DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Missiles » Star Wars: The Next Generation

Star Wars: The Next Generation

Get ready for a new round of “Star Wars” sto­ries.
NMD1.jpgWithin the next cou­ple of weeks, the Missile Defense Agency is sched­uled to test its national mis­sile defense sys­tem, again. If there’s a suc­cess­ful inter­cept, expect the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and its back­ers to talk it up as another sign the sys­tem is ready to go. But if they miss, there’s an out: It’s not offi­cially an inter­cept test, see, so while a hit would be nice, it’s not offi­cially what they’re try­ing to do. Missing, in other words, is per­fectly OK.
Regardless, you can be sure the results will lead to the usual spate of “will Star Wars work?” cov­er­age.
It’s been more than 20 years since Ronald Reagan made his so-​​called Star Wars speech, kick­ing off his grandiose plans for a global mis­sile defense shield that came to naught. Yet we still can’t shake the Star Wars moniker for mis­sile defense of any kind, even the shorter-​​range pro­grams that bear almost no resem­blance to the old Strategic Defense Initiative.
Star Wars, the name, most often crops up in attacks on the sys­tem, as in here (to use just one recent exam­ple), but it still has main­stream media cachet, too. To wit: this Aug. 15 Reuters story.
Missile defense back­ers have long hated the name, feel­ing (quite cor­rectly) that it is a deroga­tory dis­missal of the whole premise behind mis­sile defense, or at least the idea that ICBMs can be shot down effec­tively by other mis­siles. It’s a sci­ence fic­tion movie; get it?
I also think the name’s insult­ing. To the Star Wars movies, that is. (And I’m not even a fan.)
shatner1.pngThink about it: Star Wars was a smash hit from day one, and remains the most pop­u­lar movie fran­chise ever. But Reagan’s SDI vision was roundly decried as too far-​​out and too costly from the start, and those crit­i­cisms proved accu­rate. And while reviews may be mixed on the cur­rent crop of mis­sile defense sys­tems, they haven’t exactly been big hits in test­ing.
If crit­ics and reporters need a dis­mis­sive sci­ence fic­tion movie han­dle for mis­sile defense, maybe they should try Star Trek. Like SDI, the orig­i­nal Star Trek show had an inaus­pi­cious start — can­celed in just its third sea­son and seem­ingly rel­e­gated to his­tory. Only a hard-​​core band of sup­port­ers kept the flame alive until movies and, later, new TV shows made it a hit again.
And just like the Trekkies, a group of star war­riors kept Reagan’s Star Wars dream alive through­out the admin­is­tra­tions of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Once George W. Bush took over the White House, he brought along with him quite a few of those diehards — Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, to name just three — giv­ing mis­sile defense its best friends in power since Reagan. The next gen­er­a­tion, if you will.
And while I don’t want to bela­bor the anal­ogy — I’ll leave that kind of thing to the Trekkies at The Corner — let’s not for­get the nick­name Bush’s national secu­rity advis­ers picked for them­selves dur­ing the 200 cam­paign: The Vulcans!
– Dan Dupont
p.s. Can’t resist: Go watch this.

Share |

August 24th, 2006 | Missiles | 32441,030 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/08/24/star-wars-the-next-generation/Star+Wars%3A+The+Next+Generation2006-08-24+16%3A32%3A31david_axe You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

« « Blue Notes | Calling All Space Experts » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. pedestrian says:
    August 24, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    >If there’s a suc­cess­ful inter­cept, expect the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and its back­ers to talk it up
    >as another sign the sys­tem is ready to go.
    I’ll bet not, at least in pub­lic. Think. If suc­cess, what would Russia and China think next. You don’t want to always talk about suc­cess that could attract enemy’s eyes. We don’t need to be like French with cheap nation­al­ism, those who con­sider them­selves as Ultra-​​Power.
    Reference
    http://​www​.space​war​.com/​r​e​p​o​r​t​s​/​B​u​s​h​_​S​i​l​e​n​t​_​O​n​_​B​M​D​_​S​u​c​c​e​s​s​.​h​tml

