Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Balschoiw

U.s. missile shield won't work

Recommended Posts

  (bn880 @ May 13 2004,21:38) said:
There are extremely easy countermeasures against laser based weapons.

Some shiny paint and a missile that perhaps rotates (like a bullet)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Tex [uSMC said:
@ May 13 2004,17:31)]To answer the original question: no.

What are you trying to say all this time?

If you mean (I'm guessing) that I can't give an example, I did, type of casing used. What type, I'm not getting into for several reasons, one of which is I don't have a laser laboratory to prove things to you. tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look if those smartasses build a shield against missiles (a shield that actually works), the "terrorists" (haha) will just use a new way to attack...

Whadya think?  That they'll keep shooting missiles at you?

Hmm

Once ppl notice that missiles don't do shit they'll just fuck you up in some other way!

Hooray!  You spent millions on a useless project!

I guess all the starving people in this world will be sooo happy now!

Damn i love being ironic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably will keep shooting missiles in one form or another, the whole idea is you can make missiles that are god damn difficult to hit and or destroy. Especially for lasers to destroy, it is much more difficult to get rid of kinetic energy (also from explosives) than it is to dissipate energy based on waves of light (that wave spectrum).

Also any idea how difficult it is to destroy a hypersonic low flying missile? I'd like to see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ May 14 2004,12:39) said:
  (Pathy @ May 13 2004,21:06) said:
For years the US has tried to develop SDI, but.....no i am not suprised if it is not going to be done any time soon......at least in the Reagan years it was a useful bargaining chip in arms limitation talks with the USSR.....

....like the two times the USSR offered unilateral disarmament only to be turned down??

Yes, exactly like those 2 times. The US did not know what a good thing it had. Russia was scared of loosing its entire nuclear capability and as a result offered extremely generous terms in return for the USA stopping the SDI. Hence, at least it was a good bargaining chip.

Its a pity the USA didnt decide to use it as a bargaining chip, even though it had significant power (as the Russkies were also convinced it would work), because in the end it is ending up as a bottomless pit for funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty funny how people think lasers would work. Ofcourse when you hear about SDI you immidiatly think lasers. The thing is that the scientists probably did too, and for some reason they decided it wont work. Missiles have already been shot down with laser several times but appearantly its not a good solution. I also think it would be pretty easy to protect a missile from laser by putting mirrors around it. Someone said that mirrors cant reflect 100% of the light, even if thats true they could just put 1000 layers of mirrors around the missile.

Shooting missiles down with laser is a very old idea and if it was a good idea they would go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more ways than lasers to shoot down missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure they will find out a way to shoot them down effectively but then there will be other weapons that are a bigger threat. There are two inventions that wont stop ICBMs, lasers and timemachines. If lasers would work well they would go for the laser. If timemachines were possible you wouldnt know who Hitler was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of how Radar was born....the British government tasked scientists to design a "death ray" that could shoot down german planes......... tounge_o.gif

My bet is on Proton Cannons...... wow_o.gifwink_o.gifwow_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InqWiper - it is me who said this.

And i'm afraid i did not explained it correctly. If mirror does not reflect 100% it means it absorbs energy, and it means it can be destroyed. And this can be like little explosion - for few times i saw something like that on TV.

And other question - mirrors made of what? Glass, metal?

Can u imagine 20 meters long rocket with stick "Aware of glass" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don´t need to have glass mirrors. Surface mirrors are used for lasers. They consist of a reflecticting metal layer wich is brought onto material, no matter if it´s plastic, metal or something else.

These mirrors are flexible and reflect almost 100 percent of the incoming light. You can order those mirrrors online. I did recently buy one for my home-made beamer

biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, at least it keeps Boeing in business for a while longer smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Pathy @ May 14 2004,19:19) said:
  (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ May 14 2004,12:39) said:
  (Pathy @ May 13 2004,21:06) said:
For years the US has tried to develop SDI, but.....no i am not suprised if it is not going to be done any time soon......at least in the Reagan years it was a useful bargaining chip in arms limitation talks with the USSR.....

....like the two times the USSR offered unilateral disarmament only to be turned down??

Yes, exactly like those 2 times. The US did not know what a good thing it had. Russia was scared of loosing its entire nuclear capability and as a result offered extremely generous terms in return for the USA stopping the SDI. Hence, at least it was a good bargaining chip.

Its a pity the USA didnt decide to use it as a bargaining chip, even though it had significant power (as the Russkies were also convinced it would work), because in the end it is ending up as a bottomless pit for funds.

I thought it was because russians were out of money for they had wasted all their money on nukes. They didn't have enough money to upkeep their huge arsenal not to mention war with the US, while americans were happy with much less nukes and more money.

So the USSR offered disarmament because they were near bankrupcy. It had nothing to do with SDI. The reason why US rejected the proposal however was because it would've meant closing down the SDI project. And hey, peace or a cool missile defense system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Ex-RoNiN @ May 15 2004,11:20) said:
Hey, at least it keeps Boeing in business for a while longer smile_o.gif
  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]An internal Air Force memo suggests a pattern of improprieties by Boeing when it bid on Pentagon contracts, apparently contradicting the aerospace giant's assertions that such problems were isolated and that it corrected them quickly.

According to the memo, Boeing misled federal investigators and lied about the number of documents Boeing employees stole from rival Lockheed Martin to win a lucrative rocket contract.

The Air Force hit Boeing last summer with one of the harshest penalties ever imposed on a defense contractor when it took away about $1 billion in rocket contracts and indefinitely suspended the company from bidding on future rocket deals.

The 10-page memo offers details on the rocket contract scandal, saying that thousands of pages of Lockheed Martin documents gave Boeing an unfair advantage to develop a new generation of rockets known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or EELV. The memo says that "an independent team of pricing experts determined" that the documents helped Boeing calculate Lockheed's bid within 2.4 percent of the offer. The memo also reveals for the first time how the Air Force in 1999 considered suspending Boeing for having in its possession proprietary papers from Raytheon when the two rivals were competing for a missile defense program contract.

"Boeing's misuse of a competitor's proprietary documents ... is not unique to the EELV program," Steven Shaw, the Pentagon's deputy general counsel, says in the memo. It is included in a recent court filing in a civil lawsuit filed by Lockheed against Boeing in federal court in Orlando.

As Boeing was on the verge of winning the rocket contract, the memo says another Boeing "capture team" was busy reviewing, analyzing and copying the proprietary documents laying out Raytheon's proposal for a missile defense system. They were inadvertently left at Boeing's Downey, Calif., facility by an Army official in 1998. A Boeing software engineer discovered the file, but instead of destroying it "or returning it to Raytheon or the Army," it was copied and analyzed, according to the memo.

At least one Boeing employee was involved in both the Lockheed and Raytheon incidents, according to the memo.

Boeing's apparent failure to abide by its assurances to report and deal with improper activities angered Air Force officials and compounded the penalty in the Lockheed EELV case, said a source familiar with the Air Force discussions.

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment yesterday on the Air Force memo because he had not seen it. Boeing stands by its position that the theft of Lockheed documents involved only "a handful of its employees" and that Boeing has aggressively implemented an overhaul of its ethics policies, said the spokesman, Dan Beck. "We took the suspension very seriously, and since then Boeing has continued to cooperate fully with the Air Force," Beck said.

Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher said this month that a tentative agreement had been reached with the Air Force to restore Boeing's status as a rocket contractor and that he expected the Air Force to make a formal announcement within a "few weeks."

The Air Force memo says at least one Boeing senior executive possessed a Lockheed document and that another executive may have encouraged their pilfering. In addition, the memo says, Boeing's management continually misled the Air Force and provided "false statements."

Early on, the Air Force said Boeing led it to believe the company had only two sets of Lockheed documents. Later, Boeing acknowledged having two boxes. But Boeing actually had eight boxes, according to the memo.

