Son of Star Wars isnt a waste of money...honest.

BillieTheBot · December 2004

The most recent test of the 'Son of Star Wars' project which is supposed to be up and running by the end of next year failed to even get off the launch pad.

At a price of $10bn a year you'd think it would at least go bang.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4097267.stm

Former Member · December 2004

Excellent news.

Every failure is a step forward for peace and safety.

Every delay increases the chance of the project being abandonded.

Hopefully it will soon be so late and over budget the chimp will quietly shelf it.

And the stupid new arms race the lunatic, dangerous scumbags are creating can be stopped.

Former Member · December 2004

Don't hold your breath on this one ever being stoped...it's a grand way of spreading the wealth in US and will just go on and on until they find something cheaper that actually works...and probably already have with the new lazer technologh.

:cool:

Former Member · December 2004

Its just one big gravy train of a public works project, when they perhaps could be spending the money on something worth while and decent.

Former Member · December 2004

So true...this thing probably cost as much as an invasion of Syria...maybe not enough for Iran but Syria for sure.

:cool:

Former Member · December 2004

Sadly given the shambles in Iraq the US army isn't in condition to successfully invade Vatican City, let alone anything else.

:cool:

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Aladdin
Every failure is a step forward for peace and safety.

I disagree. More the opposite.

Former Member · December 2004

On this particular project, total failure is to be welcome.

For it will make the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.

Already Russia have announced they're working on a unique, new kind of missile system, in direct response to the missile shield.

Other options to beat the shield are to simply increase the number of nuclear warheads and missiles, to simply ensure that some will get through even if the shield works at its best.

And you can bet your house that China won't sit back and do nothing similar.

To recap:

1. After 3 decades of stability and a decrease in nuclear proliferation and development, we're going backwards again.

2. The non-proliferation treaties that had worked so well have been unilaterally abandoned by Dubya.

3. And the stability provided by the principle of M.A.D. is threatened- one nation suddenly becoming invulnerable to attack while being capable of destroying all others? Do you think anyone would stand for it?

And it's all so pointless as well- most experts doubt the shield will work- at best it will only provide partial protection. And in addition terrorists don't care too much for intercontinental ballistic missiles for warhead delivery. Suitcases, cars, trucks and airplanes are naturally immune to the wonderful Star Wars shield.

In short, one of the most stupid, pointless and dangerous acts of the chimp yet- bar none.

Former Member · December 2004

I still don't get why it is actually needed, do many enimies of the USA actually have long range missiles, and would they use them?

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Renzo
I still don't get why it is actually needed, do many enimies of the USA actually have long range missiles, and would they use them?

Should the US wait until they do then?

Originally posted by Aladdin
Other options to beat the shield are to simply increase the number of nuclear warheads and missiles, to simply ensure that some will get through even if the shield works at its best.

Welcome to the fallacy of nuclear disarmament.

Not one of the treaties signed by the US and USSR were worth the paper they were written on. mostly is was about the removal of obsolete weapons which were costly to maintain. Other than that, both sides were armed enough even after these treaties to bomb us all out of existence. that is what MAD meant.

But you also have to consider that MAD is a western approach. Both the USSR (as was) and China have a different approach to nuclear warfare than the west.

Both believe is "first strike" capability which means that the first salvo would be aimed at US silos rather than cities. This would prevent a US response on their own countries.

"Star Wars" was created in response to that. By maintaining their abailty to respond, the US is able to continue to threaten a counter strike and neither the Russians or the Chinese want that.

1. After 3 decades of stability and a decrease in nuclear proliferation and development, we're going backwards again.

Stability? Proliferation has continued.

The lack of growth has more to do with the pace of technology and the cost of development.

2. The non-proliferation treaties that had worked so well have been unilaterally abandoned by Dubya.

have they worked well? Are you sure? I can think of two countries with nukes who didn't have them five years ago...

And it's all so pointless as well- most experts doubt the shield will work- at best it will only provide partial protection. And in addition terrorists don't care too much for intercontinental ballistic missiles for warhead delivery. Suitcases, cars, trucks and airplanes are naturally immune to the wonderful Star Wars shield.

In short, one of the most stupid, pointless and dangerous acts of the chimp yet- bar none.

They don't consider them as weapons because they don't have the capabilty at the moment, not because they don't see the potential.

At presnt, I agree that they are more likely to use something more portable and less technical. But times change as will this. Star Wars won't be developed overnight either...

Former Member · December 2004

waste of time ...if you can smuggle billions of quids worth of drugs day after day year after year ...you can deliver plant and prime nuclear warheads ...by truck.

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Man Of Kent

Welcome to the fallacy of nuclear disarmament.

Not one of the treaties signed by the US and USSR were worth the paper they were written on. mostly is was about the removal of obsolete weapons which were costly to maintain. Other than that, both sides were armed enough even after these treaties to bomb us all out of existence. that is what MAD meant.

But you also have to consider that MAD is a western approach. Both the USSR (as was) and China have a different approach to nuclear warfare than the west.

Both believe is "first strike" capability which means that the first salvo would be aimed at US silos rather than cities. This would prevent a US response on their own countries.

"Star Wars" was created in response to that. By maintaining their ability to respond, the US is able to continue to threaten a counter strike and neither the Russians or the Chinese want that.

I disagree about the treaties. They did serve a good purpose and number of warheads and missiles were cut by up to 80%. In addition there was a freeze in improvement, technology and development. All of that is gone, thanks to Dubya.

The US is now working on a new generation of nuclear warheads (the so-called battlefield nukes) and has said it might use them in conventional war in the future.

Definitely an uncalled for and pointless move that has made things worse.

