[dighton]

"Unworkable," yakkity yak. These bozos never give up.

[RobFromGa]

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points
out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds
could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who
is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and
sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes
up short again and again, because there is no effort
without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great
enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the
triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he
fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
knew neither victory nor defeat."

-- Teddy Roosevelt

[big bad easter bunny]

They also said the wheel and cotton gin would never work!

[FreePaul]

In this article "Critics" mean those who are doing everything in their power to see that the United States has no defense against anything. Some of these people served a President who made sure that our enemies could catch up in armament that would threaten the continental United States. They certainly wouldn't want anything to interfere with our enemies ability to nuke us.

[RLK]

the Pentagon acknowledged the system initially will provide only modest protection.

----------------------

My question is, will it be effective against rogue states who have only a small number of missiles? That is where we are apt to have problems.

[backhoe]

-Israel's Arrow Anti-Missile System and the THEL...--

[Pagey]

"...To the extent we have a capability..."

Gee, I thought we already had a Missile Defense System called " HAARP ", up in Gakona Alaska, that can knock down any missiles that could come from anywhere on earth.Mmm Hmmm.Odd, isn't it, that no one ever talks about the real capabilities of "HAARP".

[Nick Danger]

Oh look, Reuters and the New York Times have found some guys who will say bad things about a Defense initiative. I guess they think it's their job to oppose anything defense related, because no matter what it is, they're against it.

The North Koreans have admitted they have nukes, and we know they have missiles. They could hit the west coast of the U.S. easy, with what they have right now. So along come Bush and Rumsfeld to at least put something in place to defend us, and these guys are against it. I think their song is getting old.

[Southack]

"The system is intended to protect the United States against long-range enemy missiles. But there have been three failures in the eight major tests involving attempts to shoot down a long-range dummy warhead in space over the Pacific Ocean, including the most recent test on Dec. 11."

You've got to love the NY Times. We get FIVE successful interceptions out of eight tests and they have the nerve to print some guys saying that the system will NEVER work.

Well, NEVER let it be said that the NY Times would let mere logic get in the way of pushing their anti-American, pro-NWO socialist ideology.

[elbucko]

As a former "Missileier" in the Hawk and Nike Hercules systems I think the idea of a national missile defense is comendable. We used to have one, (Nike) albeit obsolete, and it was dismantled in the mid '70s. Air defense is a highly technical problem, that also needs trained and dedicated personel for operation, but then what modern warfare system isn't. The only sure thing is, if there isn't one, there won' be one if it is needed (a Hawk Battery would have been handy on 911).

As for "rogue states" I think missile subs designed for air defense are more practicle than CONUS based air defense units.

What ever we do, the fact is that at this time we have nothing. Let me repeat that, NOTHING.

[desertcry]

The Secretary of defense had a very good answer to the critics at his Pentagon press conference. Nothing that are worthwhile having comes perfect in the initial stage of development, it continue to evolve over time, until it becomes near perfect.

[Lancey Howard]

Reuters via NYTimes.com

That's all you really need to know.
The tripe that follows is predictable: first, you quote somebody who "served under President Ronald Reagan" (this makes the person, and hence the story that follows, credible), then you pile on with inane comments from every socialist scumbag under the sun. Same old thing, even if they don't come out and say it directly - - the money spent on defense, er, rather this hairbrained, unworkable missle defense, would be better spent on welfare, universal health care, midnight basketball, prison computer labs, all-day nursery school, AIDS, teacher salaries, er, education, homeless Hiltons, etc.

Yawn. These geniuses have never explained why they are so much smarter than the Soviets were in the mid '80s when the Soviets constantly threatened to bail out on any arms treaties because of Reagan's insistence on going forward with SDI. The Soviets knew the idea was plausible then, and if it was plausible then, it's certainly "workable" now, 15 years later.

Fortunately, Bush is moving forward with the initiative. And it sure is funny to read the bitter comments from all these liberal scumbags.

[thinktwice]

I was doing word processing using Fortran before WP was invented; and my boss went to the professional Cobal group to get one of my Fortran progams running ... everywhere.

The Cobal czar took one look and said that my files couldn't be transformed so ... "that was that."

Thirty minutes later I had them transformed.

End of story.