    Reply
  2. Robot.Economist says:
    August 24, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    I don’t know about that pedes­trian, the Bush admin­is­tra­tion has a demon­strated a pen­chant for ignor­ing Russia and China on mis­sile defense issues. I think the main rea­son Bush has been silent on test­ing recently is due to the fact that the Ground-​​based Midcourse hasn’t been tested since for four years. Not sur­pris­ingly, that time­frame matches up pretty well with the Spacewar arti­cle you cited.
    I agree that the U.S. doesn’t need to engage in nation­al­is­tic pap like the French do, but that doesn’t mean the Bush admin­is­tra­tion doesn’t do it any­ways. To be fair though, most mis­sile defense advo­cates in the Bush admin­is­tra­tion are moti­vated by a belief that sta­bil­ity based on mutual vul­ner­a­bil­ity is wrong/​immoral, rather than notions of “hyperpower-​​dom.“
    They still have to beat the drums of nation­al­ism after a suc­cess­ful test, but only to attract Congress’s largesse. The United States is already an unas­sail­able super­power to them ayway, act­ing like Mike Tyson at a weigh-​​in with Lennox Lewis doesn’t seem necessary.

    Reply
  3. Noah (the other one) says:
    August 24, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Do you really think the Bush admin­is­tra­tion cares about what the Russians and Chinese think? They cer­tainly didn’t when they with­drew us from the 1972 ABM treaty.
    Or maybe they did, and that was jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for with­drawl, the only con­se­quence of which could be to spur the arms race. The only remain­ing ques­tion: are we the only ones running?

    Reply
  4. luc says:
    August 24, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    I am curi­ous to know if in the author’s opin­ion this arti­cle could not be con­sid­ered a “hit piece” mis­sile defense. My ques­tion is based on the title of the arti­cle and the fol­low­ing state­ment the arti­cle includes: “I also think the name’s insult­ing.“
    Maybe I am being too harsh :)

    Reply
  5. Renegade Paladin says:
    August 26, 2006 at 5:41 am

    Kelley, just to point out, the United Federation of Planets wasn’t mor­ph­ing into a rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­racy. To the con­trary, one can clearly observe it’s descent into Communism between the orig­i­nal series and the Next Generation. After all, the Federation has elim­i­nated money and prop­erty by Picard’s time, the Federation Council is /​not/​ elected, and Starfleet actively seeks to sup­press other cul­tures from advance­ment. Hell, Picard didn’t even under­stand the con­cept of investments!

    Reply
  6. Kelley King says:
    September 7, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Well what else are we sup­pose to try when N. Korea, Iran, Iraq and other ter­ror­ist grouped coun­tries start toss­ing Necular Bombs our way?
    Duck and Run??? Our com­pas­sion for oth­ers is what makes us the strongest coun­try in the world…
    The Clinton Administration cut our Military down to this small amount we have now. He paid High Bonuses to cer­tain Officers and Enlisted Personnel to leave early or forced out after 20 yrs ser­vice.
    I for one am hop­ing Star Wars works for your sake as well as the rest of America.
    ReCheck your infor­ma­tion. We are suf­fer­ing Militararly because of the Clintons.….
    Prior Service Vetern E-​​5

    Reply
  7. UJ L. says:
    September 7, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    i think this “star wars” pro­gram can work. If you think about how it work in Pres. Reagan admin­is­tra­tion, the cold war ended sooner than we thought! We plan it out bet­ter than the soviet union did and they gave up on theirs. Now when threats from the “Axis of evil” pops up they would want to rethink hard in attack­ing us. Thus, counter their movement!

    Reply
  8. lamargl says:
    September 7, 2006 at 11:14 pm

    We sur­ren­der. Not going to fight back any­more. Hey don

    Reply
  9. Robert Scaggs says:
    September 8, 2006 at 6:34 am

    I don’t under­stand the debate. “Star Wars” anti-​​ballistic tech­nol­ogy works. We (and the Soviets) have been test­ing it since the ‘60s. A XLIM-​​49A Spartan made it’s first inter­cept in 1970 as part of the Safeguard Project (1969–1975) and we had a deployed sys­tem up to 1975 when Congress shut it down.
    If you have the time I would rec­om­mend “The Secret Weapons of the Cold War” by Bill Yenne pub­lished by Berkey Books and avail­able from Penguin.
    On a per­sonal note, it seems odd that an edi­to­r­ial would be pushed as a news story. Maybe I don’t under­stand the con­cept of “jour­nal­ist“
    Anyway, yall have a great day.

