Reagan Missile Defense System vindicated - of course

Forums: Politics, Missile-Defense-System, American-Politics, U S-Politics, Us-Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2924

All liberals should be reminded that once again they were wrong, and conservative principles, as advanced by Ronald Reagan were right. Witness now as various elements of our missile defense system are successfully tested and refined, and it is obvious the system will be workable and of priceless value.

How many years have we had to endure the ridicule, the sarcasm, and adamant opposition to this invaluable technology by the liberal politicians, the Democrats, the liberal press, the air heads, and all the naysayers and doubters. Accusations of it being a boondoggle, a Star Wars impossibility, a pipe dream, a complete waste of money, a waste of time, on and on, ever since Reagan proposed it. They called Reagan an idiot and every other name in the book, and suggested his mind was slipping when he bought into the development of this technology.

All the naysayers were wrong. It was no surprise to most of us. Sensible people knew Reagan was right, and even his timetable was not far off. And now with whackos running Iran and North Korea, perhaps it is nice to know we might have a chance to shoot down some errant missile headed our way. I think it was worth every penny.

Thank you Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents ever, a man of principle, a man of vision, and a man that had confidence in America and the ability of American to accomplish. A man that instilled confidence, ambition, and hope in our citizens. We miss you Mr. Reagan.

Can we all take a lesson from this and apply it to today's politics?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,636 • Replies: 50

No top replies

Count me as old fashioned, well, conservative you might say, but it might be sound advice to actually read and understand the articles you post as you boast your ideological side's historical righteousness

Quote:

But an expert contacted by New Scientist questioned the validity of recent tests. Ted Postol, a physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an ex-military scientist, says all the latest tests have involved only easy-to-spot decoys.

He says that after the first two tests revealed an inability to identify more advanced decoys reliably, they were replaced to prevent failure. "They're completely rigged, quite frankly," he says.

Of course warfare precludes any acts of deception, so what's to worry about that the US actually had to take a couple of steps backwards to succeed. With the attitude that motion, any motion is itself progress, we can whirl around in a circle and advance.

0 Replies

Who said there aren't bugs to be worked out with the technology, but I suspect there will still be doubters as we all watch the missiles being shot down. The doubters have alot of political capital invested in their doubt, so they are not going to go down easy. But I suspect if ever a missile is headed their way, they will finally be a hoper, a believer, yes, Reagan was right wasn't he.

Look, I don't post this as a matter of gloating. It is posted to be instructive, as a reminder of what works, what can work, and what we should be optimistic about. Problems can be solved. We just need to have confidence and apply the same attitude to other problems as well. Technology does not need to be our enemy. It can be our friend.

You know, I am sick of pessimism. And Reagan was an optimist. That is why he inspired so many, except for a few sourpusses I suppose.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Who said there aren't bugs to be worked out with the technology, but I suspect there will still be doubters as we all watch the missiles being shot down. The doubters have alot of political capital invested in their doubt, so they are not going to go down easy. But I suspect if ever a missile is headed their way, they will finally be a hoper, a believer, yes, Reagan was right wasn't he.

No one wants a missile system to fail. Only an idiot would think those who oppose such would desire failure of the system if it could be operational. What your ilk seem to think is that technical considerations and costs are unimportant and the political consequences of an operational system exist in a vacuum.

Look, I don't post this as a matter of gloating. It is posted to be instructive, as a reminder of what works, what can work, and what we should be optimistic about. Problems can be solved.

how's it working out with New Orleans?

We just need to have confidence and apply the same attitude to other problems as well. Technology does not need to be our enemy. It can be our friend.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You know, I am sick of pessimism. And Reagan was an optimist.

No, he was a diaper wetting Altzheimer victim who could fool the uninformed and dull-witted. That is why he inspired so many, except for a few sourpusses I suppose.

0 Replies

Why is the world developing these missiles?

To protect themselves from the preemptive war of American cowboy politics?

Yes, If you plan to attack countries for no reason without notice (pre-emptive war) you can count on them preparing to go to war with you so make a missile defense system.

Iran and N. Korea nukes vindicated by American pre-emptive war.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Why is the world developing these missiles?

To protect themselves from the preemptive war of American cowboy politics?

Yes, If you plan to attack countries for no reason without notice (pre-emptive war) you can count on them preparing to go to war with you so make a missile defense system.

Iran and N. Korea nukes vindicated by American pre-emptive war.

The world is developing these weapons because they want to have powerful weapons, and they have been doing so through numerous American presidents of every stripe.

