Transterrestrial Musings  


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Journoblogs
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs


Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« NewSpace News | Main | Paris, Not In The Springtime »

No Star Wars, Please, We're Democrats

Taylor Dinerman writes about one of the many unfortunate consequences of a Democrat Congress--renewed (and more effective) efforts to prevent us from defending ourselves against missiles.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 01, 2006 11:32 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/6577

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments

Rand, completely OT, but what are your opinions on the budget deficit?

Posted by Adrasteia at December 2, 2006 02:31 AM

My opinion is the Budget Deficit will become far, far worse if someone manages to lob an ICBM onto US soil.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 2, 2006 08:59 AM

Considering that the biggest determinant of federal tax revenue in a given year is economic growth, not marginal tax rates...

Posted by Big D at December 2, 2006 01:15 PM

What about the Aegis SM-3 system? As I recall, deployment is going full speed ahead.

Okay, some Air Force guys may be unhappy if the Navy actually deploys workable ballistic missile defense making their program redundant but is that the Democrats fault?

As a Democrat, I think the Aegis SM-3 system is way cool and should be fully deployed ASAP and not merely because it was thought up by a member of the Doobie Brothers.

Putting missile defense on Aegis class warships is a terrific way to put the defenses near to the threat be it North Korea or Iran.

By the way, I also like those laser equipped 747s.

Posted by Bill White at December 2, 2006 02:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

Looks like ballistic missile defense has already been deployed.

Go Navy!

Posted by Bill White at December 2, 2006 02:47 PM

Well I believe the Aegis system is only tactically certified to be effective against short and medium rang missile threats. I believe the ship needs to have some proximity to the launch zone as well. Launch silos that are far inland will be difficult for Aegis to acquire and take down. Unless you wanna steam a stealth cruiser into the Baltic sea then Russia will give you some problems.

Strategic missile defense should be viewed as consisting of multiple layers. The Aegis system would cover the first layers of the onion and should be viewed more as an offensive defense capability - knocking missiles down over enemy territory or just as they exit the atmosphere. If something were to get by that then the Air Force's solution is to be the defensive curtain surrounding our great land.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 2, 2006 08:09 PM

If I were in charge, every time the moonbats trot out the tired old 'maginot line' strawan, I would tell them it is a 'Gauntlet'

That is what it should be, a multi-layered gauntlet and to pass it, a booster and then warhead would have to make it thru every phase up to and including point defense.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 2, 2006 09:56 PM

Josh and Mike -

I am curious -- how many simultaneous incoming missiles would constitute "saturation" of your proposed system?

10 or 15 and I am 100% on-board.

Leak proof missile defense against 1000 incoming ICBMs? That I oppose because then China would only need to foreclose on our foreign debt to prevail against us.

Posted by Bill White at December 2, 2006 10:10 PM

The Dinerman piece is a really poorly-written, poorly-sourced article. Take this:

"One test of how serious both Democrats and the Bush Administration is about defending America..."

"Both IS"?

"The best time to hit a ballistic missile is just after blast off when it is climbing against of gravity"

"is climbing against of gravity"?

I know 10th graders who write better sentences. His bio says that he's a writer, so such sloppiness has no excuse.

But grammar sloppiness aside, where is his evidence that the US is going to field "a space battlestation"? What's the project called? Who is in charge of it? Note that the people he quotes are Everett Dolman and Frank Gaffney. Gaffney hasn't been in government since the 1980s, and Dolman is a far-right theorist, not a government official with responsibility for missile defense. And before the US military decided to launch such a weapon, they would first conduct smaller scale operational tests. There's nothing like that in the budget.

There are a lot of other problems with assertions in the article. For instance, JSTARS was pressed into service in the Gulf War because the platforms were already built. There was little operational risk if it did not work. In comparison, before spending billions more on a missile defense system, one would want to know if it works or not. It would seem to be a good conservative principle to not commit to spending billions without thinking things through.

Posted by Scott Marina at December 2, 2006 10:28 PM

Bill,

If China were to foreclose our foreign debt, they might as well forclose on the Chinese Communist Party while they are at it.
The number one rule of a good parasite is never kill the host. Make no mistake, we are China's host and their entire economy is based on exports to the US.

T-Bonds mature, they are not payable on demand. They could stop buying more but they can't forclose s you put it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 3, 2006 09:30 AM

Scott,

If you want to know who Taylor Dinnerman is, google on his name. We here are quite familar with his writings.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 3, 2006 09:33 AM

"We here are quite familar with his writings."

Are they all this bad?

Posted by Scott Marina at December 3, 2006 08:43 PM

Here.

Was that so damn impossible?

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 4, 2006 08:17 PM

No, Mike, but it's a pain in the ass for me, because long URLs screw up my post formatting...

I had to spend time to fix it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 4, 2006 08:35 PM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: