When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
smrstrauss
14 years ago
When there is a tests of a long-range missile with multiple warheads and it is hit by one or more ABMs without the site that has the ABMs being notified that the test warheads are being sent at X time from X base, I will believe that ABMs work.
Even if they do work, they do not protect well against submarine-launched missiles, which of course would be the ones that fired first at the ABM bases.
I agree on layered defense. Where to start with layered defense? With systems aboard ships and submarines that are the most cost-effective. If the Poles or other European countries want to have US anti-missile bases right away, they can pay for them.
Patvann
14 years ago
@smrstrauss
When I show you proof that what you just asked for has already happened, will you admit you were wrong? The fact that you have no clue to the test-program data, nor the capabilities of the PAC3 system, tells me you speak from a position of ignorance about both systems.
Sub-launched attack is not a present concern when preparing for Norks and Iranians, and we already know where every Russian and Chinese subs are. We can also safely assume neither of those countries have any intention of starting a nuke-war with us. As an aside, NONE of our subs, nor anyone else’s subs are defensive in nature nor armament. Only our Aegis destroyers are fitted with the anti-missile tech.
It seems disingenuous to me that this admin, and most lefties claim that missile defense won’t EVER work when Repubs are in the House funding it, then claim we shouldn’t field it because it isn’t proven enough, then try to cancel it because the first few tests don’t go well….NOW they want us to believe what was fielded and proved during the Bush years is now good enough.
@smrstrauss said: “If the Poles or other European countries want to have US anti-missile bases right away, they can pay for them. “
Once again we look back to history as the judge of what is right and what cost is worth it to defend what is right.
In the 1930’s we failed to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland and the price we paid for that betrayal cannot be measured in dollars, but in millions of lives lost.
What a shame you cannot accept the lessons the past teaches. What a horror if we should repeat them.
Patvann
14 years ago
Hey Mike
I think another thing many of these weenies forget, is the incalculable cost of friendship.
How much did crapping on the following countries cost us in future good-will and support?
-Poland (The defensive missiles, dissing the 70 anniversary of WW2)
-Czech Republic (No longer called Czechoslovakia, BTW.) (The long-range radar)
-Honduras (Support of a dictatorial thug)
-Columbia (Non-support of free trade agreements)
-Israel (non-support of the right to breed)
-The people of Iran (supporting Iamadinnerjacket)
-S Korea (going it along w/norks)
-Japan (same as above)
-England (crappin on the Queen’s protocol, and the gifting mess)
-France (hogging the D-day ceremony)
-China (undue tarrifs)
And this is the guy who claimed Bush abandoned our allies…
Patvann
14 years ago
@smrstrauss
You seem to have suddenly become very quiet….
Honest dood, we (or at least me, because I can only speak for myself) have much more to teach you about what’s going on outside the world as described by the Usual Sources.
So c’mon back! You might just be pleasantly surprised at the depth of experience some of us have in dealing with reality!
@Patvann: Sadly, the cost of Obama’s policy of dissing our friends while hugging rivals and enemies may not be apparent until some great crisis erupts. When the sin of appeasement is exposed once again as a dangerous and foolhardy policy we may not have the fullest measure of support from our allies if they can’t trust us or believe that we will be there for them.
I’ll cut Mr. Strauss some slack for a while and hope he sees the light before long. As for me, I’d rather go pick on Larry W. some more.
smrstrauss
14 years ago
Re: “When I show you proof that what you just asked for has already happened, will you admit you were wrong? The fact that you have no clue to the test-program data, nor the capabilities of the PAC3 system, tells me you speak from a position of ignorance about both systems.”
I have read that article. That was a test of the AEGIS system against a medium-range missile. It was not a test against a long-range missile, and I have specifically said that the AEGIS system seems to work. That is the ship based system that Obama indicates that he will deploy. This is logical. Deploying a system that HAS been proven somewhat effective is a lot better than deploying a system that has not been proved to be effective.
Patvann
14 years ago
The missile was in low orbit, and was about as tough as they get, (except high-orbit) because it had a “surprise” within it. If it was long-range, the systems would have an easier time tracking it to kill it, but the Aegis can’t go that high.
The system that was destined for Poland was virtually identical to the one 50 miles from my house at Vandenberg AFB, with it’s radar situated in Alaska. It’s been proven, or it wouldn’t be here.
The system for Poland was to protect the east-coast of America, and N. Europe against orbital 3-stage missiles like the one Iran used for putting a satellite up recently. It could NOT have protected us or Europe against Russian ICBM’s, and the fact that Obama let Russia get away with saying it does is pretty pussy-assed. We got NOTHING in return, as Russia is keeping their recently-installed mid-range missiles near Poland, and aimed at Europe. We have NOTHING offensive aimed at Russia right now, per treaty.
It will take time to install a Vandenberg-type system along the eastcoast. That is why the Polish ssytem was considered temporary.
For the ship-based to work against Iran’s tristage, it would have to be in the Black Sea. You and I both know Russia would have a fit, if that was to happen.
Keep abreast of that site. He gets the latest info first, because he’s part of it, and I will trust what he puts forth.
The next-gen stuff is lasers on airplanes, but they need to be pretty close to launch-sites.
