posted 10-11- 09:59 PM               

That was a great debate! You negative folks should suck it up, that was a true debate of clashing ideals. There is no "lesser of two evils" crap - that is just petty cynisism.

No one won this one, what a tie! Who you chose is up to your view point... if you don't know what side you should be on now, give up.

I am happy, my guy done me proud! Gore's closing arguments were better, he once again he scared poeple by making them feel that Bush would give all the money in the world to Bill Gates. But Bush more than held his own on the international issues. Also Bush defended his Texas record very well, but I admit that Gore delivered a very well constructed punch.

That was the Bush I know, he really is quite a good fellow, and his ideas do not result from stupidity - quite the opposite.

posted 10-11- 11:21 PM               

I still don't understand Bush's budget, though, and I'm dying for someone to explain it to me without going into platitudes about fairness.

Bush also briefly mentioned his desire to revive the missile defense concept... yuck... something I'm vehemently against. I wish more time would be spent on this. I don't think people realize how important this issue is.

posted 10-12- 08:47 AM               

Budgets are complicated no doubt. Bush is basicaly cutting back spending as much as he can within his priorities. This money will go back to people, ALL people, and yes - that does include the rich. The rich (aside from being evil beings) run this country for the most part - they create new business, run politics, create new solutions to increase the standard of living - and hire all the non-rich people. How these people are doing DOES play huge into the quality of American life.

With more money back to all the people, you have essentialy empowered the US citezens to take back control form the government.

Imagine a government that has a 80% tax. This means that the government might be resposible for like 80% of what goes on, education, healthcare, food, transportation, etc. This is one approach to governing, it is called socialism.

Now imagine a government with 15% tax. This means that private enterprise is largely responsible for education, healthcare, food, transporation, etc. This is called capitalism.

Now look at our current system, we have about 50% tax - don't forget stuff like gas tax, etc - it adds up fast! We have capitalism at work to help increase the standard of living and also many social programs. Balance is the key! Here is where the balance is:

Business must be able to make money, not just break even. Also, fair business must be more profitable than curruption. On the other hand, it must be feasible for competition to be waged within the industries. Also, workers need to be "worth" their real value to companies - this means that people should be properly compensated for their value.

Part of what unions, etc. do for this is good, they do unite workers. But they have generally been significantly flawed. They hurt workers by insisting that every employee needs identical treatment, this is self destructive. They also teach workers that they have NO real value and that they only have value in numbers - this is simply untrue. The unions should instead teach workers how to understand and negotiate based on their real value, and they DO have real value! A company can NOT run without the workers!

If all workers understood the business issues then there would be little need for unions - to me unions only contribute to the problem today. In the past when we were talking coal miners, etc., they were much more effective.

Teacher's unions are evil, and teachers have no clue of their value - that is their lack of value. They could have value - but right now they do not. They are, for the majority, failiers.

In closing, the details of Bush's budget are complex, but they are driven by the gaol to reduce the size of the government while keeping America's priorities. This means keeping certain social programs and building up the military, while improving education by fixing the problem at its root (accountability), not by throughing money and goverment control at it.

Simply, imagine Gore's goal being 60% gov and 40% private while Bush is 40% gov and 60% private.

Bush makes up for lost money by cutting useless money pit fedral programs while also streamining those programs that are neccasary. Gore takes our money and uses it to better governments role in daily life hoping to clean up the environment, get better teachers by higher pay, and putting chips on everone skulls to track your every movement... ok, kidding about the last one

These are too valid viewpoints for America, niether is wrong. The question a voter must ask him/herself is, "What viewpoint will create a world were my ideals are upheld?" The answer will, and should be different for people form differnt walks of life...

posted 10-12- 09:45 AM               

1. Won't work. Most of the scientists who have studied this concept have concluded that it's too problematic from a technical standpoint. Remember the Patriot missile? During the Gulf War we were led to believe that it was shooting SCUDs out of the sky nightly. Guess what... the Patriot missile missed every single time. The bottom line is that it's extremely difficult to shoot a bullet with a bullet. And even if you find a way to do that, someone will come up with a countermeasure.