    Reply
  10. wolf in sheeps cloths says:
    September 8, 2006 at 6:39 am

    ‘Well what else are we sup­pose to try when N. Korea, Iran, Iraq and other ter­ror­ist grouped coun­tries start toss­ing Necular Bombs our way?
    Duck and Run??? ‘
    we throw back much big­ger ones until they can throw no more!

    Reply
  11. Average American says:
    September 8, 2006 at 9:03 am

    Let’s be hon­est here — Mr. Dupont pos­sesses a very small mind, not his fault, some­times nature makes a mis­take. Mr. Dupont, like most lib­er­als can­not get their col­lec­tive, pea sized-​​brains around any­thing log­i­cal or tech­ni­cal, let alone some­thing that is both. Missile Defense is highly tech­ni­cal (strike one for Mr. Dupont), it is also log­i­cal — knock down enemy missile’s so as to pro­tect inno­cent American’s (allow me to bela­bor the point: terrorist’s don’t care who they kill)- (strike two for Mr. Dupont). So where does that leave Mr. Dupont? It leave’s him in the unen­vi­able posi­tion of mak­ing a very stu­pid argu­ment; that it (MD) “won’t” work cause it “doesn’t” work now. (strike three for Mr. Dupont — his argue­ment is nei­ther tech­ni­cal or log­i­cal). Mr. Dupont — you are OUT!

    Reply
  12. Mike Salles says:
    September 8, 2006 at 9:48 am

    I

    Reply
  13. anthony bauwens says:
    September 8, 2006 at 11:52 am

    We could update our syste.Update our mis­siles but of course our sat­telites are most impor­tant to keep udated1 a.bauwens

    Reply
  14. concerned citizen says:
    September 8, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    We need to do some­thing to defend us, even if it isn’t per­fect. I’d rather have a slim chance of keep­ing Americans alive than none if some­one were to throw an ICBM at us

    Reply
  15. Mike Petroules says:
    September 8, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Any Executive Staff of this Great Country should fully fund Defense Technology always, and our Troops and their fam­i­lies who are sacrafic­ing and serv­ing their Country dur­ing War.

    Reply
  16. Above-average American says:
    September 8, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    I hap­pen to agree with Mr. Dupont, why should we field a sys­tem that doesn’t work well? And don’t give me all that bull­shit about how since I agree with this ‘pea-​​sized brain lib­eral’ as one name­less per­son called him, that I am act­ing like the French. I say that if we are going to field any type of weapon sys­tem, we had bet­ter take the time to make sure that we get it right. I’m not say­ing make it per­fect, I’m just say­ing make a sys­tem with at least a 70% chance of inter­cept­ing mis­siles.
    I am a lib­eral American, I am a Democrat and I loath George Bush (both of them). If you want to give me any intel­li­gent com­ments then go ahead.

    Reply
  17. W.Bird says:
    September 8, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    But just how well will it track and inter­cept a suit­case weapon com­ing across the bor­der in a bag?

    Reply
  18. lamargl says:
    September 8, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Suit case bombs aren

