Thank you for the roses. I appreciate your comments.

If you, or any other reader, believes that my posting is useful, you have my permission to use part of all of it in your discussion on SDI. Just indicate that you’re quoting me.

Regards,

BRAVO! Simply stellar post.

Don’t expect “honora” to respond intelligently – or even respond. It is a hallmark of liberals to avoid all factual arguments, and unfortunately the trolls here exemplify that practice perfectly.

But rest assured your post was greatly appreciated by those of us with functional gray matter between our ears. Seriously – bravo. Well done.

I’m still not entirely sure why “honora” and other liberals seem so clearly threatened by the idea of us protecting ourselves. I won’t belabor the point; you can read his posts above and see it as clear as day.

But your post gives a little hint of what some of their reasons might be. Also – they apparently like their mothers a bit too much. At least that’s honora’s theory. ;)

As the author of the original post, let me share my rationale for that statement.

1. The liberal opposition to SDI appears to sound suspiciously like other famous historical “it’ll never work” shibboleths — as in “heavier than air flight is impossible.” “Man can never break the sound barrier” “Man will never go to the moon.” You get the picture. We all know that most of these shibboleths of this type are false.

2. The “science” of intercepting incoming ballistic warheads has already been done, by Gallileo, Newton, Kepler, and so on, who discovered the laws of motion, gravity, orbits, etc. The issue is ENGINEERING — building a reliable machine that can accurately and quickly compute interceptions for incoming ballistic warheads, launch, and control interceptors to destroy them. The issue is whether we have the technology to do the job.

3. Technology always improves. The computational resources available today, for example, vastly exceed that of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s when “anti-ballistic missile” concepts were born and refined.

Simply put, what may not be possible yesterday, because of technological limitations (”Engineering” in other words), may be possible today. I happen to think that this is the case.

4. While some liberals may indeed be blithering idiots and developmently disabled social promotion recipients of “outcome-based education” regimes (also known as “government schools” or “NEA run schools”), most are aware of technology improvements (how can anyone NOT be), especially in the area most needed for a capable SDI system — computers and radars.

5. So, if otherwise rational people INSIST that SDI cannot be done — using a mindset that has repeatedly, over and over, been clobbered by historical reality: 747s (very heavy machines) do fly, and fly well, f-16’s (also heavy machines) DO fly faster than sound, and I saw the live images of Neil Armstrong on the moon back in 1969 — WHY do they continue to insist something that cannot be done when it is obvious that engineering challanges are always solved, sooner or later?

6. Which leads me to conclude that the opposition to SDI has NOTHING to do with the perceived technical difficulties (the “engineering problem”) but with other “issues” — and that the “impossibility” of SDI working is simply a cover.

What could those issues be? Here’s a list I’ve put together over the years as to why we should not build an effective anti-ballistic missile system — any my responses to them.

a. Cost. Yes, developing the technology and deploying it will be very expensive. Billions. And liberals, no doubt, have desires to spend such money elsewhere. But what would be the benefit of having a working SDI program?

Let’s ask the question another way: HOW MUCH would it cost to rebuild Los Angeles, New York City, or Seattle? How much INFRASTRUCTURE costs would be consumed. What about the lost productivity of incinerated residents of those cities? What about the intrinsic worth (or for that matter, the insurance liability) of all those dead people?

I’m no accountant, but I’ll bet a Starbucks latte that the losses incurred in JUST ONE nuclear explosion over one US city would exceed the combined expenses of the entire SDI/ABM/”Starwars” programs since 1965.

In other words, save JUST ONE CITY, and it would be worth it!

b. Morality. Is there a moral issue in building a weapon that puts the United States at a clear strategic advantage? Is it “fair” that the USA can stop incoming ballistic warheads from landing while other countries, say Iran or North Korea, can not?

I know that there are those who believe that any weapon is immoral, as is the use of force for any reason. Can’t we all just “get along?” Shall we sing another chorus of kumbyah? Anyone?

My personal answer is: ANYTHING, any technology that allows me, my family, my neighbors, my country to SURVIVE a nuclear war, no matter how imperfect is not only moral, but it is the height of imorality and irresponsiblilty to NOT implement it! In fact, it is the duty of the government, under our Constitution to “defend the states from invasion”, etc.

c. “Arms Race.” The argument that building an SDI system will only result in other countries modifying their systems to overcome them. Which would result in our modifying OUR systems to overcome their modifications. Which would result in their modification to overcome our midifications…you get the picture.

It is true that there is a continuing seesaw battle over offensive vs. defensive weapons. It has always been thus, going back to Ug the caveman. But does this really mean that we should simply lie down and make ready to die because of it?