2. Too expensive. This project is so expensive no one even knows how much it would cost. As I've said before, I would rather see the money go toward paying our millitary.

3. Not necessary. MAD has been a successful policy for how many years? Why fix it if it ain't broken? Any missile fired at the US brings with it a calling card. It would be suicide for any nation to attack us. Most intelligence experts agree that the chances of a missile attack are remote and that a terrorist planted bomb would be the choice method of delivery.

4. We had an agreement not to build this system. Many countries will consider the building of this system, not as a defense measure, but as an act of agression. Now, obviously it wouldn't be, but make no mistake, that will be the perception around the world.

posted 10-12- 10:49 AM               

1. "Won't work". That's what most physicists said about the A-bomb, or that it would burn up the atmosphere. If all R&D were stopped when someone said "it won't work" there would be little advancement in any scientific field.

2. "Too expensive". How much would a nuked New York City cost if we don't have a missile defense against terrorists?

3. "MAD has been successful". MAD works when you are dealing with nation-states and you know who is hurling missles at you. MAD doesn't work with terrorists. For example, do you know who attacked the Navy ship in Yeman today?

posted 10-12- 11:33 AM               

Wrong... that's not what most physicists said about the A-bomb. The most highly regarded scientists of that time period DID believe that a bomb could be built.

>2. "Too expensive". How much would a nuked New York City cost if we don't have a missile defense against terrorists?

It's too expensive if you consider the fact that the chances of a missile attack are remote compared to the chances of a chemical/biological attack or an attack by any other means. Terrorists do not fire nuclear missiles. If these terrorists were to fire a missile, the US would have a clear target to retaliate against... that is, whatever nation the missile was fired from.
Just for argument's sake, though, let's say you do build this wonderful shield, and it's perfect-- works every time. That only means that terrorists will seek other means to hit us. We will have spent all this money on this ridiculous system and the terrorists would merely laugh at us and attack us in other ways.

>3. "MAD has been successful". MAD works when you are dealing with nation-states and you know who is hurling missles at you. MAD doesn't work with terrorists. For example, do you know who attacked the Navy ship in Yeman today?

Terrorists do not have nuclear missiles. But even if they did, what country would these terrorists launch it from?

No, I do not know who attacked the ship. Apparently, it was hit by a bomb on a raft, not a nuclear missile. Had it been hit by a missile, we would know who it was that attacked it, and we could respond. That's why MAD works.

Face it, the missile defense shield idea is... well... indefensible. It's a feel-good, quick-fix, false-sense-of-security-blanket that would take money away from our military and escalate tension in the world.

posted 10-12- 01:23 PM            

As a matter of fact a very large portion of scientists during the WWII era did NOT believe that the a-bomb was possible. A very talented minority believed and built it. The same is true of a missile defense system, and while it would not be perfect it has been demonstrated to be possible. I know a couple of people who have actively worked on this system through JPL and it is more than feasable. Also, I'm not sure where you got your numbers about the Patriot but it did destroy SCUD missiles. No it did not "hit" them directly but it wasn't meant to - the Patriot has a proximity warhead which means it blows up when it gets close enough to the target to damage it.

Also, it should be noted that a missile defense system does not protect solely against nuclear missiles - but against any ballistic missile, including chemical and biological.

You say that a terrorist would have no place to launch a ballistic missile from - bull. Ever heard of a mobile launch platform, more commonly known as a truck? The Russians seem to have 'misplaced' over a dozen of them in the last 5 years. Any bets on how hard it would be for a well funded group like Hezbollah to get ahold of one?

MAD works against superpowers, not terrorists. A true terrorist is perfectly willing to give up their life for their cause. We would be very unlikely to employ MAD tactics against a single weapon launch. How could we justify it? Hey there Mexico! We just got hit by a missile that came from your country, launched by parties unknown, but heres a few megaton nuclear warhead in your face! Can you imagine the global reaction to that???

I have also heard the argument that not many countries have a working ballistic missile...so??? It's really not hard to make one. To make an accurate one yes, but accuracy don't matter much if it's an airborne bio agent or a nuke. There's a guy in southern California who builds his own rockets with the help fo some highschool kids. Every year he goes out and tries to achieve orbit. Last year he shot a rocket from the Mojave (thats in California) into the Atlantic. If one guy can build a rocket capable of that imagine what any group with a couple millions bucks to sapre could do.

posted 10-12- 02:01 PM               

"The GAO report states that only about 4 of the 11 Scuds rated by the Army as high confidence warhead kills are supported by "strong" evidence. 27 Examples cited by GAO of what the Army considered strong evidence of a warhead kill include: recovery of a Scud warhead section containing Patriot fragments; or holes in a recovered warhead or in the guidance or fusing components; or radar data showing evidence of Scud debris in the air following a Patriot detonation. It is not clear from the public record if actual Patriot fragments were found in recovered Scud warheads.

The GAO report indicates that the other 7 Scuds scored by the Army as high confidence warhead kills are not supported by "strongest" evidence. While for some of these latter engagements, radar-tracking data exists that proves a Patriot interceptor came close to a Scud, the GAO report emphasizes that computer data collected from Patriot units cannot be used alone to prove that a Patriot destroyed a Scud warhead. One source of confusion during Gulf War operations was that a "fusing symbol" appeared on the Patriot operator's panel when signals received by the ground unit from a Patriot interceptor cut off at the expected time of fusing (Patriot warhead detonation). However, the appearance of this symbol alone did not indicate proximity to the target nor that the Scud warhead section was visible to the fusing radar of the Patriot interceptor. In this connection, the GAO report quotes, "The Chief Engineer [of the Patriot Program Office] said that the Patriot's fuse can sense its target and detonate at up to six times the required miss distance, resulting in an extremely low or no probability of kill. However, the system would still record a kill."

The GAO report also states that ground damage searches in Saudi Arabia were insufficiently complete to indicate how many warheads overall the Patriot killed. Clearly, this situation could have caused an upward bias in the reported Patriot success rate because the Army study used absence of evidence of ground damage as evidence for Patriot success. "

Pretty sad numbers. Naturally, we will never know the real truth since Patriot performance is, I guess, classified. My personal belief, based on what I've heard, is that the Patriot had 0% success rate.

>You say that a terrorist would have no place to launch a ballistic missile from - bull. Ever heard of a mobile launch platform, more commonly known as a truck?

Again, whatever country that mobile platform is in becomes the target.

>MAD works against superpowers, not terrorists. A true terrorist is perfectly willing to give up their life for their cause.

Of course... that's not the point. No country would allow terrorists to operate a launch platform of any kind.

>We would be very unlikely to employ MAD tactics against a single weapon launch. How could we justify it? Hey there Mexico! We just got hit by a missile that came from your country, launched by parties unknown, but heres a few megaton nuclear warhead in your face! Can you imagine the global reaction to that???

What are you talking about? How would a missile shield stop a missile launched from Mexico anyway? They wouldn't even need to put the missile in space to hit the US at that range. Hell, they could do it with a SCUD. Maybe we ought to line up those miraculous Patriots on the border. Let's not take this argument into the realm of the absurd. If they can get a device into Mexico, they wouldn't put it on a missile... sheesh.... which again, only proves my point.

>As a matter of fact a very large portion of scientists during the WWII era did NOT believe that the a-bomb was possible. A very talented minority believed and built it. The same is true of a missile defense system, and while it would not be perfect it has been demonstrated to be possible.

Yes, a very talented minority... like I said, the highly regarded scientists. That's who we should listen to. And, in the case of the missile defense shield, the highly regarded scientists on this issue agree that it's not workable... which is precisely why it hasn't been built yet.

posted 10-12- 02:07 PM               

Right... I've got you guys talking about missiles launched from Mexico, and I don't stand a chance? LOL

Do you not see the number of hoops you guys are jumping thru to make your side of the argument work?

posted 10-12- 02:11 PM               

For instance, the proposed anti-missile system is easily overwhelmed by decoys. If there are 100 decoys that look just like warheads, any anti-missile system will choke. It is very easy to make a decoy appear identical when the warheads are coasting through space after the boost phase. If two objects are traveling in a vacuum with no acceleration, there is no way to determine their mass. You can't tell an inflatable warhead from a 1000 lb one. This is a physical law. This is why the U.S. anti-missile tests have been rigged and yet they still fail. The original test called for three sizes of decoy, and dozens of decoys in total. The system had to intercept the real target and ignore the decoy. Since there was no way to tell what was the real warhead, the tests were redesigned. The last test (which failed for other reasons) involved only one decoy which was dimensionally much bigger than the warhead.