As for M.A.D., both sides had always had a first strike policy and planned to strike enemy missile sites first to minimise damage. But in any case destruction would have been assured as many missiles would have still launched from land as well as submarines.

The concept of the US suddenly trying to be invulnerable to attack is a very dangerous and pointless exercise.

have they worked well? Are you sure? I can think of two countries with nukes who didn't have them five years ago...

It worked well with Russia and the US, who have always been and still are the only two nations capable of wiping out mankind in full (many times over at that) and were on the brink for decades on end.

Russia it's a politically unstable nation and there is a risk it might view the US as an enemy or threat again. Who's to say a new Cold War won't happen again? It's far from impossible.

There is also another thing to be said. If the USA, vulnerable as it is at present, still behaves like one of the biggest bullies in the history of mankind, having bombed and attacked 21 counties in the last half century alone, what would they do if they saw themselves as invulnerable???

Former Member · December 2004

Here's a little update on the launch schedule for test vehicles. Frankly, I think the lazers would do a better and cheaper job but they never listen to me;

"LAUNCH ALERT

Brian Webb
Ventura County, California
E-mail: kd6nrp@earthlink.net
Web Site: http://www.spacearchive.info

2004 December 15 (Wednesday) 19:31 PST

VANDENBERG AFB LAUNCH SCHEDULE
As of 2004 December 15

Launch
Time/Window
Date (PST/PDT) Vehicle Pad/Silo

FEB To be announced Minuteman III ---
ICBM test launch (non-orbital). Payload is one or more unarmed
warheads (probably Mk-12). Impact area is in the Reagan Test Site at
Kwajalein in the central Pacific. The Air Force will announce the
date and launch window about 36-hours in advance. Glory Trip 187GM

Late FEB-Early-MAR 10:00-13:00 Falcon I SLC-3W
Payload is the Naval Research Laboratory's TacSat-1 satellite. The
launch window is fixed and does not change if the launch date changes.

MAR 1 To be announced Delta IV SLC-6
Classified National Reconaissance Office payload. The DoD will
announce the launch time about 24-hours in advance. NROL-22

MAR 2 Mid-morning Pegasus XL Offshore
Payload is NASA's DART satellite

MAR 10 ~02:00 Delta II SLC-2W
Payload is the NOAA N environmental satellite. Launch time is based on
informed speculation

APR To be announced Minuteman III ---
ICBM test launch (non-orbital). Payload is one or more unarmed
warheads (probably Mk-12). Impact area is in the Reagan Test Site at
Kwajalein in the central Pacific. The Air Force will announce the date
and launch window about 36-hours in advance. Glory Trip 188GB

MAY To be announced Peacekeeper ---
ICBM test launch (non-orbital). Payload is one or more unarmed
warheads (probably Mk-12). Impact area is in the Reagan Test Site at
Kwajalein in the central Pacific. The Air Force will announce the date
and launch window about 36-hours in advance. Glory Trip 34-PA

MAY 26 ~03:00? Delta II SLC-2W
Payload is the CloudSat and CALIPSO environmental satellites. Launch
time is based on informed speculation"

:cool:

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Aladdin
I disagree about the treaties. They did serve a good purpose and number of warheads and missiles were cut by up to 80%. In addition there was a freeze in improvement, technology and development. All of that is gone, thanks to Dubya.

80% reduction in the number of missiles amounted to very little. Especially as many were signle warhead missles and were replaced by multiple warhead delivery systems.

Apart from that, let me give an analogy which someone once told me. Assume I have a loaded semi-automatic pointed at your head. There are 30 bullets in it, each capable of killing you.

Now, if I was to remove 80% of those bullets, would you feel any safer?

As for M.A.D., both sides had always had a first strike policy and planned to strike enemy missile sites first to minimise damage. But in any case destruction would have been assured as many missiles would have still launched from land as well as submarines.

Which why the US spent more time to develop more sub based missiles than they did land based. They understood Russian doctrine.

The concept of the US suddenly trying to be invulnerable to attack is a very dangerous and pointless exercise.

Not for them it isn't.

There is also another thing to be said. If the USA, vulnerable as it is at present, still behaves like one of the biggest bullies in the history of mankind, having bombed and attacked 21 counties in the last half century alone, what would they do if they saw themselves as invulnerable???

Don't you get tired of trotting out that "21 nations" comment?

Especially as some were under the auspices of the UN, but you tend to ignore that...

What you forget is that the US already see themselves as invulnerable to most attacks. What they are doing is defending themselves further. I have no problem with that, that is what the US Govt is supposed to do.

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Diesel
So true...this thing probably cost as much as an invasion of Syria...maybe not enough for Iran but Syria for sure.

:cool:

I think you're underestimating the cost of invading Syria. Much safer to keep playing with your 'lazers'.

:cool:

Former Member · December 2004

Defence isnt enough, the US should be building more and more powerful nukes until it gets one that could destroy a whole continent.

Thats Russia and China gone in a flash.

Former Member · December 2004

You'd love to see that wouldn't you?

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Aladdin
You'd love to see that wouldn't you?

me thinks these people have a very limited understanding of what it would do to their own pathetic little lives!

Former Member · December 2004

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
I think you're underestimating the cost of invading Syria. Much safer to keep playing with your 'lazers'.

:cool:

Syria has become decadent with jahid...it would be a cakewalk for the Marines or SAS.

Mind you, fighting on their terms would be more difficult but after a few dozen MOAB's things would be softened up considerably.

Iran is soon to feel such a thrust with the mystery bunker busters falling from the stratosphere...of course it will be reported as a nuclear accident.

:cool:

Son of Star Wars isnt a waste of money...honest.

Comments