    Reply
  19. Engineer in Training says:
    September 8, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    Kinetic ICBM kills have always been an engi­neer­ing prob­lem not a tech­no­log­i­cal gap but more accu­racy comes with more money. Lasers, as some one has sug­gested, is not tech­no­log­i­cally mature enough yet to field in an oper­a­tional sys­tem. The ABL is incred­i­bly large from its power require­ments to burn through ICBM skins (with some hard­ened against such attacks).
    What some BMD pro­po­nents fail to real­ize is that we know who is “capa­ble” of launch­ing a ICBM nuclear first strike (China and Russia). Neither of these coun­tries will exe­cute such a plan in the near future for MAD doc­trine that man­aged to endure the Cold War. Let me also state that the cur­rent arse­nal China has to deliver nuclear muni­tions to the Contiental US num­ber in the range of 25 or so. Besides that, there is also the Axis of Evil: Iran and North Korea. There is a HUGE dif­fer­ence in devel­op­ing a nuclear device and devel­op­ing a nuclear war­head. Neither of these coun­tries has been able to develop a nuclear WARHEAD. What coun­try, then, would launch a nuclear ICBM with­out “warn­ing”? None. What is stop­ping a country/​organization from selling/​delivering a nuclear device for a ter­ror­ist to deliver by very uncon­ven­tional means (semi-​​truck from Mexico, small ves­sel in NY har­bor, ship­ping con­tainer)? Nothing. There is a need for the­ater BMD (THEL, Patriot, Arrow) but not a global or national BMD. I would rather have that money spent in com­pre­hen­sive human intel­li­gence and detec­tion capa­bil­i­ties (which we do not even have for com­meri­cial air travel). Yeah it’s awe­some we can shoot mis­siles down but it is not like we don’t know who fired it or when they are going to fire it (North Korea’s ICBM that can reach CONUS takes 2 hours to fuel before launch). Show me a real­is­tic threat assess­ment that requires a national BMD and I’ll sign on. Until a viable threat and be con­fi­den­tally pro­jected to need a BMD, spend the money else­where and more wisely.

    Reply
  20. Wally Gator says:
    September 8, 2006 at 8:26 pm

    We should field a sys­tem that hope­fully will work ini­tially, and can be improved over time, to pre­vent the “lib­eral American demo­c­rat Bush loather” and the rest of us sim­ple minded igno­rant con­ser­v­a­tives being turned into glass. You Bush haters need to get a grip on real­ity and focus your atten­tion on the very real threats, nuclear and oth­er­wise that would have all of us dead…even lib­er­als and ACLU attor­neys
    Try turn­ing your obstuc­tion­ist behav­ior and snob­bish atti­tude into cre­ativ­ity to defend all of us, and YOU become the hero that fig­ures out how to defend against a suit­case bomb. Should be no prob­lem, since you are obvi­ously much smarter than the gen­eral population.

    Reply
  21. Engineer in Training says:
    September 8, 2006 at 9:07 pm

    “We should field a sys­tem that hope­fully will work ini­tially, and can be improved over time“
    So just start right­ing checks for $53 bil­lion and hope some­thing works? just build mis­siles and hope for the best? if demand­ing account­abuil­ity for how my tax money is spent on my defense, then i guess i am lib­eral. there is more to life than lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives. if you man­age to break free from only see­ing a dichotomy then maybe you will be taken more seri­ously.
    “YOU become the hero that fig­ures out how to defend against a suit­case bomb.“
    Easy: just buy it before some­one else does. I just saved us bil­lions upon bil­lions of dol­lars. human intel­li­gence will pay more div­i­dends with regards to non-​​state ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions than any tech­no­log­i­cally advanced defense sys­tem. it would have saved us even more than the BMD’s cost if some­one checked their facts before OIF. why is it unac­cept­able to demand my gov­ern­ment know what is being shipped to my coun­try? why is it unac­cept­able to demand my gov­ern­ment com­pe­tently screen com­meri­cial air pas­sen­gers in a timely man­ner? Why when i am foot­ing the bill?
    Tell me then what is the real threat? an ICBM attack? you are miss­ing a nuclear war­head and reli­able ICBMs. Formulate a coher­ent response with­out degrad­ing into name call­ing and we might be able to dis­cuss some­thing with­out a “snob­ber­ish” atti­tude. You pro­vide no details on what you say is “the very real threat”. What “they” are you refer­ring to? Terrorists in gen­eral? Iran? China?
    Don’t reduce every­thing to black and white because thats not real­ity either.