[yendu bwam]

It is the technological edge of the United States which has historically and will continue to keep our country and its citizens safe. I have NO doubt whatsoever that America will be able to develop an effective missile defense system over time - thus neutralizing this insidisous threat. Once we forego new technologies, we give other nations an exceedinly dangerous advantage over us. This we must NEVER do.

[rickmichaels]

I guess the Wright Brothers should never have wasted their time. Their plane flew only a few feet on its maiden flight. So much effort, so little accomplished.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

The article is utter nonsense.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the engineering development & testing process can recognize the faulty reasoning.

Were the first rockets fired at White Sands & Cape Canaveral always successful?

[Archangelsk]

Any aerospace engineers here who are working on telemetry and vector issues on this thing. I'd really like to know, in generic and unclassified terms, some of the difficulties involved.

[mikenola]

This article reeks of a tone I've heard often from liberal friends: "if ain't perfect , better not do it". Heck, it's only nuking a major American city we're talking about, right? Better not do it, 0% chance is better than 62% right?

Now, when I point out the abysmal rate of sucess of liberal social programs -- welfare deepening not reducing poverty, needle-exchange increasing drug dependency, then , well, "we just need to keep working harder at it" .

Ignorant boobs.

[sam_paine]

You ain't seen nuthin, yet, Critics!

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is developing the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile under a Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract for the Air and Missile Defense Program Executive Office. The PAC-3 Missile will be incorporated into the Patriot air defense system.

The PAC-3 Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (in four packs), a fire solution computer and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System (ELES). These elements will be integrated into the Patriot system, a high to medium altitude, long-range air defense missile system providing air defense of ground combat forces and high-value assets.

The PAC-3 Missile uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy its targets, and was selected principally for the extremely high lethality the missile delivers. Adding the PAC-3 Missile to the Patriot air defense system will increase system firepower and lethality, as well as increase battlespace and range.

The PAC-3 Missile uses a solid propellant rocket motor, aerodynamic controls, attitude control motors (ACMs) and inertial guidance to navigate. The missile flies to an intercept point specified prior to launch by its ground-based fire solution computer, which is embedded in the engagement control station. Target trajectory data can be updated during missile flyout by means of a radio frequency uplink/downlink.

Shortly before arrival at the intercept point, the PAC-3 Missile's Ka band seeker acquires the target, selects the optimal aim point and terminal guidance is initiated. The highly agile, hit-to-kill missile's airframe is lightweight and maneuverable. The ACMs, which are small, short duration solid propellant rocket motors located in the missile forebody, fire explosively to refine the missile's course to assure body-to-body impact. For certain targets, the missile deploys a Lethality Enhancer to further increase the probability of target kill.

The PAC-3 Missile will be capable of countering TBMs armed with weapons of mass destruction, cruise missiles and aircraft in the presence of electronic countermeasures and all weather conditions.

Subcontractors to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control on the PAC-3 Missile segment upgrade include Honeywell, Clearwater, Florida, inertial measurement unit; Boeing North America, Duluth, Georgia, millimeter wave active radar seeker; Atlantic Research Corp., Gainesville, Virginia, solid rocket motor and attitude control motors; and Lucas Aerospace, Aurora, Ohio, Aerodynamic Maneuvering System Actuation Sets (AMSAS).

[Jhoffa_]

The missile defense system President Bush ordered to be deployed will not work and is a waste of money, critics said on Tuesday while the Pentagon acknowledged the system initially will provide only modest protection.

I stopped right here..

What kind of twisted logic is this? What school kid doesn't know that:

1) When it comes to technology, Darwin was right. It evolves. all new technologies evolve and mature.. Opposite thinking is demonstrably false and would leave us painting cave walls with charcoal till the end of time.

2) What's wrong with "moderate protection" anyway? they say this like it's a dirty word or something.

If you take a minute to think about what kind of scenario would lead to the use of a missile defense shield then you will realize that by the time we need it, it's all we have left. If there is a missile ripping it's way through the atmosphere on it's way to the US, who would argue against "moderate" protection then?

By the time we need it the options are either a detonation or a shoot down.. So, by default SDI detractors would prefer the detonation?

There had been too much craziness this week already.

The whole country has gone nuts I think..