You claim you want us to field “proven” systems…I agree. Now proclaim your disgust at system-cancellations that have yet to complete tests, such as what Obama has done.
When there is a tests of a long-range missile with multiple warheads and it is hit by one or more ABMs without the site that has the ABMs being notified that the test warheads are being sent at X time from X base, I will believe that ABMs work.
Even if they do work, they do not protect well against submarine-launched missiles, which of course would be the ones that fired first at the ABM bases.
I agree on layered defense. Where to start with layered defense? With systems aboard ships and submarines that are the most cost-effective. If the Poles or other European countries want to have US anti-missile bases right away, they can pay for them.
@smrstrauss
When I show you proof that what you just asked for has already happened, will you admit you were wrong? The fact that you have no clue to the test-program data, nor the capabilities of the PAC3 system, tells me you speak from a position of ignorance about both systems.
Proof here
Sub-launched attack is not a present concern when preparing for Norks and Iranians, and we already know where every Russian and Chinese subs are. We can also safely assume neither of those countries have any intention of starting a nuke-war with us. As an aside, NONE of our subs, nor anyone else’s subs are defensive in nature nor armament. Only our Aegis destroyers are fitted with the anti-missile tech.
It seems disingenuous to me that this admin, and most lefties claim that missile defense won’t EVER work when Repubs are in the House funding it, then claim we shouldn’t field it because it isn’t proven enough, then try to cancel it because the first few tests don’t go well….NOW they want us to believe what was fielded and proved during the Bush years is now good enough.
@smrstrauss said: “If the Poles or other European countries want to have US anti-missile bases right away, they can pay for them. “
Once again we look back to history as the judge of what is right and what cost is worth it to defend what is right.
In the 1930’s we failed to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland and the price we paid for that betrayal cannot be measured in dollars, but in millions of lives lost.
What a shame you cannot accept the lessons the past teaches. What a horror if we should repeat them.
Hey Mike
I think another thing many of these weenies forget, is the incalculable cost of friendship.
How much did crapping on the following countries cost us in future good-will and support?
-Poland (The defensive missiles, dissing the 70 anniversary of WW2)
-Czech Republic (No longer called Czechoslovakia, BTW.) (The long-range radar)
-Honduras (Support of a dictatorial thug)
-Columbia (Non-support of free trade agreements)
-Israel (non-support of the right to breed)
-The people of Iran (supporting Iamadinnerjacket)
-S Korea (going it along w/norks)
-Japan (same as above)
-England (crappin on the Queen’s protocol, and the gifting mess)
-France (hogging the D-day ceremony)
-China (undue tarrifs)
And this is the guy who claimed Bush abandoned our allies…
@smrstrauss
You seem to have suddenly become very quiet….
Honest dood, we (or at least me, because I can only speak for myself) have much more to teach you about what’s going on outside the world as described by the Usual Sources.
So c’mon back! You might just be pleasantly surprised at the depth of experience some of us have in dealing with reality!
@Patvann: Sadly, the cost of Obama’s policy of dissing our friends while hugging rivals and enemies may not be apparent until some great crisis erupts. When the sin of appeasement is exposed once again as a dangerous and foolhardy policy we may not have the fullest measure of support from our allies if they can’t trust us or believe that we will be there for them.
I’ll cut Mr. Strauss some slack for a while and hope he sees the light before long. As for me, I’d rather go pick on Larry W. some more.
Re: “When I show you proof that what you just asked for has already happened, will you admit you were wrong? The fact that you have no clue to the test-program data, nor the capabilities of the PAC3 system, tells me you speak from a position of ignorance about both systems.”
I have read that article. That was a test of the AEGIS system against a medium-range missile. It was not a test against a long-range missile, and I have specifically said that the AEGIS system seems to work. That is the ship based system that Obama indicates that he will deploy. This is logical. Deploying a system that HAS been proven somewhat effective is a lot better than deploying a system that has not been proved to be effective.
The missile was in low orbit, and was about as tough as they get, (except high-orbit) because it had a “surprise” within it. If it was long-range, the systems would have an easier time tracking it to kill it, but the Aegis can’t go that high.
The system that was destined for Poland was virtually identical to the one 50 miles from my house at Vandenberg AFB, with it’s radar situated in Alaska. It’s been proven, or it wouldn’t be here.
The system for Poland was to protect the east-coast of America, and N. Europe against orbital 3-stage missiles like the one Iran used for putting a satellite up recently. It could NOT have protected us or Europe against Russian ICBM’s, and the fact that Obama let Russia get away with saying it does is pretty pussy-assed. We got NOTHING in return, as Russia is keeping their recently-installed mid-range missiles near Poland, and aimed at Europe. We have NOTHING offensive aimed at Russia right now, per treaty.
It will take time to install a Vandenberg-type system along the eastcoast. That is why the Polish ssytem was considered temporary.
For the ship-based to work against Iran’s tristage, it would have to be in the Black Sea. You and I both know Russia would have a fit, if that was to happen.
Keep abreast of that site. He gets the latest info first, because he’s part of it, and I will trust what he puts forth.
The next-gen stuff is lasers on airplanes, but they need to be pretty close to launch-sites.
You claim you want us to field “proven” systems…I agree. Now proclaim your disgust at system-cancellations that have yet to complete tests, such as what Obama has done.