    Reply
  22. jpickens says:
    September 8, 2006 at 11:21 pm

    So, we can’t build antimissle sys­tems because our ene­mies might use suit­case nukes?
    This is just stu­pid.
    Suitcase nukes are extremely easy to detect.
    In fact, ALL entry points into the US are equipped with nuclear iso­tope detec­tors. It is sim­ply a mat­ter of build­ing a bet­ter fence to pre­vent unau­tho­rized indi­vid­u­als (Illegal Immigrants?) from enter­ing this coun­try.
    The cost for such a wall are about the same as the missle defense sys­tem.
    I vote for doing both.
    The nuclear detec­tors being used will find suit­case nukes, even if they con­sti­tute a 1 cubic foot space within a 50 foot by 50 foot by 50 foot cube of solid lead.
    http://​www​.berke​leynu​cle​on​ics​.com/
    Oh, and MAD only works if the enemy doesn’t care about dying.
    Funny, we got a few of those out there.

    Reply
  23. Ben says:
    September 9, 2006 at 8:53 am

    last time i checked it was damn near impos­si­ble to fit a nuke in a suit­case so we really don’t have to worry about it… think i saw it hap­pen in a hol­ly­wood­ised movie once? but yeah, basi­cally to get plu­to­nium in the ammount needed to start a reac­tion, you’re gonna have to find one huge suit­case. i’m just glad the gov­ern­ment actu­ally pulled through one of its projects this decade after see­ing so many impor­tant defense invest­ments like the comanche get shot down just before pro­duc­tion started…

    Reply
  24. Ben says:
    September 9, 2006 at 11:17 am

    “as for the suit­case bombs, there are not nuclear but atomic suit­case bombs” last time i checked nuclear and atomic implied the same thing… and i want to see these “suit­case bombs” because i still have a hard time believ­ing you can fit a nuke in a box. every­one knows our bor­ders suck and i do think we should really crack down on um, but after the bil­lions of dol­lars and 20 years it took to develop the 4 bat­ter­ies that are arleady in place, whats the pur­pose in dump­ing this mis­sile sys­tem in which we already worked our butts of to build? i don’t care if mis­siles aren’t rain­ing down,it doesn’t mean one WON’T, and since it’s already built and seems to work I say why not use it? it’s like spend­ing 20 years of your life sav­ing up for a brand new Mustang, buy­ing it, and then tak­ing it to the scrap­yard because in the end you don’t have the need for speed any more. think of this as a multi­bil­lion dol­lar Mustang… and you wanna throw it away just cuz it doesn’t apply to your imme­di­ate needs? stu­pid. besides, i know a few coun­tries who would prob­a­bly be inter­ested in buy­ing a mis­sile inter­cept sys­tem *caugh israel caugh*

    Reply
  25. just another sheepdog says:
    September 9, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    I believe BMD research needs to be per­sued but the funds spent on it need to be bal­anced with the more imme­di­ate needs of our national defense and what we are try­ing to acom­plish in the most dan­ger­ous part of the world, bring­ing more sta­bil­ity to the mid­dle east, if pos­si­ble.
    Another point to con­sider, no one would even have a home com­puter, CD player, or access to an inter­net if wasn’t for the tremen­dous mil­i­tary spend­ing dur­ing the cold war. Military advance­ments since world war II have always lead and spured new advance­ments not only tech­no­log­i­cally, but other venues of our daily lives we take for granted. So in my hum­ble opin­ion the tech­nol­ogy needs to be researched by us first, or some­one else will leav­ing us behind the curve on the next unex­pected dicodomy to move the world, under­min­ing our lead­er­ship in the world. Who knows it could lead to hand held “ray guns”, meteor defense sys­tem, new power gen­er­a­tion tech­nol­ogy, or cars that can drive them­selves in 20 years. That’s one of the won­der­ful (and dan­ger­ous) things about research­ing new tech­nolo­gies.
    On a side note oth­ers have touched upon here, M.A.D. can work against the ter­ror­ist I believe, but not as most peo­ple view the phi­los­o­phy. We know who the ter­ror­ist are after their attacks, it vital to their move­ment. And how much money their fam­i­lies get after such an attack, a vital recuit­ment tool. If we let all future ter­ror­ist know in no uncer­tain terms, if they pro­ceed with an attack we will send a sur­gi­cal strike team to their home and kill every mem­ber of their imme­di­ate fam­ily in response, they will think twice. Now I know most sheep are say­ing this is crazy, unjust, and hor­rific. I agree, but after a few times of fol­low­ing thru on this course of action the ter­ror­ist groups recruit­ment lev­els should plum­ment and they will have no choice but to change their tac­tics. Suicide bombers may not care about their own lives, but they do about their fam­i­lies. God and fam­ily, it is the basis of the twisted teach­ings of the cults that infect Islam. By the way let’s call them cults, they are no dif­fer­ent than Jim Jones or David Koresh. The words “fun­dal­men­tal­ist or extrem­ist” gives them too much ced­i­bil­ity in my opin­ion.
    If the Christian faith was forced to be as une­d­u­cated as the muslem faith is we would have the same prob­lem as the mid­dle east. Oh wait, my bad we did, we call it the “Dark Ages”. Well, that’s my opin­ion, I could be wrong.

