his/her shortcomings... I'll let you agree with what's'his'face this one time....Just don't make it a habit...
Seriously though, his plan to pull out of the commitment to reduce production of whatever weapons, is wrong...and Russia is not at all happy about that! It was a treaty (or whatever) signed by both countries...Now, bush wants to renege...WRONG! wrong!.... bushytail will get us back into another cold war with his thinking...
Please excuse my un-savvy way of expressing political thoughts...A politician I am not Can't even remember names of important stuff...
******** Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
posted on August 24, 2001 07:01:47 PM new
It's not the Russians I most worry about. Dispite our differences with them, they where our allies in two major wars.
Space based weapons don't have to be Nukie-Nukes (which is what the treaty is all about). Mass Drivers that can "Hurl" a 100 lb. block of iron to earth from low orbit could take out radar site or a bridge, with no danger to a bomber crew, and stop a armoured column dead in its tracks. If you drop a hundred pound rock from a hundred miles up, and it will hit the ground hard and cause a whole lot of damage to the target, but release no radiation.
There is already "Recon" Sats in orbit that belong to us, the Russians, the Chinese, and others. There is already a "Military presence" in space. Besides, where is the "line"? We (and other countries) have bombers and fighters right now that can reach suborbital speeds and hieghts.
There are a lot of countries developing space technology, many of which would have no second thoughts about taking out our comunication Sats, just for spite.
Sooner or later, someone is going to orbit some kind of weapons system. I'd rather it be the good ole US of A. It could save our ground forces a lot of causulties.
posted on August 24, 2001 08:40:25 PM new
Sorry, but I just can't agree with any Missile Defense Program, no matter how well it might work. That's because no nation is going to so stupid as to launch against the United States and not expect to permanently glow in the dark for the next 400,000 years. That any real nuclear or biological threat will enter our country via briefcase, in which likely event a Missile Defense Program and Nuclear Space Race programs are just money wasters. I'd rather see America defend itself from the REAL forms of threat by stop irritating countries that we have no business or interest to do so. By switching to non-oil and coal energy, we can drop standing behind countries that make us such world enemies, because we would no longer have any need to be there. So if you really, REALLY want to protect America from these types of threats, GET RID OF BUSH, CHENEY and the Oil & Coal industry from political office!
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Aug 24, 2001 08:42 PM ]
posted on August 24, 2001 09:22:08 PM new"If you drop a hundred pound rock from a hundred miles up, and it will hit the ground hard and cause a whole lot of damage to the target, but release no radiation".
Not. If you do that it'll just go along with you in an orbit of it's own, weightless. And if it did reenter it would have to be a 100,000 lb rock to have a chance of anything left when it hit the ground, if it did.
And worrying about a missile attack is just plain silly. As borillar said that's not the way any device would be delivered. The detection technology is so sophisticated now that no missile launch facility could be built without our knowledge and there's nothing to stop it's destruction long before it ever had the capacity to launch anything targetted here.
I also agree that the oil driven corporate colonialism with it's coupled touchy diplomacy is not only unnecessary but detrimental to world peace.
All he's doing is feeding those hungry mouths of industry in this country who've starved for a heyday since the end of the Vietnam war.
posted on August 24, 2001 09:27:19 PM new
I really would rather not go the way of the dinosaurs...shooting large objects at the earth, nuclear or not, is not a very bright idea.
posted on August 24, 2001 09:28:39 PM new
A country like China (and china isn't the only country that's WAY over populated) that is so over crowded that it only allows it's people to have one child, has a lot of people that would like more space. I'll admit, in the case of China, Austraila is a more likley target. But I would MOST certainly support the US of A going to the aid of the Aussie's if need be.
Population pressure is a force that's hard to stop.
As for Oil, I'm all for developing other forms of energy. Great idea. But oil isn't the only thing that might be "fought over". Good farm land is scarce in some countries, and we have some of the best.
Not "irritating countries that we have no business or interest to do so" isn't a defense against a military attact at all. We where an isolationist nation when Pearl Harbor was attacted, and got caught with our pants down.
Making a country "permanently glow in the dark for the next 400,000 years" is just plain dumb. We would be killing ourselves at the same time. On the other hand, dropping a hundred pound rock streight down from 100 miles up will do as much damage as the bomb we dropped in Hiroshima, without releasing ANY radiation (other than thermal).
And the idea that a real threat could enter the country in a suitcase is valid. Our borders are WAY to open. For that matter, you could fly a bomber over this country, all you would have to do is disguise it as a plane load of pot.
posted on August 24, 2001 09:44:03 PM new. If you do that it'll just go along with you in an orbit of it's own, weightless.
That's why you use a mass driver, to kill the obital speed. Kill the speed, it drops.
And if it did reenter it would have to be a 100,000 lb rock to have a chance of anything left when it hit the ground, if it did.
They solved heat sheilding problems back in the Mercury days. Remember John Glenn? The chutes didn't open unit the capsules where darn near to the earth.
The detection technology is so sophisticated now that no missile launch facility could be built without our knowledge and there's nothing to stop it's destruction long before it ever had the capacity
Will you support us bombing anything that looks like a missile launch facility? I know where several of them are in Russia, there are sites in France, China, and I think in India. Any site that can be used to launch space craft can certainly be used to launch missiles.
oil driven corporate colonialism with it's coupled touchy diplomacy is not only unnecessary but detrimental to world peace.
Agreed. We need to promote fuel cell technology, Coal Liquification, and any other alternate energy sources.
I'll let you agree with what's'his'face this one time....Just don't make it a habit...