Comments on: Shooting Down Missile Defense http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense National News in Context Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: notthere http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3498 notthere Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:45:43 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3498 As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed.<br><br><br><br>I can't see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn't new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term.<br><br><br><br>They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill.<br><br><br><br>Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don't seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves. As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed.

I can't see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn't new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term.

They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill.

Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don't seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves.

]]> By: notthere http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3500 notthere Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:45:43 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3500 As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed.<br><br><br><br>I can't see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn't new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term.<br><br><br><br>They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill.<br><br><br><br>Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don't seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves. As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed.

I can't see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn't new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term.

They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill.

Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don't seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves.

]]> By: mclaren http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3497 mclaren Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:42:21 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3497 I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights?<br><br><br><br>Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated?<br><br><br><br>Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don't know. I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights?

Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated?

Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don't know.

]]> By: mclaren http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3499 mclaren Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:42:21 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3499 I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights?<br><br><br><br>Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated?<br><br><br><br>Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don't know. I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights?

Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated?

Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don't know.

]]> By: blewoutmyflipflop http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3495 blewoutmyflipflop Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:23:29 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3495 The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report's contents, let alone the chances of achieving success. The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report's contents, let alone the chances of achieving success.

]]> By: blewoutmyflipflop http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3496 blewoutmyflipflop Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:23:29 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3496 The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report's contents, let alone the chances of achieving success. The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report's contents, let alone the chances of achieving success.

]]> By: mclaren http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-3494 mclaren Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:39:51 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-3494 So, what's the institutional momentum for missile defense in Russia?<br><br>Russia or the Soviets, had a missile defense around Moscow for decades.<br><br><br><br>Also, I'm surprised to hear that a decoy can't be determined especially since the program just completed a successful test doing just that.<br><br><br><br>But since when did Democrats worry about spending money -- except when it came in the form of national defense? Let's see the Dems hold hearings on how we can scrape together that $12 billion from completely unconstitutional expenditures, and direct it towards the specific responsibility of the US gov't. as opposed to those like buying prescription medicine. $436 billion for Medicare last year? Why that's 360 times what we spend on security for mass transit, ports and national monuments. So, what's the institutional momentum for missile defense in Russia?

Russia or the Soviets, had a missile defense around Moscow for decades.

Also, I'm surprised to hear that a decoy can't be determined especially since the program just completed a successful test doing just that.

But since when did Democrats worry about spending money — except when it came in the form of national defense? Let's see the Dems hold hearings on how we can scrape together that $12 billion from completely unconstitutional expenditures, and direct it towards the specific responsibility of the US gov't. as opposed to those like buying prescription medicine. $436 billion for Medicare last year? Why that's 360 times what we spend on security for mass transit, ports and national monuments.

]]> By: notthere http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-1351 notthere Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-1351 As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed. I can't see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn't new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term. They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill. Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don't seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves. As far as I understand it, when they reassessed the performance of the Patriot system against the Scud threat in the first Iraq war, there was no reason to believe it made a single hit. Equally all the early tests of the SDI system were optimized for success and still missed.

I can’t see what the comparison with the space program has to do with it. That was new technology being theorized, designed and fielded at breakneck pace. This system fails for the job it was asked to do at the outset. Shifting goal posts isn’t new. Here we have huge amounts of money spent on something the scientists told the Pentagon was not feasible near term.

They were right. And the Pentagon lies for a number of reasons about many things. And the taxpayer gets the bill.

Oh, and those names that keep cropping up don’t seem to have any actual expertise of anything. As their record proves.

]]> By: mclaren http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-1352 mclaren Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-1352 I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights? Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated? Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don't know. I recall the early days of the US Space program. There have been more successes in the SDI program in its time than all the blown tests in the space program. Did we roll up the carpets and turn out the lights?

Do you have any solid evidence of your skepticism, or just wishful thinking that we will be incinerated?

Perhaps you are a believer in "guilt by association" I don’t know.

]]> By: blewoutmyflipflop http://washingtonindependent.com/1605/shooting-down-missile-defense/comment-page-1#comment-1353 blewoutmyflipflop Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1605#comment-1353 The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report's contents, let alone the chances of achieving success. The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998), aka the Rumsfeld Commission, largely consisted of the same players that thought invading Iraq was a good idea. For instance, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley. That alone should be enough to question the report’s contents, let alone the chances of achieving success.

]]>