What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
212 Comments
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -4/+77No wonder the grain silo by my house started to blink today.
I would take pictures, but it's hard to get close. Farmer Bill has his farm protected with a lot of barbed-wire and sniper towers. I guess he's trying to keep his secret sauce secret. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -11/+81Actually it does work. The first tests weren't very successful, but more recent ones have been. For the past several years they've been pretty successful.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/nmd_test_011204.html
"The U.S. military says it completed its third successful missile defense test, knocking a dummy warhead out of space more than 100 miles over the South Pacific."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
"Three tests, conducted in 2002, were considered successful. Four additional flight tests have been conducted with three rated as successful. The most recent test in November 2005 intercepted and "killed" a ballistic missile separating reentry warhead." - HumbleDialog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+78I'll take 89% over the 0% we'd be getting without the system, thank you.
- JeffT1545, on 10/12/2007, -4/+57Umm that's a place, not a person.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41It does work with limited success. By limited success it has demonstrated a 89% kill rate on incoming missles (in testing).
- digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41It's very simple to defuse the situation. We send an e-mail to the north korean president that simply says:
You Fire Missile - We Unplug Warcraft Servers - TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39My only question is, if we have a working missle defense system in place......why the ***** wasn't it active already? What good is a system that stays dormant until someone tells us they will fire a missle?
- vmerc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44Less than the life tax levied by thermonuclear detonation in your back yard.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33It's also almost impossible to get a multi-ton object to fly a mile off the ground, and its almost impossible to get a person on the moon, and to split an atom and use it for clean energy, and to clone animals, but guess what, we've done all of that
- treed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+40It works pretty well, actually. The last few batteries of tests showed that.
- rodball, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30If only those Godless North Koreans would butter their bread correctly... well, a man can dream. A man can dream.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Ted Kennedy can save us all if he can only get Kim Jong in the back seat of his Buick and drive it off into the river!
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Not to inspire an argument here, but had Kennedy not brought us to the brink of war there would be several nuclear silos aimed at the US that could reach your house before they could even identify the threat.
"We will crush you (refering the United States)". - Khrushchev, before the UN - 1960 - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23and then Val Kilmer will show up and reprogram the coordinates for his professor's house where a giant thing of jiffy-pop is waiting...
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24we don't need to 'prove' anything.
walk softly and carry a big stick - obeseotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20In South Korea they build displays from LCD and plasma technology.
In North Korea they build displays out of tens of thousands of children holding placards. - robustyoungsoul, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Take off every zig
- VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Shooting down a missle fired in opposition to a non-testing treaty is not agression, it is defense. When someone wants to slap your face, there are three reactions.
1. Take the hit and turn the other cheek.
2. Take retaliatory agressive action.
3. Smack his hand away.
While this test is not aimed directly at us, and so is not really a "slap in the face" in that sense, it is definitely intended as an agressive and hostile move that should receive a response.
So, rather than 1 or 2, I would vote for 3.
And, believe me, while I think that our current president is an idiot, he is oddly exactly the man I would want in charge in a situation like this. Think about it, is a rogue country like Korea headed up by a psycho megolomaniac more likely to shoot at us while W is in office or if Hillary Clinton was in office . . . or Kerry (yikes!). - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -46/+63Ah yes...the missile defense system that doesn't work. So can we look forward to pretty fireworks?
- danielrh9, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25"umm. It was Kennedy that almost got us all killed."
Read your history books. If it weren't for Robby and John Kennedy, Castro and the Soviets would have blown us to kingdom come. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Sorry, but that analogy fails on so many levels. ICBMs don't take a fraction of a second to reach its target.
- lodleader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21they need to launch it and we need to shoot it down to show them that we can protect ourselves and fire back if need be.
- Photar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Don't forget we have these: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/
- JeffT1545, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I think I'll read this classic to my kids tonight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book - jmontana66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16""We will crush you (refering the United States)". - Khrushchev, before the UN - 1960"
First, it was "We will bury you." Second, the meaning was totally taken out of context. He did not mean the Soviets would destroy the United States by force. He simply meant the US was going to kill itself, and they would be there to observe it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15It appears you have mistaken North and South Korea. North korea does not have access to the Internet (well, at least for its general public).
- b0nj0m0n, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Awwww...they're going to shoot the poor guy's very first test missile. Kim Jong Il is a kindergartener on the basketball court of nuclear weapons. He's throwing up hail marys from way behind his head and we're gonna throw it into the stands. We so mean.
- speezer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14They should fry it on the launch pad.
- Photar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Thats why you need a laser: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/
- psyduck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah, the only problem with that is the SC players are in S. Korea. Somehow I doubt the people starving in N. Korea are pwning us all in StarCraft on a daily basis.