    Reply
  26. lamargl says:
    September 9, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    To the guy who keeps push­ing the idea that no one has a bal­lis­tic deliv­ery sys­tem mar­ried to a bomb. I

    Reply
  27. Tod Rushing says:
    September 10, 2006 at 10:24 am

    Dan, Regarding your “so called” arti­cle on “Star Wars” mis­sile defense. Your dis­re­spect­ful remark embed­ded story was a pour read. The advent of the mis­sile defense sys­tem by President Ronald Reagan was a far sighted inspired move. These type of tech­nolo­gies do not just “POP” into exis­tance overnight with­out exten­sive research and devel­op­ment, which we are engaged in. Admitedly, much time has passed since the begin­ning but you decry fail­ure when in fact one step, even a baby step, in the direc­tion of a suc­cess­ful strate­gic defense sys­tem is yards ahead of the enemy. The pro­gram is not an insult to “Star Wars” but rather a tes­ti­ment of American for­ti­tude and ing­i­nu­ity. Can you do bet­ter , sir ? I think not. You are prob­a­bly one who thinks that we do not have an enemy threat out there in the world capa­ble of bring­ing the bat­tle to our shores. What a moron. How is it that they allow such a pansy to write for the Military​.com web­site, you dis­play no con­fi­dent American traits ?

    Reply
  28. Trebissky says:
    September 13, 2006 at 11:21 am

    They aren’t Vulcans. They’re a bunch of Klingons and Ferengi.
    And con­ti­in­u­ing to attempt to build a sys­tem that con­tin­ues to NOT work is stu­pid on the face of it, and is NOT a sign of per­se­ver­ance or for­ti­tude. Especially when the ONLY coun­try left on the planet who con­ceiv­ab­ley even might launch ICMB’s at the US is China, and that is nearly as likely as that they will simul­ta­ne­ously release all their polit­i­cal ene­mies from prison, and that is slim to NONE.

    Reply
  29. Bill says:
    September 14, 2006 at 8:50 am

    Too many peo­ple can only see the imme­di­ate future and not the long term field of view. In today’s world we have to be one step ahead of our ene­mies. The events of 9–11 was the results of their being one step ahead of us. In com­par­i­son, I would rather pre­vent my auto acci­dent death by wear­ing my seat belt. If impli­ment­ing a Star Wars Defense sys­tem is putting on a seat belt, then boys.….strap me in. I want to live to see the ter­ror­ists demise and not become the rav­aged pieces of war in their vic­tory. Remember when we were kids and we could go blocks away from home in the neigh­bor­hood all alone with­out fear? Those days, sadly, are gone. Now as Americans in for­eign lands we have to fear for our safety do to ter­ror­ists. Were on the edge of fear­ing for our lives in this land we call home. By not fol­low­ing through with the Star Wars defense sys­tem, it will be like leav­ing the back door to our home open. I don’t know about you, but when I go to bed at night, the back door gets locked shut. Since a mis­sile attack comes through the night lit skies, our back door needs a lock on it with the Star Wars Defense System. Believe me, we’ll all sleep bet­ter with that kind of lock on the back door of our home­land. Let’s beat them at their own game.