We invaded Iraq, not for no reason, but because a hideous dictator had not provided any clear evidence that he had destroyed his WMD and WMD programs, as he had promised to do by treaty. You're just an America hater, and that's the whole story on you.

0 Replies

Amigo, you are an example of the folks here that are just not very grounded in reality, and you have no credibility as far as I am concerned. I don't know if it matters to you or not to try to be realistic? I've seen you on the 911 conspiracy threads, which pretty much tells us how whacked out you must be. I am guessing you may be a product of some higher education indoctrination somewhere these days? By the way, I can't find one of those 911 conspiracy threads, what happened to it?

0 Replies

I haven't seen any proof that the missile defense system is worth two farts in a paper bag.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I haven't seen any proof that the missile defense system is worth two farts in a paper bag.

"The most advanced test of the US Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system took place in the early hours of Tuesday.

A dummy ballistic missile was successfully intercepted and destroyed above the Pacific Ocean, according to a statement released by the Missile Defense Agency, which conducted the test."

Take you nose out of the bag and read the article.

0 Replies

After they dummied it down so they could track it.

0 Replies

New tech renders old tech obsolete. Ronnies proposals are now over 20 years old . Science has moved on. Today, without a "crash program" perhaps we can develop a successful anti missile missile.
While the nuclear enemies of today arent as formidable as was the USSR, they dont seem to have the same restraint built into their missile programs. The fact that we can turn North Korea into a small WalMart parking Lot doesnt seem to sink in ,
We are developing an SDI system under a normal pace of research and funding. I see nothing wrong with this. Weve got so much other money that this administration has commited in its own style fuster cluck, that maybe we can learn something about the basic science that could, in time, render missiles obsolete.

0 Replies

We must be right on track

Quote:

The Pentagon has not had a successful long-range missile intercept test since October 2002.

Of three tests since then, one failed in December 2002 because the interceptor's "kill vehicle" did not separate from the booster. In the next two tests in 2004 and 2005 the interceptor failed to launch.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Missile_Defense_Test_Conducted_At_Hawaii.html

0 Replies

This thing is sop to the masses. My husband (a scientist) happened to sit next to a guy who is (in charge? has a lot to do with in some capacity, I don't remember) on a plane, and had a very good, frank discussion about how yeah, it ain't gonna work, period. (In real life, not stage-managed tests.) Total waste of money.

0 Replies

But certainly not a waste to the weapons industry. Lotta bucks involved here.

0 Replies

soz, I cant believe a scientist stating that "itll never work"
All through the Manhattan project was the unspoken fear that , when the device went critical, it would start a planet wide chain reaction in the atmosphere.

Im not a fan of any program that has pre-concieved statements of "fact"
I refer back to the Edison example, when Edison failed over 1000 times to make a filament work in his "lightbulb" He stated something to the fact that
"I havent failed 1000 times, Ive merely learned the 1000 things that cant be used to make a filament"

I disagreed with Reagens "Crash" program based upon technology that was impossible to make work then, but , this is now, and tomorrow well discoverr new things. To stop designing and testing is also nor very bright.

0 Replies

farmerman, you make good points.

It has been said that whatever man can imagine, he can invent, eventually. That could be stretching it quite a bit, but if the imagination becomes something that can be visualized in a more realistic manner, I think it is definitely not an impossibility.

There was never any doubt in my mind that Reagan's proposal for missile defense could bear very real fruit in due time. I realize the program has gone through changes and re-inventions, and taken different directions, but I believe Ronald Reagan deserves much credit for this program.

0 Replies

okie, i think it's premature to claim Reagan was vindicated, until an anti-missile system is employed successfully in an actual, combat situation rather than a test; and i'd just as soon it never comes to that. anyway, if you're going to tout missile defense, you might as well cite something more recent than a 2002 new scientist article. for instance, check out the Missile Defense Agency web site:

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/newsrel.html

and critics, feel free to rebut the successes claimed therein.

0 Replies

farmerman, I was paraphrasing, the guy didn't say those exact words. It was something like, general chat, then something about what each man did for a living, E.G. asked some questions and put some things together about what the SDI guy (as it turned out) did, then asked some technical questions about SDI, which led to some discussion and some "I know, I know, but we have to keep trying" kinds of responses. Then it got into more like, from E.G. "But it's impossible to ever solve this central [technobabble] problem, right?" which got resignation and little argument from SDI guy.

I'll ask E.G. if he remembers what the technobabble section was.

0 Replies

I worked on THAAD. Never thought it would work.

It works.

0 Replies

Reagan Missile Defense System vindicated - of course

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know