If you have to rig the tests to give you the data you want, the system isn't ready for deployment.

You don't launch sub-orbital missiles off a truck. If you have a bomb and a truck, and can drive it within range of a US target, this missile defense system won't stop it. It will be too low and too close. A terrorist will likely just drive the bomb up next to the target and forget the missile entirely.

You don't want to use a post-boost phase interceptor on chemical or biological weapons... The fallout is still over your head. Debris has intertia too.

Finally, aggressivly funding a currently-unworkable anti-missile system is going to put the Russians in a bind. They will aggressivly counter it, probably by increasing missile production (overwhelm the system). Do we want a country as poor and unstable as Russia to increase nuke production? That sounds like a good way to get nuclear weapons into the hands of corrupt officials and petty terrorists who can then bring the bomb into NY harbor on a boat.

I would support a working missile defense system, and someday there will be one that works. I support doing more research into the technologies. This system is a boondogle and dangerous, and not ready for deployment.

posted 10-12- 04:39 PM            

As for sub-orbital weapons being launched from trucks. Yes they do have them, the Russians pioneered them to make it hard for us to destroy their nuclear response capability. Several of the missing Russian missile trucks are indeed sub-orbital weapons.

As for the Russinas stepping up missile production as a counter...how would they do that? With what money?? They don't even have enough funds to fuel their Navy let alone embark upon an arms race. The concern here would be stepped up efforts by China and North Korea, not Russia.

And fallout from a chem or bio weapon is not as large a problem as you might think. It is actually much more difficult to properly disperse a chem or bio weapon than most people realize. Also, a sufficently large enough warhed to succesfully *destroy* a ballistic missle will more than likely incinerate a warhead.

I'm not arguing that the current iteration of the missile defense system works well. What I'm arguing is that it does warrant continued research and development. As we progress towards a world where more and more unstable groups have easy access to high technology the threat of missile attacks will rise, not having a counter to that would be criminal. It can be done, it will be expensive - but then so was the ICBM program - which many of the "best" scientists believed would fail. Did you knoe that when Werner Von-Braun suggested the idea of the V2 he was laughed at by all of the 'serious' scientists? Or that most of the well regarded scientists of the day believed that it was impossible to maintain flight beyond the speed of sound? I mean really, any scientist that says "it can't be done" about any topic isn't a smart as they think they are. History proves again and again that the impossible isn't.

OK... I'm off my soapbox now...back to the original topic.

Gore was downright sheepish after getting racked over the coals all week. Bush appeared interested and perceptive about the comments of his opponent - a marked improvement over his blank stare in round 1. I would have to give this one to GW. Now, on to round three!

posted 10-12- 04:51 PM               

Post boost phase is a viable defense. Most chemical and biological agents are ineffective if dispersed too widely. Also, if all you do is damage the warhead's triggering mechanism then the debris will fall as a lump, which is the other end of the scale. Either would negate the attack.

There are several methods to differentiate a decoy. The most obvious is temperature. Since the decoy and the warhead are made of different materials and have different densities, the decoy tends to cool off very quickly. Even if you put a small heater on the decoy it's very likely going to have a different signature than the warhead. And that's making the decoy more expensive and more complicated.

The more decoys you put on a missle the more they weigh, forcing a smaller warhead. Also, the more decoys the greater the likelyhood of a failure which might affect the warhead.

Low earth orbit is a pretty hard vacuum, but it's not a perfect vacuum. There is drag. In fact, there's enough drag to affect a decoy differently than a warhead. This same thing is what makes post-boost effective against chemical and biological agents.

And finally, the Russians can't afford the missiles and warheads they already have. They simply don't have the money to crank up their factories to produce more of what they already have too many of.

I'm split on the missile defense. First, it's certainly do-able. There's nothing magic about it. There's no new science involved. It'll just take a lot of engineering work. It'll be expensive. But big parts of the problem become easier with more computing power and that's becoming cheaper all the time.

