Comments on: Considering space-based missile defense

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:59:26 +0000

Well I think a space based system is necessary for the overall protection ,not only of our citizens but of the almost complete vulnerability of our commercial and military satalites.As most of you know all it will take is one high atmospheric airburst over our country and our computer controlled and satalite relient infastructure will be back in the stone age.
If you think adding a layer of defense in space will somehow start a space weapons race, you must not be been keeping up with the latest Chinese military doctrine and their obsession with ASAT and nanosatalite weaponry….AS far as the Russians go ,while we were mulling around the ABM treaty they updated and furthered thier ABM avoidence technology and are in the process of replacing all of their ICBM`s with Merv capable, highley survivable, high speed manuvering warheads…..

We will control space or someone else will, you can sign all the treatys you want .

Brilliant Pebbles is a good place to start.

Bill

By: richardb

richardb — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:05:16 +0000

Uh, it wasn’t written as a candidate for “great logic”. Sarcasm was the intention.

By: Anonymous8

Anonymous8 — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:15:15 +0000

“Congress has a very long list of stupid pet projects costing billions, whatâ€™s wrong with another?”

Great logic.

By: richardb

richardb — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:06:43 +0000

I don’t get the logic of comparing a request for $10 mil to firing some presidental appointees. But the evening is early and I have yet to hit the Fat Tire cooling so maybe I’ll eventually see it.

But from a small seed a oak can grow so my metaphor leads me to think from 10 mil a few billions can grow…..in time. Congress has a very long list of stupid pet projects costing billions, what’s wrong with another?

By: Anonymous8

Anonymous8 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:36:25 +0000

“Its a measure of the confidence the Pentagon has in the national consensus of BMD that they are willing to have this debate when Democrats control the hearings.”

Or it is simply another example of the administration being tone deaf and not realizing that the political debate, and the political environment, have shifted. Note that even after the Dems won the mid-term elections, there were still people at the Dept. of Justice blithely charging ahead with their plans to fire a bunch of US attorneys–as if such an action was not going to create problems on the Hill.

But $10 million is nothing. All it will do is buy DoD a study with a predictable concludion: “space-based NMD is too expensive.” In fact, that could be the entire purpose of the study, to demonstrate that if you want the capability, you really do need a European launch site.

By: richardb

richardb — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:03:44 +0000

Its a measure of the confidence the Pentagon has in the national consensus of BMD that they are willing to have this debate when Democrats control the hearings. Considering how allergic Dems were to ICBM missile defenses from Reagan to Bush I thru Clinton I, this is a muscular display of Pentagon cockiness.
Thank the following for godfathering this debate:
China big props for dropping your benign mask on the peaceful uses of space
Iran for continuing to be a genocidal wanna be
North Korea for 50 years of being yourself
Russia for showing how scared you are of American BMD
Europe for showing how ambivalent you are to American anxieties.

By: Anonymous8

Anonymous8 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:58:50 +0000

This is not going to result in anything. The problem with space-based missile defense has always been that in order to cover the launch sites you need a very large number of satellites. A large number of satellites translates into big costs. Ground-based NMD is cheaper.

By: Adrasteia

Adrasteia — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:57:20 +0000

Look on the bright side. US Space based missile defence gives the Russians a good incentive to reactivate Energia and Polyus.