Comments on: Agency: Anti-Missile Tests = Bad

By: binh1

binh1 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:58:52 +0000

??
????
??
???? ??
????
??????
?? ??????
???
???
????
???? ?????
?
?? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
??? ??????
?? ??????
sod
???
???? ???
?? ????? ?????
????
?? ??
?? ??
?? ??
?DVD
?DVD
?? ??
?? ??
???? ??
???? ??
???? ????
??? ????
??? ????
??? ????

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:57:57 +0000

Proof of concept has already been determined by multiple successful missile intercepts. To be quoted as lame is un-intelligent and narrow minded at its best.
The MDA can not be expected to deploy a 100% effective ABS system at this time. It is designed to be deployed and improved as new technology comes to bear and improvements to current technology are made. Why should it be any other way?
Using this theory you could say cops with bullet proof vests are lame.
ABS is not 100% yet however if only a few Nuclear missiles can be intercepted why should we not intercept them? Add to that the ABS is designed to be a laired defense. It does not rely entirely on one system or flight phase of a Ballistic Missile. This is a redundantly layered defense system designed to take multiple shots at the missile(s).
Its worth was proved in Iraq twice with the Patriots Missile system. The Patriot is also not 100% effective however each missile it shot down in Iraq potentially saved a number of lives. Once again Proof of concept was made in GW 1 and GW 2. By the way valuable data was gained in GW 2 and incorporated into the current Patriots PAC-3.
“Nuff Said“
Indeed.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:27:16 +0000

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.”

By: Kyle

Kyle — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:50:41 +0000

Independent councils. Such buzzkills!
You would think Ken Starr was heading this one up, too. He seems to have a thing against government missiles shooting where they shouldn’t.