http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 25 May 2012 14:31:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/#comment-155553 Robot Economist Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:04:36 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3431#comment-155553 John - You may see a lot of criticism lobbed at the constantly over-sold ground-based missile interceptors, but I think DT.org has been pretty quick to laud theater missile defense and sea-based interceptors. John — You may see a lot of criticism lobbed at the constantly over-sold ground-based missile interceptors, but I think DT.org has been pretty quick to laud theater missile defense and sea-based interceptors.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/#comment-59591 Noah Shachtman Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:27:20 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3431#comment-59591 J: That would be sooooo true. As long as you don't count posts like this: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002733.html ...and this: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002579.html ...and this: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002690.html ...and this: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001409.html nms J:
That would be sooooo true. As long as you don’t count posts like this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002733.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002579.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002690.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001409.html
nms

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/#comment-155552 John Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:02:07 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3431#comment-155552 THAAD Ya know, every time a missile interceptor program has a bad day, we're treated to a DefenseTech writeup absolutely ridiculing the notion of a missile defense shield. But those same voices are oddly absent when missile defense technology has a good day. It does not go unnoticed. THAAD
Ya know, every time a missile interceptor program has a bad day, we’re treated to a DefenseTech writeup absolutely ridiculing the notion of a missile defense shield. But those same voices are oddly absent when missile defense technology has a good day.
It does not go unnoticed.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/#comment-155551 Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:29:41 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3431#comment-155551 re: China hitting its target I was under the impression that nuclear weapon treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union were mostly honored by both sides. Can't we expect a similar amount of bilateral compliance for an an anti-satellite weapon treaty? If so, then why shouldn't we seek such a treaty? re: China hitting its target
I was under the impression that nuclear weapon treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union were mostly honored by both sides. Can’t we expect a similar amount of bilateral compliance for an an anti-satellite weapon treaty? If so, then why shouldn’t we seek such a treaty?

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/01/29/rapid-fire-012907-updated/#comment-155550 Standardized Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:52:34 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3431#comment-155550 Re: China hits target... on 43rd street I'm not sure if I would consider the Standard article to have anything to do with either Defense or Tech. The article- which you need a membership to read, strangely enough- is just a complaint about the New York Times, and contains no new information. So far, DefenseTech's Rapid Fire page has been fat on fact and lean on gassy pundits. I hope that this article is not an indication of a trend to the contrary Re: China hits target… on 43rd street
I’m not sure if I would consider the Standard article to have anything to do with either Defense or Tech. The article– which you need a membership to read, strangely enough– is just a complaint about the New York Times, and contains no new information.
So far, DefenseTech’s Rapid Fire page has been fat on fact and lean on gassy pundits. I hope that this article is not an indication of a trend to the contrary

]]>