Well, I don’t want to die — or see my country submit to blackmail — because an arms race developes and liberals are two squishy over it. I really want the OTHER GUY to stop trying to build better bombs designed to kill me and mine. But, until he does, I’ll stand on this point: Hey liberals — if you don’t want SDI built, get the Iranians and the North Koreans and some other countries to CEASE AND DESIST their nuclear weapons programs first.

d. The United States is an evil empire and must not be allowed to threaten the world — or some such gibberish. Yes, there are some, like Noam Chomsky for example, who really believe this. So in their mind, we don’t deserve to have a shield at all, and that other nations MUST HAVE THE ABILITY to destroy us if we “get out of line.”

I am sure that there are other “hidden reasons” liberals behind the libeal opposition to building an effective SDI system, but you get the picture

Which brings me to…

7. Why would a successful, real-world use of SDI be a “club” that should be used to beat liberals with?

I am dismissive of the liberal’s stated reason: “It cannot be done” when I know damn well that with research and money, ANY engineering problem can be overcome, over time. And I happen to think that unless you begin the research program, you can’t accomplish it. And, furthermore, I believe that the technology does exist today and is implemented in the systems built.

I am very dismissive of liberals unstated motives: The entire concept it being “too costly” falls appart when the costs to rebuild a city or a nation struck by nuclear weapons fired by clearly unfriendly countries are taken into consideration. And I happen to believe that defending the nation from nuclear attack is a better allocation of resources than perhaps any other domestic spending program.

I am dismissive of the other “squishy” unstated motives of liberals. I refuse to delegate to liberals the right to decide the morality, or the wisdom, of whether or not the government is to fulfill its Constitutional mandate of defending the nation. Of protecting ME.

I refuse to be part of any self-righteous SUICIDE PACT they erect to accomodate any guilt they have for being Americans. It’s why I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, because I have no intention of allowing liberals to determine whether or not it is right for me to own personal weapons for self defense.

But, and I must be honest here, the major reason I wish to “beat the left over the head” with a successful SDI use is because I want to gloat.

Yep. It would be just one more thing that liberals have gotten wrong. Again.

Call me petty, if you like, but I do so enjoy watching the elitists stumble over their ignorant beliefs when confronted with reality. I love it when they make excuses for being PROVEN to be stuck on stupid, especially in the area of national defense.

I know: my bad.

If we shot and missed we would never hear about it. It would be covered up.

Of course it would, hon. Of course it would. And Republicans have stolen all the elections they’ve won, the Jews knocked down the Twin Towers, and there’s a black helicopter hovering over your house right this minute. In fact, I’m in it. We’re watching you. And covering it allllllllllll up.

Should I take the fact that you STILL won’t respond substantively to mean that you can’t?

Again – one last time – why the visceral reaction to the idea that we might be able to defend ourselves against incoming ballistic missiles? It’s a simple question and now asked a third time. Want to answer it?

Why do liberals in general always get so hostile when the issue comes up? Why did you in particular act in exactly that manner?

And why are you working so hard to avoid answering the only question you’ve been asked?

Just curious.

And for the record Oedipus, I wasn’t the one that just implied you have sexual desires for your mother. That was all you, baby! ;)

For the record: I never said “impossible”–the idea of quotes you see, is that the word/s contained therein are ascribed to someone else.

Second, I am not threatened by the “idea of self-protection” (good example here of how that knotty quotes thing works..) I am a big fan of reality however. Look at it this way, I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I’m not threatened by him. See?

What is interesting is how you respond to disagreement–I must have an Oedipus issue, low self esteem etc. All absolutely true of course, but deeply irrelevant.

What an odd manner of debate. Perhaps bereft of actual ideas and logic?

So I’ll ask again – why are you so clearly threatened by the idea of self-protection? What is it about a missile shield that drives liberals so batty? Why do you claim to be “thrilled” with the idea in your first sentence and then condemn the idea in the rest of your post?

And interestingly, why did you fill a couple of pages with a non-answer to that question?

Just curious. Not very curious – just mildly so. Only because your enthusiasm for labeling the technology “impossible” is so common among the moonbats. Yet at the same time so counter-intuitive; it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that SDI (or something like it) will be realized in the not too distant future.

Just wondering why you embrace the illogical? Strike that. I know why you do that – I’m just curious why on this one issue liberals seem so eager to so loudly declare their ignorance and antipathy?