    Reply
  30. Robert W.McKey M.D. says:
    September 16, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    We have to con­tinue to put every rea­son­able resource to work on an inter­cep­tor sys­tem to pro­tect us and civilization.

    Reply
  31. G R ROBERTS says:
    November 14, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    MY COMMENT IS THIS HAVE NO FEAR THERE WILL BE A SAVING LIGHT SABER PIERCING THE SKY AND FRYING THE INNARDS OF FOREIGN BALLISTICS LAUNCHED AT THE US AND ALLIES. THE BOEING 747 PLATFORMED ABL(ANTI-BALLIISTIC LASER) FROM THE REPORTS I’VE READ ALBEIT ON THE BOEING WEBSITE AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MIL-​​TEC SITES SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE FIVE (5) AIRBORNE UNITS ARE PERFORMING WELL… GUESS SOME OF WHAT WE READ MAY JUST BE SLIGHT OF HAND..i.e PAY FULL ATTENTION TO THE FAILED SYSTEM BEFORE YOU AND PLEASE PAY NOATTENTION TO AND FORGET ABOUT THE BIG BAD MOBILE DEFENSIVE/​OFFENSIVE DEPLOYED LASER ORBITING BEYOND THE REACH OF YOUR RADAR…

    Reply
  32. 42317 says:
    November 20, 2006 at 6:04 am

    What you guys need is not SDI — the cur­rent enemy doesn’t use ICBMs. They sneak around the globe until they find a soft spot, sneak in under your very noses and — in the worst case — assem­ble their dirty bomb just where it’s sup­posed to blow up.
    That kind of oppo­nent needs a top class intel­li­gence ser­vice (well funded and trained) to be met with.

    Reply
  33. iro zeny says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    95 lev­els, to me this had been a friend of the peo­ple around, the new ser­vice first hand the hand of a per­son to man­u­ally 95, it is really dif­fi­cult for my them­selves, but I have been have a lot of iro zeny.

    Reply
  34. buy rupees says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Leave for three years, I have quite repeat­edly returned to the Rappelz game. I con­tinue for good equip­ment to buy rupees. Three years of time I have played many games, but no a game can let me real input. By now I have found that the orig­i­nal is the lack of a per­son accom­pa­ny­ing me.

    Reply
  35. rf money says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    I know a lot of friends. Later, the pres­i­dent of RF hero, LATE entered me to this asso­ci­a­tion. So I know my par­adise Nana, and some friends. Bu then, I added AQQI. And a vari­ety of rea­sons, and the sum­mer of cake, magic rab­bit, blue shocks, such as sev­eral friends built a new coun­cil: Return of the King. And I rec­og­nized the beier­tuo broth­er­hood. As the help of this friends and will help in grow­ing, and this time sheikhs left the group B, the new pres­i­dent rose, lead us to defend the B group. We Society of Friends also actively par­tic­i­pated in the mine war­fare, win­ning glory for the fam­ily. Later, because a num­ber of rea­sons I left the RF. And I took my all RF money send my friends.

    Reply
  36. http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk says:
    May 20, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    Links of London
    Links of London Jewelry
    Links of London Charm
    Links of London Necklace
    Links of London Bracelets
    Links of London Earrings
    Links of London Rings
    Designer from UK
    Diamond
    Gold&Silver
    Links Jewelry
    Links Necklace
    Links Charm
    Links Earrings
    Links Rings

    Reply
  37. Kalman says:
    July 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Badly need your help. Write a wise say­ing and your name will live for­ever.
    I am from Norway and now teach English, give true I wrote the fol­low­ing sen­tence: “” ;) Thanks in advance. Kalman.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You aren't. You're just annoying. Like a paper cut between...
      bdwilcox
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      Zandor, Don't you have to go play in traffic or play...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Welcome to paralysis induced by political correctness.
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      It's too bad a brave soul like you wasn't in that room....
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Zandor, You're obviously and expert on religion and religious...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Cannon, please stop bringing relevant facts and arguments into this. The...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      News reports have said that this guy has openly stated his...
      Cannon Fodder
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      Headphones and earplugs are effective, but...
      JustAGuy
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage