Flag lapel pin?!? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 04-18-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Yeah, I want a president who caves into peer pressure over fashion accessories before it's an issue.

Ha!

Botnst · #17 04-18-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Sounds good to me. SDI has succeeded in enriching numerous arms contrators and that's about it. It'll never work, because it's much cheaper to circumvent it than to build it.
...

Will that always be the case? How do you know?

cmac2012 · #18 04-18-2008, 11:24 PM

I know well enough to satisfy me. The target the missile is aiming at will always be big, slow, and with constant coordinates. The missile we hope to hit will be small, fired at an unknown time, and moving about 3 times faster than an M-16 bullet.

And, the ability to toss out dummy warheads, foil balloons that will move at the same speed in space, would be a piece of cake for anyone who can actually build an accurate ICBM.

And, a missile delivered by ICBM would have an easily known return address -- whereas the tanker or truck delivered bomb which we are much more likely to face will not. This makes it more attractive to the class who would be nutty enough to actually try to use a nuke. And, that crowd will not be likely to ever have an accurate ICBM.

The odds are massively against SDI ever being of any value. We could spend billions while port cities get blown up with smuggled nukes.

It's false security.

Botnst · #19 04-18-2008, 11:41 PM

Those problems that you mention have been the most difficult impediments since the 1980's. Since the 1980's, computer technology, sensor technology and targeting technologies have advanced. Perhaps not enough to address all of the impediments.

I ask again: Does this mean the impediemnts can never be overcome?

For example, concerning hitting a bullet with a bullet: it's now a proven technology.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/top_war_techs_r.html
www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/New%20Print%20Archive/2005/Jul-Sep%202005/july-sept%202005/(5)%20C-RAM.pdf
www.scs.org/confernc/springsim/springsim08/finalProgram/MMS/10.html
www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=131412
www.defense-update.com/newscast/0208/news/news_080208_cram.htm

cmac2012 · #20 04-18-2008, 11:42 PM

There are problems that go beyond technology. We began the missile race. Having a shield to protect us makes us that more menacing to those who don't have one. Invulnerability sounds cool, but methinks it would just lead to more arrogance.

Botnst · #21 04-18-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

There are problems that go beyond technology. We began the missile race. Having a shield to protect us makes us that more menacing to those who don't have one. Invulnerability sounds cool, but methinks it would just lead to more arrogance.

That's a more reasonable argument, IMO.

cmac2012 · #22 04-18-2008, 11:45 PM

Most important, what will SDI do to protect us from clandestine, surface delivered nukes besides exactly nothing?

Botnst · #23 04-18-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Most important, what will SDI do to protect us from clandestine, surface delivered nukes besides exactly nothing?

There are other defensive measures that are currently addressing that issue. They are meat-based and we don't pay them what they are worth.

MS Fowler · #24 04-19-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

You're an honest man, even if you are wrong about 40% of the time. (

)

I was watching the Leher NewsHour today, Mark Shields pointed out that Sen. Jim Webb, who served in Vietnam doesn't wear a flag pin while Dick Cheney, who got several deferments in order to pursue his "other priorities" does.

A pin doesn't change what's in someone's heart or gut.

You do me a great honor.
40% wrong means 60% right. I'll take that...... unless the 60% "right" is only when i agree with you.

MS Fowler · #25 04-19-2008, 12:09 PM

As for SDI....
IMO I never favored the idea of having the ability to know down 90% of a first strike launch from another super power.
However, I would like a 50% or better chance to knock down 2 or 3 missiles launched by some crack pot dictator or terrorist. Right now we have no capability; I'd like a chance at least.

Matt L · #26 04-19-2008, 12:19 PM

A chance is good, but at any price? What should be the limit? Reagan bankrupted the USSR with this and other technology, but are terrorist nations going to bankrupt us?

Botnst · #27 04-19-2008, 12:22 PM

Got milk?

aklim · #28 04-19-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As Jesus said, " You cannot serve two masters..." When push comes to shove, either loyalty to God, or Country ( or self) will prove itself the stronger loyalty.

WGAS what he said is alleged to say. I guess if those are the choices, it will be country since I don't believe in any god.

aklim · #29 04-19-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Why is getting re-elected the first duty of every politician, instead of just doing the right thing?

Because you decided you wanted to vote a human being in instead of say a computer program which would be designed to do the right thing. You insist on having a human being there so you have to live with the consequences.

aklim · #30 04-19-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I'd much rather have a leader who sees the flaws in our country and will work to fix them, then someone who sees the country through rosy glasses and insists everything is great and nothing gets done.

The leader you elect can see everything you want. However, what is it worth to you to get it fixed? People have wanted a painless solution and that isn't going to happen. So they vote for the best sounding guy.