Seattle Times

In other words, a company that lies is saying their missile defence system works and the organisation who inadvertently gave them their competitor's bid for the project is believing them.  Glad it's not my taxes they're spending.

unclesam.gif

...And from the original article:

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]...

Overall, the Pentagon estimates it will need $53 billion in the next five years to develop, field and upgrade a multilayered shield also involving systems based at sea, aboard modified Boeing 747 aircraft and in space

I suppose we all saw that one coming.   rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say what you want ,but after looking at the recent economic figures of the U.S.A i conclude that about all new spending's must be a waste of money ,The American economy has gone down so much since Bush came to power (and were talking billion's of $ here ,whole percentage's of U.S it's BNP) and yet Bush is still busy deficit spending with serious cuts on healthcare and education etc to put an amazing amount of money on security an defense.Why the heck waste billions of dollars on a project that belonged in the cold war period and not in the war against terrorism.

I wonder who are the shareholders of all those private security company's funded by the Bush Administration of wich some ,about 3000 security men actually are opperating in Vietna... ,sorry Iraq.What's the deal with that ,private company's running the war? crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a great project in Ronald Regan period but it's been stopped coz of high coast .even if we have effective shield the Russians will make new faster missiles that can pass throw and it gonna be another cold war. : mad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (PAPABEAR_1985 @ May 15 2004,20:18) said:
even if we have effective shield the Russians will make new faster missiles that can pass throw and it gonna be another cold war.  : mad_o.gif

Why should they do that?? BTW, this Star Wars crap doesn't protect anybody from plane hijackers with knives or bombs in rucksacks, does it? What is more likely to happen... a large-scale missile attack from somewhere in the Middle East or some guys with bombs strapped to their bodies hopping in some train at rush hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Tamme @ May 15 2004,11:54) said:
  (Pathy @ May 14 2004,19:19) said:
  (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ May 14 2004,12:39) said:
  (Pathy @ May 13 2004,21:06) said:
For years the US has tried to develop SDI, but.....no i am not suprised if it is not going to be done any time soon......at least in the Reagan years it was a useful bargaining chip in arms limitation talks with the USSR.....

....like the two times the USSR offered unilateral disarmament only to be turned down??

Yes, exactly like those 2 times. The US did not know what a good thing it had. Russia was scared of loosing its entire nuclear capability and as a result offered extremely generous terms in return for the USA stopping the SDI. Hence, at least it was a good bargaining chip.

Its a pity the USA didnt decide to use it as a bargaining chip, even though it had significant power (as the Russkies were also convinced it would work), because in the end it is ending up as a bottomless pit for funds.

I thought it was because russians were out of money for they had wasted all their money on nukes. They didn't have enough money to upkeep their huge arsenal not to mention war with the US, while americans were happy with much less nukes and more money.

So the USSR offered disarmament because they were near bankrupcy. It had nothing to do with SDI. The reason why US rejected the proposal however was because it would've meant closing down the SDI project. And hey, peace or a cool missile defense system?

You are kind of right and kind of wrong here.

At the time, Reagan had increased defence spending by about 13% (look up "Reagan Doctrine"), the USA was NOT looking to decrease the number of missiles, this period was known as the 2nd cold war, sparked by afganistan and compounded by successive Soviet leaders who were too ill to run a country leading to a lack of communication.

However, you are right to say the USSR had run out of money. Nothing to do with SDI? Wrong. The USSR saw the SDI coming and thought.....there goes our billions of $$$ nuclear arsenal.....we dont have the money to keep up by building our own SDI....what now?

Gorbachev realised he could kill 2 birds with one stone...that is, stop SDI, and thus preserve Russia as a Nuclear power, while giving him an excuse for making cutbacks (remember, the Military had power in the USSR, and making cuts without such an excuse would have probably led to a military coup).

However, the USA, convinced that its SDI would work, thus annulling the USSR forever, rejected SART.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×