Somebody should write a paper on the psychology involved. I’m sure it’s fascinating. I’d guess something to do with self-loathing, low self-esteem, and “daddy” issues. But that’s just a layman’s guess. :)

As for SDI versus ABM – I’m not sure anyone cares. I certainly don’t. The choice of technology seems irrelevent as long as the job gets done. Self-defense is all that matters; how its accomplished is utterly unimportant. (Although “Star Wars” definitely sounds cooler. And you gotta dig lasers. If we could mount them on sharks’ heads we’d really have something!)

To your main question – why “a club to beat the liberals with?” Well … because its funny? Because it entertains us? Do we need a better reason? Frankly, I can’t really answer the question – because as I just noted, I can’t for the life of me understand the liberal reaction to the concept of a missile shield.

But, as I and the above poster noted – and as you’ve now repeatedly confirmed – it does indeed drive liberals absolutely bonkers.

Why that should make “alarm bells ring” for me is baffling. I can certainly see why that strange reality might ought to make them ring for you, however.

So how about it, Sparky? Can you solve the mystery of liberal self-loathing in regards to self-defense? I really am curious.

I look forward to another question dodging, off-topic, self-indulgent non-answer from you. I wait with bated (and baited) breath.

I would be thrilled if a full blown missile shield could be a reality. Unfortunately, no can do, the defense dept has elected to walk away. Wisely as this is an enormous investment to pursue lacking empirical data that supports the underlying science. (You do understand that SDI encompassed an inpenetrable shield based on laser technology, not simply the ability to successfully intercept discrete missiles, ie. the anti-ballistic missile system we enjoy today? I say this because there are comments on this thread from people who clearly believe SDI is in place as we speak.)

Do I think we will “ever” have an SDI that offers complete protection? Well ever is a long time. And there’s the old dilemna of the irresistable force/immovable object. So the short answer is I would like to think so, but doubt it.

I find it interesting that the statement that SDI or whatever is “a club to beat the left with” apparently rings no alarm bells with you.

Let’s see, North Korea has not only nuclear weapons, but the means to deliver same to our shores. The question of whether or not, lacking certainly of success along with other issues, we should try to shoot this down is being discussed. This somehow is seen as an opportunity to beat up the left…

Right, I’m the one who is moonbat crazy.

I blame George Bush. And global warming. They’re both messing with the tags.

Is a difficulty with reading comprehension a necessary ingredient for a belief in liberalism?

Read the quote you cited again. It’s author neither stated nor implied that liberals were the reason SDI “was not pursued.” Instead, the poster’s clear intent was to point out that for some reason, SDI drives liberals absolutely insane – and that watching it become a functional reality would both make them appear foolish and drive them further over the ideological cliff of their own self-induced insanity.

Okay, I embellished a bit. But his point isn’t that liberals kept it from happening – just that they hate SDI and would (for some strange reason) be deliriously unhappy if it worked as advertised.

And YOUR post makes it utterly clear that HIS post was right on the money. :)

What is it about SDI that drives you moonbat so crazy, anyway? Why the oft-repeated insistence that it can’t … possibly … work? You’re willing to swallow global warming with science that’s a helluva lot more questionable, right?

And do you really beleive that sooner or later we WON’T have a missile shield in place? If you believe that – why?

More importantly – why is that belief so important to you?

Idle questions. Just curious. Feel free to respond. Or you can go off another tear about SDI, leaving me to wonder what exactly it is about SDI that gets your panties in a bunch.

I love liberals. They taste like tofu.

And if it works, as I suspect it will, then we have ANOTHER club to beat the left with: Reagan’s SDI worked!

First, the SDI was/is seen as a pipedream by the majority of the scientific community. Second, let’s see from 1980 til now, the WH has been occupied by a Republican for 18 of 26 years, the House for about half of the time, and the fact this was not pursued is the left’s fault?

Republicans need to accept the notion that with power comes responsibility, the knee jerk reaction that everything that doesn’t go the way you want is the fault of the opposition is a little thin when you are the party in power.

I believe AP’s point is: is the risk of failing to hit the target worth the chance we will? If it is truly “only” a test, I say no. Let’s look at the facts, to the rest of the world, we are the guys who haven’t caught bin Laden, are bogged down in Iraq, and who are being openly taunted by Iran. If we were absolutely positive we could hit the NK missile, that would be one thing. I am tired of looking inept. Let’s finish the job in Iraq and Iran before we take on NK–a state that remains the haidmaiden of China, no small issue to consider.

Did you just suggest that if the N. Koreans test their missile and we attempt to shoot it down and miss – that we should destroy their country?

Or did you mean if they actually fire a nuke at US first?

It sure looks like you meant the former; I’m assuming you meant the latter.

We will have no knowledge of the payload — whether it be an instrument/telemetry package or a warhead — until it lands, and then it will be too late if the later.

