|
martin tells the Yanks to stick the missile shield up thier arse (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
why not put that money into researching something that would actually be useful instead? |
exactly!!!!!
It would be like putting tonnnes of money into a machine that can convert extacy into hot girls. Sure its funding for science and perhaps something might result but really...... there are alot better ways to spend the money then the conversion of MDMA into titties( although i personally would support the idea)
swilly |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
HAHAHA you just got owned!!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/mi...e.ap/index.html
Interceptor missile hits test target
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.
It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud, was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. ET. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.
The SM-3 interceptor will be deployed on ships later this year, Lehner said.
Also involved in the test was the Aegis destroyer USS Russell, which tested some of its missile-tracking systems.
The SM-3 doesn't have the range of the experimental land-based national missile defenses located in Alaska and California, and it is envisioned for use in protecting allies or U.S. forces from short-range ballistic missiles launched over a body of water. Potential scenarios where it could see action include missiles fired by North Korea at Japan, or by China at Taiwan.
However, the tracking system on some naval vessels is designed to assist in hunting intercontinental ballistic missiles. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
why not put that money into researching something that would actually be useful instead? |
like what? uncovering why the universe was formed? how species were created? What exists beyond the current known smallest layer of an atom?
Why the literature of Shakespear is better than the literature Charles Dickens? Why chimpanzes have sex? How come mosquites have a virus from Egypt? Or why the greek odyseey is the origin of Roman foundation lure?
Most science is useless if you want to look at it that way...
At least this science can shoot down something in the air. That's not bad. |
|
|
| auujay |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
HAHAHA you just got owned!!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/mi...e.ap/index.html
Interceptor missile hits test target
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.
It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud, was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. ET. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.
The SM-3 interceptor will be deployed on ships later this year, Lehner said.
Also involved in the test was the Aegis destroyer USS Russell, which tested some of its missile-tracking systems.
The SM-3 doesn't have the range of the experimental land-based national missile defenses located in Alaska and California, and it is envisioned for use in protecting allies or U.S. forces from short-range ballistic missiles launched over a body of water. Potential scenarios where it could see action include missiles fired by North Korea at Japan, or by China at Taiwan.
However, the tracking system on some naval vessels is designed to assist in hunting intercontinental ballistic missiles. |
How is this very impressive. The US was shooting down SCUDs a decade ago. It is the land based ones that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
who ing cares what some idiot in the army thinks about the whole matter. That would be like taking the advice of bulldozer operator on a major decision in your engineering company. He is just paid muscle or in this case a bullet recepticle who cares what he has to think?
Naturally, those in the army are supportive of the whole matter. The armed forces is by nature one of the most rascist, unprogressive and closed minded canadian instituions. I should now i was there for a summer. I remember once being drilled on potential threats of nuclear attack from nations like russia. I was like " umm sir the cold war is over you know?"
"Give me 20 private lavell I dont want anymore of this school talk in my unit!"
Ya great people to take advice from.
While we are it i know some people up at the lumber mill who might be able to provide some insight into Natural resource management
hahahhaha |
Comparing the finest, and most respected military mind in Canada, with your former drill instructor speaks volumes about your argument.
That it has no basis in fact.
I'm more inclined to agree with him, than someone on a message boad spouting random beliefs like they are facts.
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Wooo whoo there is an extra 10 billion per year we can use for public transit, education and healthcare. |
No where in your posted article have you backed this, or any other of your claims.
I'm not for this shield, but in the articles posted here it seems that Canada's role with the BMD wouldn't differ than our current NORAD position and finances.
Martin even signed an agreement stating that the BMD would inherit NORAD's current role. The only thing being asked of Canada was to take the monitoring of the stations role, like we do the current radar net.
Oh, and political backing, that if used as leverage with the US instead of voters, would have benefitted Canada. But the Liberals as always are concerned more with their powerbase than the welfare of the nation.
Nowhere has it been stated that we are being asked to fund the development of the project. WE would have likely benefitted financially in the aerospace and robotics industries from research and development grants, like we do with the CANADARM/NASA relationship.
Until I see a print article detailing "billions" of Canadian dollars required, you don't have an argument to stand on, aside from your prattling hatred of George Bush. (something we can both agree on) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Eh?
| quote: | BMD is not aimed that Russia, China and others, at least not initially. Those countries are still in check due to MAD.
BMD is protection against rouge nations and groups. |
Well that is what they say but it is irrelevent who is the intended target (especially for China) as it has implications for deterrence, which is why these countries fear it |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
look this isn't a big freakin deal.
If it works, fine, we have more security.
If it doesn't, well science is all the better for it.
I really view this as just one big scientific fund... |
Well the thing is whether it works or not becomes irrelevent when reactions of other countries come into it. China and Russia cannot devise strategies based on best case scenarios. They must plan based on the worst case scenario that it works as intended (and as I said before, if it does work as intended it would nulify China's very modest nuclear arsenal) The easiest way to counter BMD is simply to increase your arsenal to have the same level of success/deterrent and more nuclear weapons in the world cannot be considered a good thing. Another easy way to counter BMD is to increase the sophistication of ballistic missiles (equiping them with decoys etc) so BMD could lead to more nuclear weapons and more sophisticated delivery systems |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by auujay
How is this very impressive. The US was shooting down SCUDs a decade ago. It is the land based ones that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. |
No a decade ago they missed all the scuds!! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
HAHAHA you just got owned!!
|
Don't get too excited, it still doesn't work!
Not one component of the BMD has been tested under realistic conditions (the missiles were fired on a predetermined flightpath, and the ground team were given this information) Also, the BMD will not be tested with all of its components until 2007.
The PAC-3 has had many "succesful" test flights but none under realistic conditions. Also, THAAD was a complete joke, and they didn't even give it a second successful intercept, they just gave Lockheed Martain (think it was them) the $4billion contract! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Also, there is a more imminent threat from al-Qaida launching cruise missiles from freighters off the coast of America, not only is nothing being done to defend against this threat, the BMD offers no protection either (it is claimed the PAC-3 has the capability to intercept cruise missiles but in reality it has not been able to do so) |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I am not sure which countries (or even terrorist groups) he is refering to which have as their stated goal the destruction of America and her allies? Also, he goes onto say how nasty these regimes are cos they kill kids, cut heads of etc and tries to tell us that this means they are capable of launching nukes at America and signing their death sentense?! This guy is an idiot! (Unlike the leaders of these countries he is describing I might add...) |
Shadowwolf was pointing out to your lack of information here.
Mackenzie is talking about not only Al-Queda and other muslim terrorist groups but those nations currently @ odds with the US ranging from North Korea and China, to Iran, Syria et all.
The first part of his example is directed @ terroist groups, like the Bali Bombing as well as the current climate in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Shadowwolf was pointing out to your lack of information here.
Mackenzie is talking about not only Al-Queda and other muslim terrorist groups but those nations currently @ odds with the US ranging from North Korea and China, to Iran, Syria et all.
The first part of his example is directed @ terroist groups, like the Bali Bombing as well as the current climate in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. |
Its not a lack of information, its just that I am not aware of ANY countries or terrorist organisations that have, as their aim, the destruction of America...
Lack of information! Honestly! |
|
|
|
|
