North Korean Missile

sheepofblue · 06-20-2006, 2:45 PM

US makes missile defense system operational - Yahoo! News

Purpdust · 06-20-2006, 2:52 PM

THis may be to simplistic of an approach but if we can have them why/who are we to say they can not

luvtolean · 06-20-2006, 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

US makes missile defense system operational - Yahoo! News

I would take that report with an exceptionally large grain of salt.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 3:00 PM

Ronald Reagan would be proud!!! His star wars dream is coming true.

I wouldn't mind if other contries had anti-missle defences. They have a right not to be nuked too. Not only that, any contry developing anti missle missles is years behind us. By then we'll have lazer and phazers and stuff.
It's very hard to vector a trajectory on something moving at mach 4 in a split second and dispatch proper resources.

luvtolean · 06-20-2006, 3:02 PM

I think he's asking the question, why is it OK for us to have missiles, but not NK.

You're right, nobody else has missile defense because it's a seriously hard problem.

I'm not exactly convinced we have it either.

SoCalBlade · 06-20-2006, 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purpdust

THis may be to simplistic of an approach but if we can have them why/who are we to say they can not

Well duh...they are in the axis of evil....geesh.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I think he's asking the question, why is it OK for us to have missiles, but not NK.

You're right, nobody else has missile defense because it's a seriously hard problem.

I'm not exactly convinced we have it either.

Hahaha, yea, so true. If thats the case and his question is why can we have nukes and not others? Then my answer is, who said it's ok that we have them? Everyone I know is anti-nuke weapons. There are other points to consider like, nuke powered electical plants, and how many lives were saved from the mainland Japan invasion? But, if nukes are the end to man kind, thats kind of a shitty trade off.

navydevildoc · 06-20-2006, 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purpdust

THis may be to simplistic of an approach but if we can have them why/who are we to say they can not

I think the major difference is that we (and most nuclear states) have extreme controls on the use of such weapons, and that we have the restraint to not use them on a whim. Even in the US it takes several people to agree to use them before the orders go out. The SIOP is a very strict system that is not open to interpretation.

North Korea is a Stalinist state with a leader that is a few tacos short of a combo plate. He just has to say "turn Tokyo into a radioactive parking lot" and it will happen. It doesn't help that Kim Jong Il has a penis envy problem.

That's the nutshell answer.

navydevildoc · 06-20-2006, 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I think he's asking the question, why is it OK for us to have missiles, but not NK.

You're right, nobody else has missile defense because it's a seriously hard problem.

I'm not exactly convinced we have it either.

We have some parts of it down real good. Our RADAR and DSP sats are second to none. Datalink capabilities between RADAR sites and the Kill Vehicle launching platform and the Vehicle itself is dialed. It's the actual trajectory computations that are kicking our ass. When you are going Mach 4, trying to come within inches of another vechicle going Mach 4, and then detonating at the exact moment that are unbelievably difficult.

Purpdust · 06-20-2006, 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

We have some parts of it down real good. Our RADAR and DSP sats are second to none. Datalink capabilities between RADAR sites and the Kill Vehicle launching platform and the Vehicle itself is dialed. It's the actual trajectory computations that are kicking our ass. When you are going Mach 4, trying to come within inches of another vechicle going Mach 4, and then detonating at the exact moment that are unbelievably difficult.

Expecially when in Physics class they always exclude friction from the calculation

BDA116 · 06-20-2006, 3:22 PM

So if a train leaves Chicago heading west going 75 MPH at noon CST and another train leaves Los Angeles heading east going 88 MPH at 1:00 CST, when and where will they meet?

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 3:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

We have some parts of it down real good. Our RADAR and DSP sats are second to none. Datalink capabilities between RADAR sites and the Kill Vehicle launching platform and the Vehicle itself is dialed. It's the actual trajectory computations that are kicking our ass. When you are going Mach 4, trying to come within inches of another vechicle going Mach 4, and then detonating at the exact moment that are unbelievably difficult.

YEA, What he said.

sheepofblue · 06-20-2006, 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

We have some parts of it down real good. Our RADAR and DSP sats are second to none. Datalink capabilities between RADAR sites and the Kill Vehicle launching platform and the Vehicle itself is dialed. It's the actual trajectory computations that are kicking our ass. When you are going Mach 4, trying to come within inches of another vechicle going Mach 4, and then detonating at the exact moment that are unbelievably difficult.

And it is public knowledge that we have achieved intercepts in testing using real ICBMs with interceptors. There is various debate on the test setup and results though (ignore any from the Union of Concerned Scientists as they are a collection of wack jobs).

luvtolean · 06-20-2006, 3:36 PM

I don't doubt our systems sometimes work...

sheepofblue · 06-20-2006, 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I don't doubt our systems sometimes work...

Question since you are in California. How much would a 75% effective system capable of stopping a nuke from exploding over LA be worth? 50%? 25%?

For the east coasters insert NY in place of LA.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

So if a train leaves Chicago heading west going 75 MPH at noon CST and another train leaves Los Angeles heading east going 88 MPH at 1:00 CST, when and where will they meet?

They would meet approx. 12.4 hrs later which would make it 13:25 cst and the location would be 1,091.2 miles east of los angels assuming the train track is completely straight.

EDIT:that is for both trains leaving at 1cst,

correction, they should still meet at around 13:24 cst but the miles are 1,010 miles east of L.A.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 3:48 PM

[quote=sheepofblue]Question since you are in California. How much would a 75% effective system capable of stopping a nuke from exploding over LA be worth? 50%? 25%?

For the east coasters insert NY in place of LA.[/quote

It would have to be 100% effective, even one nuke out of one hundred would be devastating given the current geothermal nuclear capabilities.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 4:01 PM

err. I probably wasn't supposed to answer that, wasn't it one of them rhetorical questions???

sheepofblue · 06-20-2006, 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUCIDDREAM57

It would have to be 100% effective, even one nuke out of one hundred would be devastating given the current geothermal nuclear capabilities.

Of course you want perfect. But what if the choice is a flawed defense or none (which is what most critics of the current system postulate)

navydevildoc · 06-20-2006, 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUCIDDREAM57

It would have to be 100% effective, even one nuke out of one hundred would be devastating given the current geothermal nuclear capabilities.

Geothermal nukes? Wow... the environmentalists are everywhere!

I think you meant Thermonuclear. A fusion bomb kicked off by a fission detonation.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 4:08 PM

I would have to say nothing is perfect in it's infancy, far from it. However, there has to be a starting point. With that logic mankind would never advance any thing let alone start new projects in fear of failure. Over time a missle defence will be taken for granted..........eventually......well ok we'll be dead by then, but still the system has to evolve over time just like anything else.

LUCIDDREAM57 · 06-20-2006, 4:09 PM

[quote=navydevildoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUCIDDREAM57

Geothermal nukes? Wow... the environmentalists are everywhere!

I think you meant Thermonuclear. A fusion bomb kicked off by a fission detonation.

durr, sorry, your right. thanc u publik skhool.......

luvtolean · 06-20-2006, 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Question since you are in California. How much would a 75% effective system capable of stopping a nuke from exploding over LA be worth? 50%? 25%?

For the east coasters insert NY in place of LA.

So I take it, your company is working on these systems?

sheepofblue · 06-20-2006, 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

So I take it, your company is working on these systems?

Are you trying to terrify everyone here with the thought that their life depends on me