tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post7321968482740018551..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: The First Broken Promise?George Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-38521280429024005632008-11-19T11:01:00.000-05:002008-11-19T11:01:00.000-05:00I don't see any conflict between the two statement...I don't see any conflict between the two statements; we do need a missile defense, and we also need to stop wasting money on ineffective defense systems when we have a model program like Aegis BMD to follow.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that Pres-Elect Obama is referring to GMD, the large-diameter interceptors that we have in Alaska. Their interceptor development program has been plagued by reliability and effectiveness problems. At the same time, we have a holdover booster called KEI that used to be a boost-phase program but is now redundant with the GMD booster. We don't need two large-diameter boosters, especially if one of them doesn't work. <BR/><BR/>The main problem with reading politicians' statements about missile defense is that they are usually deliberately ambiguous about which specific programs are "ineffective". That said, I think you're setting up a straw man by putting Aegis on the chopping block first - it's the most successful of any of the elements.J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13913599852443572486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-46098963453740530192008-11-19T00:44:00.000-05:002008-11-19T00:44:00.000-05:00With a non-rational actor like Iran, probably the ...With a non-rational actor like Iran, probably the greatest danger comes from an EMP attack. That requires only one weapon, and can be launched either from a ship with an SRBM or IRBM. It could also be delivered via satellite, as low earth orbit satellite altitude is just right for an EMP burst.<BR/><BR/>So if Iran gets a nuke, or North Korea gets the ability to loft a reasonably heavy satellite, they immediately have a major deterrent against us.<BR/><BR/>I have seen little comment about the effectiveness of the ABM systems against high altitude targets (say 600km), but one wonders if that Navy shoot-down of a US satellite was both a test and a message - "we can shoot down your EMP satellite if we want."<BR/><BR/>The scary thing about an EMP satellite is there is no warning. It could orbit for months, and then one day - pow, and the US is devastated far beyond the damage of the same weapon detonated in even downtown Manhattan.StormCchaserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02998174514362089471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-16224675151258286942008-11-18T21:02:00.000-05:002008-11-18T21:02:00.000-05:00It is officially confirmed that Barrack Obama is a...It is officially confirmed that Barrack Obama is an empty suit. Repeat after me,"Barrack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life".PCSSEPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06409465703196815386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-5385608859631532102008-11-18T20:38:00.000-05:002008-11-18T20:38:00.000-05:00I am a bit concerned that you have put Russia and ...I am a bit concerned that you have put Russia and "our adversaries" in the same sentence and paragraph. Are you implying that this shield's ultimate goal is to contain Russian nuclear deterrent ? <BR/><BR/>I thought US administration has been working really hard in the last couple of years to convince the Russians that missile shield is not intended against them.AppleBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417952195398112486noreply@blogger.com