OTOH, I agree that it's worthless against a terrorist attack. There's no incentive for a terrorist organization to attack the US with a missile. Something like Clancy's Sum of all Fears is far more likely.

The current project is obviously out of control. They've missed nearly every calendar and functional milestone set out for them. That doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed. Just this implementation.

posted 10-12- 05:51 PM            

You hit the nail on the head. Japan and South Korea are two such countries that are in need of such a system. In fact, at both US air bases in the ROK, patriots batteries line the runways. Every month or two you practice chemical warfare excercises....the threat is very real.

Missile defense can work; the debate is whether or not its worth it in terms of the billions or trillions it will cost to make it happen. There are already C-135 transports with airborne lasers that are doing tests for the DOE.(I think they are called Rivet Joint if I'm not mistaken)

posted 10-12- 05:57 PM               

Mighty's decoy detection schemes such as measuring heat or small accelerations due to drag make perfect sense. Like he said, it isn't magic. I don't think we have made it workable yet, as evidenced by the revising of the tests until the interceptor no longer had do distinguish between a same-size decoy and the actual warhead.

How could the Russians afford to build more missiles? They have the materials. They have all the know-how. They have the schematics and the tooling. The have the desire. They just don't have enough money to do it in a safe and secure manner. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen to me. What if they skimp on security? What if the guards decide to make some money on the side? What if they go looking for a sponsor?

posted 10-12- 07:55 PM               

If you mean a system that could stop a single missile, or a hand full of missiles, from a rogue state or a well financed terrorist organization, then you are talking about a much shorter time frame. Depends on how much $ is spent.

posted 10-12- 08:06 PM               

Other technologies that I look forward to but are still decades off:

• fusion power


• manned lunar and martian bases


• flying cars

I look forward to these much more than a missile shield.

posted 10-12- 09:50 PM               

My point was that we should have had flying cars throughout the skies in the 1980's. We still dont have them, as a regular part of society imean.

Think of the infrastructure that could be saved. As far as worrying about people flying them I say make them computer/gps controlled. Skynet

Patent pending

posted 10-12- 10:02 PM               

Crap boys I should have got in on this earlier. Now I have too much to respond too.

LOL

Great debate so far, (the missle stuff).

I would say that its definatly possible. I think ANYTHING is possible with the right amounts of Time, Money, Knowleage and Will.

And yes that includes going faster then the speed of light, Even if its some sort of loophole around the presently known laws of physics.

I feel that anyone who thinks we know ANYTHING right now compared to how things REALLY work is sadly mistaken in the world of physics.

I remember reading along time ago that some people thought trains wouldn't work cause after a certain speed the air would get sucked out and no one would be able to breath. HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA freaking insane.

Also I watched some sort of documentry on discovery or TLC and it said that Moscow was the only place that had a missle defence system in place. It didn't however say how effective it was.

posted 10-12- 10:07 PM               

Militarily we need Bush and the Republicans back in charge. If you don't think so and are happy with how things are now, I'm telling you from someone who has been on the inside working with the Federal Government for the military, things have never looked worse.

We have the most power as a country on this planet and to squander it away as we have been over the past several years by cutting back much to much, we are going to eventually find ourselves in more and more ugly situations if things don't change soon.

posted 10-12- 10:07 PM               

I think the problem with flying cars is

1. Expense of fuel and making the things, they would be a tad more expensive then the average ford sedan.

2. Controling the traffic in 2 ways, first the obvious of keeping people in line and the fact that a traffic accident could crazy bad.

3. People don't like control (Right boys?) Would you want your car controling you? People NEED it seems to control there own vehical for some reason, don't ask me why but they do.

On the tangent of mass transport.

posted 10-13- 08:46 AM               

Gore promisies more money to everything. Kind of easy to just say, "I plan on giving like a gazillion bucks to every government program." Bush explains away where the money will come from - education can and must be fixed at an idea level, there is all ready WAY to much money spent here for so little return.

Almost everything Bush will work for will be to lower government waste to give money to the military (a program that has good return) and US, the people, who have shown such an amazingly better return than any area of the government.