- technique, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22W won because he has a backbone and will stand by his opinions. Right or wrong doesn't matter, esp. when it comes to defense. Nobody seems to like him, but W is the most WYSWIG president in recent US history. Whether that's a good or bad thing is your decision.
- damagemanual, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Too bad it's South Korea that's hooked on Starcraft and Warcraft.
- echoic, on 10/12/2007, -21/+31umm. It was Kennedy that almost got us all killed.
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"umm. It was Kennedy that almost got us all killed."
"Kennedy was the one that brought us to the brink of nuclear war"
Funny, I thought it was the USSR that was trying to put the missiles in Cuba, not the other way around. True, the blockade we started caused a standoff, but it was the USSR that was trying to put missiles in Cuba in the first place.
Your argument is like saying that if police tried to stop a bank robber, then it's their fault if the bank robbers shot at them since they wouldn't have been there in the first place if they didn't try to stop them. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I wouldn't classify a missle defense system as aggresion.
It by nature only attacks a thing attacking us, it does not attack the people/country behind the thing.
Sending a missle to their launch site would be an agressive defense. Shooting down a missle midflight is not. IMHO.
I think the bigger risk would be if the missle defense system failed. However, if it works, N. Korea is going to feel like they've flushed a whole lot of cash down the toilet in developing a useless missle. This would change the negotiating positions dramatically. If we play the psywar card correctly and inform their citizens that while they are starving while their leaders spend money on useless weapons (that put foreign food aid at risk) the internal pressure for change will be much greater. - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+111. Sharks are waiting for you to go swimming
2. Birds are waiting to give you the flu
3. Terrorists are going to gas the subways
4. Global warming is about to drown the nation
5. North Korea is going to bomb us into oblivion
6. Mosquitoes will give you west nile virus
7. Politicians (supposed leaders) continue to lie cheat and steal
What a wonderful world... - TheRonald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@dclowd9901
"can't we just launch several of these intercepters for failsafes sake?"
Charles Lindburgh hated multiple engine planes because he felt that there was more to go wrong. I'm inclined to agree.
You're wrong, in a closed system more parts are bad, BUT when looking at an open system with two inceptor you get a 98% success rate (statistics). Those trials were done in optimium conditions but even with a lower success rate you just launch more missiles. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Cool, something new to be scared about... I was wondering what was going to replace Bird Flu...
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I assume the real missle will be wearing a moustache and sombrero? :P
- Photar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Now all we gotta do is bring peace to the middle east :)
- Briankb68, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I wonder if Kim Jong-il will be reading it to his grandkids. For some reason I don't think he will.
- illt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15can't we just launch several of these intercepters for failsafes sake?
- cohortq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11According to the article:
Critics say the fact that the interceptor, before its launch, got precise location data from the dummy warhead makes the test unrealistic.
Monday's test is the fifth in the missile defense program. The interceptor knocked down a dummy warhead in two of the four previous tests. Each test costs about $100 million.
AND
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/01/eveningnews/main201855.shtml
"They went from 10 objects to two. One of them was the mock warhead and the other one was a 7-foot diameter balloon which was enormously bright, relative to the warhead,"
Also
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec01/nmd_7-16.html
For example, the balloon that was deployed along with the warhead is nearly ten times brighter than the warhead.
Basically what's going on is the kill vehicle sees the balloon and it sees the warhead and it says, oh, this object was very bright relative to this other object. I have been told to home on the less bright object. So it homes on the less bright object.
Basically, as long as they shoot up a balloon with the warhead, we're gonna hit it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I agree with Dan on this one, for those that aren't too knowledgeable on the Cold War and the Cuab Missle Crisis should read up on the matter.
We all know that Kennedy wasn't the one that almost got us killed .... - BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14You know what you doing
- ryanknapper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8... and so it begins.
- Briankb68, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"Aggression isn't the answer to aggression" Isn't that what Hitler said to Poland? Or was it Japan to the U.S after Pearl Harbor? I always get those mixed up.
- digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8On the other hand, if he launches and we miss....
- VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Well that is just silly, Daniel. Our government did not fail us on 9/11, we were attacked by fanatical terrorists in a way that could not have reasonably been prevented without having those "basic freedoms" you mention restricted ahead of time. You speak with forked tongue in that regard.
I would gladly give up many of my freedoms in a time of war (just like our grandparents did during WWII), even if that state of war lasts much longer. While it is all a balancing act, and always has been, I would rather err on the side of greater restriction of freedom that err on the side of laxity and unpreparedness. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Cuba wanted the missiles to prevent another Bay of Pigs. Since Kennedy was responsible for Bay of Pigs he is also responsible for Cuba wanting Russian's missiles.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is