Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Missile Defense Sheilds?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (10 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 1277 times:

yeah we have not heard much about this in recent years, I just though I'd bring it up as I think it has something to do with the US's pending trip to the moon.

Hint: Launch capabilities...

Besides, if other countries want to go that far into space, it seems reason enough to protect ourselves. From what or who does not matter as it is an issue of national security.


[Edited 2004-01-14 22:01:23]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8668 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

"Besides, if other countries want to go that far into space, it seems reason enough to protect ourselves. From what or who does not matter as it is an issue of national security."

Which nations do you mean? And it doesn't make a difference from what or who one defends oneself?  Confused Defense might even be unnecessary!



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

OMG... Lephron... Why would you want to shoot a missile from the moon into a target in our atmosphere? You make the most stupid assumptions in my view...

User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

actually i think one of the most important tasks of the eu is to prevent the american space doctrine to materialize. that is why esa also announced the moon landing in 2024 and mars in 2030.
this picture clearly sums up what i think is reason for far greater concern then any terrorist threat:


the full link to the horrible u.s. OFFICIAL space doctrine is here
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch02.htm



10=2
User currently offlineQantasforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

Australia is currently negotiating a Memorandum of understanding with the United States with the intention of becoming a partner in the "son of star wars" program.

Australia has a few rocket launching facilities but none on the moon.  Big grin

The world community would never allow it. The 1979 United Nations Moon Treaty does not allow for the moon to be used for military purposes.

Section 3, Article 4 states: "4. The establishment of military bases, installation and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on the moon shall be forbidden."

QFF


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

"Why would you want to shoot a missile from the moon"

Shoot a missle from the moon? You're funny dude, not only did I not even think of that myself you say I make stupid assumptions. LOL.

Awe damn, that gave me a good laugh.

Let's go back a few decades...if the Soviets had the technology to send Sputnik to space, then their ICBM's were more a threat to the US than previously thought. If a country had the technology to send something into space, what technological advancement would be necessary to launch an attack on another part of the world? None.

China, among others, plans for the moon. What else could they be capable of by then? What about North Korea? I see a future (maybe 30 years out, maybe less) China-NK partnership, I also see a dangerous situation.

Now think of all the money officially going into NASA for the return to the moon crap and then think of the unofficial cash that goes into building a MDS without much knowledge of the people footing the bill - taxpayers.

The idea that we go to the moon as a cover-up for Iraq is nuts, 80 billion for Iraqi reconstruction and 500 billion for a moonshot base. We have better technology and better ideas than a giant Saturn 5, it should be less than 350 billion, but they may ask for upwards of 750, where's that money going?

I wouldn't mind the stuff the government does with our money, I would like to be told as opposed to not, with the old excuse of security...most Americans can't do much against this counrty anyway, what could WE possibly do that would put this country in jeopardy...?

Nothing is wrong with anything, just tell us where our money goes and don't be so damned vague about it for God's sakes.

[Edited 2004-01-15 00:03:15]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8668 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

I hope people(s) will adhere to that UN treaty... which sadly hasn't been all that popular recently. But at least it is the US that's "announcing" (I'd rather say "dreaming about") these missions to Moon and Mars, could be much worse.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13477 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

actually i think one of the most important tasks of the eu is to prevent the american space doctrine to materialize

I love how some of you Euros get bent out of shape when the U.S. does something without asking "Mother, may I?" first.




"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

"I love how some of you Euros get bent out of shape when the U.S. does something without asking "Mother, may I?" first."

If the US had their own planet, then I would see substance in your observation.





The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1223 times:

We don't need to "ask" anyone. We have already been there, done that when it comes to the Moon. First come, first served Lepy!

User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

Big defense spending sucks. But I would rather spend the money on a "missile shield" then going to the moon & mars. I think un manned probes are a better way to explore space.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 1209 times:

I agree with missile shields. But still think there is a need for conventional military weapons. I'm not much for Mars exploration, I agree the money could be spent more effectively.

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

Besides, if other countries want to go that far into space, it seems reason enough to protect ourselves. From what or who does not matter as it is an issue of national security.

Yes, it does matter. Missile defence is very difficult, complex, and expensive; you can't protect yourself against everything from everywhere. Analysing the risks, and concentrating work on the greatest risks, would shrink the budget by a few billion trillion zillion $.

I love how some of you Euros get bent out of shape when the U.S. does something without asking "Mother, may I?" first.

Nobody cares how much general ironmongery you put into orbit (although it's getting a little crowded in places). Everybody's trying to do it, with varying success.

However, military control of space is difficult to reconcile with treaties that you've already committed to. On the other hand... why pay any attention to treaties, if they conflict with your national interest on any given day?  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

"..why pay any attention to treaties, if they conflict with your national interest on any given day?

Good point Bob. National interest comes first I agree. That is "job 1" of our elected officials. Protect the citizens.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

"We don't need to "ask" anyone. We have already been there, done that when it comes to the Moon. First come, first served Lepy!"

As long as whatever we do does not affect another country we do not need to ask anyone for anything. If it does, acting like we can do whatever we want is irresponsible. My point was not talking about the moon, I am saying that the technology used in a trip to the moon may not be used for a moonshot -- likely a MDS.

At least a moonshot will make MDS much cheaper...

Speaking of a missile shield, that will require the use of the region above other countries...well, if your neighbor decided to put up something in their yard that just happens to get in your yard, would you be okay with it? What if they respectfully told you about it before hand?

It depends; are they an ally, neutral, an enemy, not an ally or not an enemy? Yes there are differences.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Covenant Lepy...covenant.

You don't need the moon for a missile defence system. Think about what your saying...





User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

"You don't need the moon for a missile defence system. Think about what your saying..."

We don't need the moon itself, but the technology to reach the moon can be very lucrative, no?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

The moon never gets closer then 221,451 miles. Satellites under 300 miles. We already have the technology to get to the moon.

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

We don't need to "ask" anyone. We have already been there

 Big thumbs up You have been there Jeff? This "we" sounds a little arrogant doesn't it ?


On the other subject: No, a space missile defense system, as expensive as you want, won't stop planes to fly in your towers or terrorists to carry dirty bombs inside big cities. You need an efficient "Intelligence" Agency for that.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Now Operational posted Tue Jun 20 2006 09:26:07 by AerospaceFan
US Missile Defense posted Fri Feb 24 2006 19:22:01 by Lutenist
Missile Defense Sheilds? posted Wed Jan 14 2004 22:00:26 by Lehpron
Missile Defense Test>Successfull..Still A Bad Idea posted Sun Jul 15 2001 08:59:04 by John Edwards
Bush Moves Ahead On Missile Defense posted Sat Jan 27 2001 03:14:55 by TWA
Missile Defense System II posted Mon Jan 22 2001 02:58:25 by TWA
Dprk Defense/Retaliation Capabilities? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 18:01:47 by DrDeke
Sanctions Don't Work -- Russian Defense Minister posted Sat Aug 26 2006 13:46:57 by AerospaceFan
Better Self Defense Weap.-Cricket Or Baseball Bat. posted Sat Aug 26 2006 08:43:44 by L-188
Ideal Home-defense Shotgun? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 10:40:57 by EA CO AS