You know, after reading your links Allah, how is it that test results from our missile defense systems are made public??? should that stuff be classified?

pullingmyhairout on June 20, 2006 at 2:19 PM

There is public information about some of the Missle defense system… but there are also a lot of truley classified parts of which the public knows nothing…

It would be very amusing if this thing just kind of… failed… in mid air…

Romeo13 on June 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM

we just don’t want to shoot and miss Not necessarily true, Allah, a single miss does not invalidate the system because it’s unlikely that you will ever get a 100 percent kill ratio on anti-missile defense. From my engineering point of view, using North Korean missiles for target practice would be a good thing. i.e. live fire conditions

docdave on June 20, 2006 at 2:42 PM

It would be a horrible loss of face, docdave. Especially with the U.S. already behind the eightball in Iraq and with the Iranian nuke negotiations.

Allahpundit on June 20, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Allah, all I’m saying is that we’ll lose a lot more than face if our first miss is on a nuke missile heading for one of our major cities.

docdave on June 20, 2006 at 2:52 PM

I want the US to splash the missile “test” if for no other reason than to hear Kim’s bluster afterward.

America! F*** Yeah!

inmanjh on June 20, 2006 at 2:56 PM

We’re going to (try to) shoot down a North Korean missile using a yet untested, unproven technology? Yeah, right! That’s about as likely as Bush or Rumsfeld ordering or authorizing an invasion of Fallujah and killing everyone inside that rat hole of a city. And, it’s about as likely as Bush deporting 12 million illegal aliens or adhering to his vow NOT to negotiate with terrorists. Oh, wait! He already broke that promise and began negotiating with terrorists (Iran).

Bluffing, which is what Bush is foolishly doing, instead of instilling fear and shivering among the enemy, produces scorn and guffaws. An enemy sworn to kill us will not cower in the face of a ridiculously childish, transparent deception.

If we want terrorists (or any enemy) to fear us, we must instill fear. To do that, we have to make the enemy afraid. As in KILL THEM! Not negotiate with them, arrest and confine our troops when they kill the enemy or force American fighting forces to endure politically correct diversity or sensitivity training to placate the placaters.

GIMME A BREAK!

ForYourEdification on June 20, 2006 at 3:01 PM

Allah, I would agree that if we fired and missed it would be great political fodder for Kim Is Ill, to say nothing about what our “friends” who “support our troops” on the left would do with it.

But do you really think that the risk of another basket of rhetorical crap if we missed is enough to outweigh the experimental gains of attempting to hit it if it is launched? Consider the other side of the equation, for example… What kind of blow would that be to all of the above if we nailed it!??

As always, I mean this only respectfully and in the interest of hearing more of your opinion.

horsepower_1st on June 20, 2006 at 3:06 PM

Dread Pirate,
WWIII, yes. But it has already started. It started during the iranian revolution back in 1970’s - then in the 80’s, the bombing of the military barracks in beirut, in the 90’s: mogidishu, somalia, bombing of the embassies, USS Cole, first World Trade Center bombing. They’ve been at war with US for 25 years. It took a few planes crashing into some of our buildings for us to figure it out. Bush the first and Clinton just didn’t retaliate.

pullingmyhairout on June 20, 2006 at 3:16 PM

I don’t know…. where I live there are quite frequent launches of these so called “Minuteman rockets” (very cool to watch) and, from what I’ve gathered more and more hit the mark each time. Last month there was another successful try.
Plus, having some knowledge of the scientific stuff going on 30 years ago, we were 30 years ahead tech-wise back then.

I have fun trying to imagine all the great stuff we’ve got under wraps in our arsenal now.

Still, when Clinton gave the MIRV tech away it really screwed us. I still don’t understand why he hasn’t faced a firing range. The cigar thing was such a stupid side trip from the REAL atrocities he commited against our country.

It’s good to read about the “new” tech that can sense falsies and go for the real targets, I guess we can adapt pretty quick to a major breach in our security.

God Bless the USA! I can’t wait to see what happens. Even if we somehow miss, it will give the moderates a reason to wake up to WWIII and start voting in our nation’s best interest. And the enemies within will stand out that much more.

Oh, those NK photos are amazing. We truly do live in the greatest country on God’s green earth, and I don’t care if the ACLU goes after me for saying so.

NTWR on June 20, 2006 at 3:55 PM

Well, Allah? I have it on good authority that North Korean women are sexually happy women. (Scroll to the bottom and click video button to play)

Jes sayin’

(May not be safe for work, but at least as safe as the Washington cartoon)

Kadnine on June 20, 2006 at 4:16 PM

What if we shoot at the missile and miss and our wayward missile accidentally lands on a uranium processing plant in NK?

lostmyleggins on June 20, 2006 at 5:10 PM

So what? We’ve been pouring trillions into our defenses. It’s time to know what they can do, before an all-out assult from our enemies. The North Korean program makes an excellent test scenario. We should do all we can to shoot down every NK missle as soon as possible (starting with Cruise missles to the launch pads) to know where we stand.

We still have thousands of warheads as a deterrent, should the defensive tests fail. But we will have sent a message to NK, China, and Iran that we are not afraid to use our arsenal, should a real showdown occur.

Time for America to stop the slow death of playing not to lose.

dman on June 20, 2006 at 5:43 PM

Besides all these other great reasons above Allah, it will always be experimental…until we use it.

ScottG on June 20, 2006 at 5:59 PM

Valid points are everywhere today on this…lets do bit of a recap of the key arguments:

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.

Terlizzi999 on June 20, 2006 at 7:15 PM

I am glad Bush has the determination to make it operational.

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.

easy87us on June 20, 2006 at 9:51 PM

What if the U.S. tries to shoot down NK’s missile — and fails?

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

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.

CatholicConservative on June 20, 2006 at 10:33 PM

If the NK “test” comes anywhere near the United States or a territory of ours, we will have no choice but to attempt to shoot it down.

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!

georgej on June 21, 2006 at 6:40 AM

I think North Korea is a much bigger threat than Iran at this point and Bush & Co. need to tread very carefully. YOu know, Reagan ended the cold war without firing a shot. Sanctions and containment worked. That place is a living monument to 1955 and it is obvious from the posted pictures that they are suffering tremendously. This is the U.S.S.R. all over again and our generation’s cold war.

pullingmyhairout on June 21, 2006 at 10:44 AM

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?

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.

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 11:45 AM

Blather: take some deep cleansing breathes babe.

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.

honora on June 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM

Blather, sorry my mistake, I thought for one crazy moment that you and I might be able to have a reasonable conversation. What was I thinking??

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?

honora on June 21, 2006 at 12:48 PM

If we shot and missed we would never hear about it. It would be covered up. I’d like to see if the anti-missile system can actually work though (unlike the Patriot).

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 4:08 PM

Honora wrote: “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.”

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.

georgej on June 21, 2006 at 4:45 PM

goergej:

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. ;)

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 9:28 PM