Missile defense system flunks test

[BlackArcher101]

A test of the U.S. missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/14/missile...e.ap/index.html

I for one am not in favor of this missile defence, and this just gives me more reasons.

[RougeUnderoos]

But look at that nifty logo. Obviously they mean business.

[Calgary Flames]

One of the coolest things i've ever seen was seeing one of the first tests out of the blue one night in Southern California... I'm heading to the car in the hotel parking lot and I see a ****ing missle shoot up into the air... I thought I was in a movie or something, I went and asked someone at the hotel what it was all about and he said that North Korea was threatening Bill Clinton with nukes.... which was pure BS of course. But still facinating to see the missle break through the atmosphere and a huge diamond of lights in the night sky.

[Mike F]

"If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile."

Only a program this flawed could turn not firing into a positive.

US Missile Shield -- We Can't Miss What We Don't Shoot At (no new problems since '04)

The good news is that, this being the Bush admin, no one has to worry about being held accountable.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Mike F@Feb 14 2005, 11:33 PM
The good news is that, this being the Bush admin, no one has to worry about being held accountable.

oh yeah, that's pretty different than the bulk of american administrations since the war, or canadian governments <cough> <sponsorship> <cough>...

the missile shield is something that here on this board i have defended but recently my thoughts turn to the ABM treaty and its purpose - not to give someone the edge they need to be a standalon nuclear power.

a half-assed missile shield that wouldn't stand a chance against russia's or china's barrage may just be an edge over north korea, making NK's counter-invasion limited strike a purely local phenomenon - say japan SK etc. but the US is free from reprisal. this all assuming NK eventually gets serious ICBM cabability, which i guess is as likely as the aforementioned half-assed missile shield.

[comrade]

Well, I think it's a lot more likely that countries like North Korea and Iran will actively pursue such technologies with even more vigour now that the US has started its "preventive" war strategy stating it has the right to attack anyone at anytime for any reason and to hell with international law. Personally I think Canada should be investing in some nukes ourselves, we don't even need long range delivery systems.

All this missile defence does is restart an arms race. It's just like when Israel bombed Osirak in Iraq, which couldn't even develop weapons grade plutonium. Of course Iraq then decided afterwards to pursue the same kind of nuclear weapons that Israel had been producing at Dimona.

[Looger]

comrade,

sad but true.

iran is nuts aboot nukes because it has to be to survive, it has to put a huge price tag on invasion.

it is surrounded.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

It's funny. America's enemies like North Korea, Iran and even al Qaeda are probably laughing their asses off when they see Bush frantically trying to deploy an obviously far-from-ready missile defence system in order to stop all these rogue missiles that seem to be constantly flying over our heads. Let us take a look at the progress made towards securing America so far...

1) Sept. 11th Attacks by al Qaeda: x amount of dollars towards war + post-war effort in Afghanistan. Where x = a large sum of money and also creates y, where y = debt.
- To be expected, can't put a price on America's safety. I actually agreed with going into Afghanistan.

2) North Korea says 'We have nuke', CIA says 'Iran has nukes': x amount of dollars towards missile defence and 'Aid' for North Korea. More x needed. More y results.
- Missile defence successful half the time... half of America will be saved if defence system is having a good day. As for Iran, after seeing how well Afghanistan and Iraq are going why not continue the Middle Eastern spread of freedom and democracy and shoot for the hatrick? They're already talking about it...

3) Iraq supports terro... well, Iraq had weapons of m... er... Saddam is evil. Why do you hate our freedom?: x amount of dollars towards war + post-war effort in Iraq. X. Very big X for this one. Helps set record high for y.
- Not even going to bother with this. We're obviously all better off now that this cesspool of terror has been secured. The UN is corrupt.

Anyways, I notice a trend here. All of these endevours seem to cost a large amount of money which in turn creates a large amount of debt. Now i'm no fiscal genius, but it seems to be that eventually the money to launch these little crusades is going to run out. Wonder what happens then...

[Claeren]

My favorite 2 thoughts on this matter:

1) There is a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater threat of nuclear attack from a pre-placed device then there is a trans-oceanic missle.

2) The ONLY time the missle shield has worked is when the nuclear missle being targeted had a GPS system in it linked to the incoming shield missle, and on top of that it was guided step by step from on the ground, and sent up on a pre-set collision course. Even THEN it has failed more then it has succeeded!!!

Oh my frikkin god.... if this is not a republican-supporter pocket-lining scam i don't know what is....