Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield?

[WillowTree]

.... Republicans who are anti science? ....

How silly.

they put double doses of silly in their kool-aid every day!

 

[Si modo]

Does anyone actually need anymore proof that this idiot in charge of our country is not really looking out for the security of this country????

Then why not put the missiles in Alaska? That IS the the only border we share with Russia.....

You're talking about a system that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Si modo]

Russia whined that this system is offensive to Russia. It's not. Nothing is aimed at Russia and the midrange capabilities have nothing to do with anything Russia would launch at the USA.

Russia whined that the detection functionality of this system is a threat to Russia. This system provides no intelligence on Russia that we don't already have.

Yet, the USA has caved to Russia with nothing in return. It boggles the logical minds.

not the usa,, obama and my mind isn't boggled cause I expected that's what he'd do, what he says he is going to do is just the opposite of what he actually does,, you have to play the reverse psychology game to figure him out!

As I accept the USA's process of a peaceful transfer of leadership and am damn proud of our process, BHO is my president. BHO's decisions are my country's decisions. No offense meant, but I value more our nation's system of government than any single man or party and will respect and defend that system as best as I can.

 

[WillowTree]

Russia whined that this system is offensive to Russia. It's not. Nothing is aimed at Russia and the midrange capabilities have nothing to do with anything Russia would launch at the USA.

Russia whined that the detection functionality of this system is a threat to Russia. This system provides no intelligence on Russia that we don't already have.

Yet, the USA has caved to Russia with nothing in return. It boggles the logical minds.

not the usa,, obama and my mind isn't boggled cause I expected that's what he'd do, what he says he is going to do is just the opposite of what he actually does,, you have to play the reverse psychology game to figure him out!

As I accept the USA's process of a peaceful transfer of leadership and am damn proud of our process, BHO is my president. BHO's decisions are my country's decisions. No offense meant, but I value more our nation's system of government than any single man or party and will respect and defend that system as best as I can.

I'm so proud of you. And I'll respect him when he respects the USA and ALL of the people in it. As long as he shows he wants to divide us, then divided we shall be.

 

[Emma]

Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield

Good. 'Bout time.

 

[Si modo]

Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield

Good. 'Bout time.

Why do you think it is good?

 

[rdean]

Let me see if i understand this correctly, "The Guardian" is the ultimate authority on US Missile Defense technology when, the actual people who test the systems, engineer them, design them, and post the data, are not. I see... So in that case I suppose that 41 of 50 actually is 50% then that is of course if you find the 9 failures and then look at those failures and then take from those failures data from a source that has zero credibility when it comes to defense matters.

Military officials can claim only a 50% hit rate, and only then in tests that are far removed from a real world attack scenario, said David Wright, a physicist and co-director of global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No credited Source Military Officials who? I can get a quote from a Airman that works at Luke AFB and call him a Military official. Oh and here is a little look at the Guardians so called scientists who were making this assesment on Missile defense...

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
About Us | Union of Concerned Scientists


Again, if you want to know if a system works or not, try to read the data that results from the tests and not some agenda based group that has zero credibilty in this technology. An environmental scientist has about as much professional opinion on Missile defense as the teenager working at the local Taco Bell.

U.S. Missile-Defence Shield Test Fails;Interceptor Fails to Launch. [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

Ending a Failed Missile Defense Program | National Security Network

This is one of my all time favorites:

"A missile shield test was a "smashing success," Pentagon officials said Friday, despite the failure of the test to put to rest concerns that the interceptor might not be able to differentiate between real missiles and decoys."

Decoy fails to deploy, but missile test called 'success' - CNN.com

CTV.ca | U.S. missile shield fails another test

US aborts test of Israeli missile-defense system meant to shield against Iranian attack

Take a look at the people calling it a "success". Military generals and defense contractors. Yea, I believe them for sure - NOT!

It doesn't matter how much evidence you give to a Republican. Once their little mind is made up, it's made up. Period!