We cannot afford any kind of “sneak attack” under a guise of test, and our government is wise to phrase our warning to cease and desist in the strongest terms that diplomats like use: “grave consequences.”

I am not sure if Bush would “pull the trigger” and kill millions of North Koreans if the warhead was an EMP burst high overhead or a single chemical/biological/nuke. But I’m not sure that he wouldn’t either. I’d rather that it not be put to the test. Nuclear warfare isn’t a game of Texas Hold’em, you know.

So the safest outcome would be to shoot it down if it looks to impact on or very close to US territory, even if it requiring emptying the entire quiver to do it.

And if it works, as I suspect it will, then we have ANOTHER club to beat the left with: Reagan’s SDI worked!

Drudge is linking to a Breitbart story concerning North Korea’s nuclear missiles. The story claims that the missile could reach as far as 9,……

A buddy of mine was in the Navy in the early 90s. He saw several anti-missile tests and he says it’s all pretty impressive. If the military does decide to shoot down a N. Korean missile, it will use redundancy (ie, more than one anti-missile missile will be shot).

==============================================================

Good question.

Well, I guess we should pack and leave to Mexico!!

Seriously though, I would give my solution and I know Washington D.C. is so unrealistic, so unpatriotic, so careless to do it.

Here’s my solution:

Unleash Hell.

By that I mean:

Bomb North Korea.

Bomb the bastards everywhere their weapons might be.

Bomb them from the North, the South, East and West.

Bomb them with conventional bombs and small Nuclear bombs if it comes to it.

Bomb the hell of North Korea now before it’s too late.

And Guess what?

Not only you will terminate the North Korean threat but Iran will tremble with fear. And you gonna have it surrender just like the Lybians did.

We are talking about America’s national security. The Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans don’t give a damn about us, and we shouldn’t either.

What happened to the so-called our “Leaders”???

Bomb North Korea and forget it.

Allah, great link to the pictures. i had the privilege of visiting east berlin in 1984 (had to read the book for summer reading…) and i swear the only difference between NK and East Berlin is the people! Koreans in NK and Germans in EB. But EB had cars…

Funny story: My mom and I were travelling through E.Germany on a train – it pulled up to a station and i leaned out to take pics. the E.German guys boarded the train, took our passports and detained us for 2 hours. They asked for the film in my camera – and being the sassy teenager i was, i opened up the back of the camera and exposed the entire roll of film. i thought my mom was going to have a coronary. they let us go, but it was quite scare.

That being said, I admire the guts of the guy who took those pics in NK.

The timing is perfect. I never thought I would be able to see the SDI system, envisioned by Ronald Reagan, being deployed.

But we did it.

Thanks to everyone that worked to make this possible.

Seriously it does spook me being on the west coast

1) NK fires their spiffy new long range missle (Thank you A.Q. Khan) and the U.S. decides to try for an interception.
A. Missle defenses work as planned, ramifications would likely consist of NK’s Elvis ramping up his sabre rattling with a very real possibility of limited incursion into ROK. Other problems would be the International outcry over our quick trigger of a seemingly Harmlesslong range missle test. On the homefront, the usual band of suspects (the same ones who have been trying for some time to cut funding or eliminate the MDA) will try and stir up the rhetoric pot that missle defense is too Provocative in the hands of the military or should be scrapped.

2) NK fires missle, U.S. fires intercepter and it misses.

B. Defeatist crowd in the US will use it to scrap the program as unfeasible technology. NK and some of our other enemies will get limited traction from this event.

3) Unknowns.

C. What if the US fires and misses on purpose? Classic military tactic is letting your enemies underestimate your capabilities, especially in this big stakes game. An enemy will be less likely to use a larger number of salvos of missles if they believe that our defenses are not up to speed.

Final 2 cents, way too many varibles to acurately predict…but my gut says target the f*cker. Go for the KO now and if NK rants again, deploy a carrier strike group to his neck of the woods…shut them up last time.

Although it is slow comparing to the current ground based system and also have a shorter range, it is never the less effective against certain targets at certain point of the trajectory. But the system will fail once in a while, it is just part of the statistical properties of any weapon system. It is a probability thing.

Beside, we are not that primitive in missle defense technology given the Ballistic Missle Defense programs were first funded in the 60’s. I have confidence that our generals would not turn a system into operational until it is matured.

We have an understanding with the Russian and the Chinese that we only test our missiles in certain pre-determined trajectories and both sides are full informed of the tests. North Korea apparently do not want to tell us anything about the trajectory of their test or the trajectory of the test is threatening to our country.

We are not doing this for fun or for political reasons, in my humble opinion.