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is my (very biased) opinion that the outrage from the neoconservative flank is based on politics, not science. Frankly, I was a poli sci / history major and cannot speak with any personal knowledge or authority on rocket science, but I do understand the politics of fear and smear.
Arguments offered in defense of the Bush foreign policy are almost entirely based on emotion. Efforts by one of the above, is typical of the rhetoric often used in oppositon to everything proposed by the new president. Issues and outcomes are unimportant to those on the right whose ideology was checked by the voters in 2006 & firmly in 2008; rather than ask themselves why, they spend their time attacking the winners of recent elections and their supporters.
The most interesting aspect of their attacks - generally of the ad hominem variety - is that they rarely propose comprhensive, well thought-out alternatives to proposed policies. They seem satisfied with criticism (always framed in the fear and smear motif) and when challenged to prove their claims (that proposed policies are wrong) provided not the necessary evidence, but a series of diversions (yes, the dreadful logical fallacies). Unable to respond on point, the red herring, slippery slope and false dilemma are always good choices.
It would be funny if the 'game' is not so serious.

 

[Emma]

Thursday's announcement is a dramatic departure from the Bush administration's proposal for permanent land-based interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Instead, Obama, acting on what he said was the "unanimous" advice of Defense Secretary Gates and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the new system would be replaced by more mobile missiles on ships in the sea and around Europe.

The White House said new technology supports such a shift, and it would be more cost-effective and provide more security to U.S. interests and allies.

The second reason for this change is Iran. The Pentagon said the decision was based on intelligence indicating Iran was struggling in its intercontinental missile program but building many more short- and medium-range missiles.

The changes will slowly be phased in -- with the first phase under way by 2011. Gates said Thursday that one kind of smaller missiles has already been equipped on 20 Aegis cruisers and destroyers. The land-based missiles won't be dependent on location, and they can be placed anywhere on the continent. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, said they could be placed in northern/central Europe, southern Europe and in the vicinity of the Black Sea and Caucuses.

"I believe this new approach provides a better missile defense capability for our forces in Europe, for our European allies and, eventually, for our homeland than the program I recommended almost three years ago," Gates told reporters. "It is more adapted to the threat we see developing and takes advantage of new technical capabilities available to us today. As long as the Iranian threat persists, we will pursue proven and cost-effective missile defenses."

Obama's New U.S. Missile Shield Strategy Pleases Russia - ABC News

 

[Si modo]

Let me see if i understand this correctly, "The Guardian" is the ultimate authority on US Missile Defense technology when, the actual people who test the systems, engineer them, design them, and post the data, are not. I see... So in that case I suppose that 41 of 50 actually is 50% then that is of course if you find the 9 failures and then look at those failures and then take from those failures data from a source that has zero credibility when it comes to defense matters.

Military officials can claim only a 50% hit rate, and only then in tests that are far removed from a real world attack scenario, said David Wright, a physicist and co-director of global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No credited Source Military Officials who? I can get a quote from a Airman that works at Luke AFB and call him a Military official. Oh and here is a little look at the Guardians so called scientists who were making this assesment on Missile defense...

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
About Us | Union of Concerned Scientists


Again, if you want to know if a system works or not, try to read the data that results from the tests and not some agenda based group that has zero credibilty in this technology. An environmental scientist has about as much professional opinion on Missile defense as the teenager working at the local Taco Bell.

U.S. Missile-Defence Shield Test Fails;Interceptor Fails to Launch. [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum....

One test failure out of several tests, most of which succeeded, is just one datapoint in several. A bit of knowledge about scientific methods might be a good idea for you.

.... It doesn't matter how much evidence you give to a Republican. Once their little mind is made up, it's made up. Period!

Perhaps those 'anti-science' Republicans you mentioned realized that one test failure out of several does not equate to "it doesn't work". Your input is inane.

 

[Emma]

Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield

Good. 'Bout time.

Why do you think it is good?

It was provocative and unnecessary.

 

[Si modo]

Good. 'Bout time.

Why do you think it is good?

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

 

[Emma]

Why do you think it is good?

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

You don't see how it threatened the Russians?

In any case, as pointed out by Sec. Gates, the administration is being flexible enough to respond to threats as they exist.

 

[rdean]

.... Republicans who are anti science? ....

How silly.

You're right. Republicans are silly.

Do yourself a favor, search "Republican War on Science" and learn about the many ways Republicans have undermined science. Find out, true or false, about the exodus of scientists from the Bush White House and why they left and how it's damaged the US.

Learn about Republicans lack of understanding about stem cell research, technology and science, and biology, botany and physiology.

Fine out about how Republicans "misuse" data in an attempt to bolster their position.

Find out why Republicans have such a low opinion of scientists and say scientists only theorize, sit on their butts and collect grants.

What is the Republican position on “teaching the controversy”?

And finally, find out why less than 6% of scientists will admit to being a Republican.

Then, come back and tell us why the “Republican War on Science” is “silly.

 

[Si modo]

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

You don't see how it threatened the Russians? ....

Not at all. Please explain how it threatened the Russians.

 

[rdean]

Why do you think it is good?

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

It's provocative because if it's not used for "defense", what is left? "Offense" obviously.

 

[Si modo]

.... Republicans who are anti science? ....

How silly.

You're right. Republicans are silly.

Do yourself a favor, search "Republican War on Science" and learn about the many ways Republicans have undermined science. Find out, true or false, about the exodus of scientists from the Bush White House and why they left and how it's damaged the US.

Learn about Republicans lack of understanding about stem cell research, technology and science, and biology, botany and physiology.

Fine out about how Republicans "misuse" data in an attempt to bolster their position.

Find out why Republicans have such a low opinion of scientists and say scientists only theorize, sit on their butts and collect grants.

What is the Republican position on “teaching the controversy”?

And finally, find out why less than 6% of scientists will admit to being a Republican.

Then, come back and tell us why the “Republican War on Science” is “silly.

I see. You're wanting to divert the topic from the subject. Perhaps you could start a thread about this perception of yours or just discuss this topic, if you can, that is.

 

[Emma]

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

It's provocative because if it's not used for "defense", what is left? "Offense" obviously.

And if they feel their back is against the wall...

 

[Si modo]

It was provocative and unnecessary.

How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)

It's provocative because if it's not used for "defense", what is left? "Offense" obviously.

Your claim is not supported by facts. Try again.

 

[rdean]

Let me see if i understand this correctly, "The Guardian" is the ultimate authority on US Missile Defense technology when, the actual people who test the systems, engineer them, design them, and post the data, are not. I see... So in that case I suppose that 41 of 50 actually is 50% then that is of course if you find the 9 failures and then look at those failures and then take from those failures data from a source that has zero credibility when it comes to defense matters.

Military officials can claim only a 50% hit rate, and only then in tests that are far removed from a real world attack scenario, said David Wright, a physicist and co-director of global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No credited Source Military Officials who? I can get a quote from a Airman that works at Luke AFB and call him a Military official. Oh and here is a little look at the Guardians so called scientists who were making this assesment on Missile defense...

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
About Us | Union of Concerned Scientists


Again, if you want to know if a system works or not, try to read the data that results from the tests and not some agenda based group that has zero credibilty in this technology. An environmental scientist has about as much professional opinion on Missile defense as the teenager working at the local Taco Bell.

U.S. Missile-Defence Shield Test Fails;Interceptor Fails to Launch. [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum....

One test failure out of several tests, most of which succeeded, is just one datapoint in several. A bit of knowledge about scientific methods might be a good idea for you.

.... It doesn't matter how much evidence you give to a Republican. Once their little mind is made up, it's made up. Period!

Perhaps those 'anti-science' Republicans you mentioned realized that one test failure out of several does not equate to "it doesn't work". Your input is inane.

Actually, if one nuclear weapon get's through, then "yes" indeed, it didn't work.

Honestly, I don't understand why even the most simple things are such a challenge for Republicans?

Look, if the "target" has a "known" direction, velocity, location and is equipped with a homing device, AND IT IS STILL MISSED, then it is most definitely a failure. Can it be said in a more "simple" manner?