The cuban crisis was all about avoiding a preemptive strike. Nobody wants nuclear war, even the old hardline Russians.

Cuban missiles would have put the Russians in a first-strike position, a very destabilizing situation. The Russians knew it, we knew it. That's why they ultimately caved in after some posturing.

Why didn't you just say so? By spouting a one word replies you just putting on an asbestos suit and arming the flamethrower.

[ 12-17-2002, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

Why didn't you just say so? By spouting a one word replies you just putting on an asbestos suit and arming the flamethrower.</font>[/QUOTE]To make you think about what you were saying and how people will construe it?

HTH.
TIA.

The cuban crisis was all about avoiding a preemptive strike. Nobody wants nuclear war, even the old hardline Russians.

Cuban missiles would have put the Russians in a first-strike position, a very destabilizing situation. The Russians knew it, we knew it. That's why they ultimately caved in after some posturing.</font>[/QUOTE]Hmm, so it violated the principles of mutually assured destruction then?
Rather like this anti-ballistic missile shield the USA is building?
In that case, Is China For example justified in attacking the USA since this anti missile shield could put them in a situation where they could launch their missiles and then destroy the incoming ones.

Did nothing of the sort. My kneejerk reaction was to filter you. Everything I stated was FACT, whether you like to hear it or not.

Refusing to listen to factual information, no matter how defacing it may seem, is just as racist as taking a one-sided view of things.

I just thought I'd mention, I know some arabs...I won't call them friends, but I'm on good terms with them. They are very nice people, and I like them a lot. They are not muslim, however. They'll tell you a lot of the same things I'm telling you.

[ 12-17-2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

The Americans are still building it? News to me. "Star Wars" was cancelled.

The USSR has already built an ABM system, in violation of many treaties I might add. They just haven't put it in orbit. (It's around moscow) Diplomats negotiated a compromise their, but it's potentially destabilizing too.

FWIW, the situation right now is actually worse with the power vacuum left by the USSR when it collapsed, that's one reason they considered developing Star Wars. To counter terrorist threats, not national ones.

I have to get to work, if I remember any of my points I'll get back this afternoon.

EDIT> Now the reason "Star Wars" wouldn't have been destablizing is because no defence system was perfect, there is no way to stop 100% of the missiles being shot at the US. In fact, it's likely at least 50% of the missiles would get through (assuming the system even achieved 100% coverage, which isn't a given)

Where the SDI comes in is it introduces UNCERTAINTY. No one power could be 100% certain of achieving a "kill" on the US infrastructure and defence network, this would make an attack that much less likely. On the flipside, if the US tried a first-strike, they couldn't be sure of surviving the retaliatory strike.

Now, of course since SDI will now never come to pass, this is all theoretical.

[ 12-17-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

Alright then. Provide us with these "facts", as you call them. Back them up with trustworthy statistics, with irrefutable evidence. Convince us. I dare you to. Show me why *I* am a racist according to your definitions for not believing your ridiculous claims you even call "facts" about all muslims being violent warmongers, or whatever you were trying to say. Make sure you check a dictionary for the word 'racist' while you're at it.
And "Ask all of my friends in the pub, they think it's true as well. So it *has* to be a fact, right?" doesn't count.

[ 12-17-2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

<font color="#ff00cc">For all of you who are uninformed or silly enough to believe current rhetoric, Star Wars never existed and no one can "Prove" even one dollar was spent on it. All anyone can do is show that X number of Billions of dollars were allocated for a "Black" project, and that the Pentagon and Reagan used the press to tout a super expensive, futuristic missile defense system that forced the soviets to counter...whcih caused the economic collapse of the soviet union and the end of the cold war.

Star Wars was a ruse, some moeny was actually spent to produce nifty sound bytes for the press, what came out of Star wars was ...Nothing, the money actually went into black projects, and what came out? try the F-117A night Hawk and the B2 Spirit. It bugs me that the press today (just this morning on the radio) complains about billions spent on Star Wars. Get a grip people, the money was spent but it wasn't spent on that missile defense system (at least not the bulk of it). On the other hand, it was sucha great ruse, that it is still confounding people even after the ruse was exposed publicly> </font>

OK, in case you didn't note the last time I said it, keep this civil! That means no trashing the other people who post here. Disagree all you like, but I don't want to see any more namecalling. PERIOD. You were having a pretty good discussion and some disagreements that were being dealt with in a reasonable manner. The namecalling is unnecessary. Argue the points being made and make your point intelligently. Labeling other parties in the conversation is a cheap debate tactic.

[ 12-17-2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

Agreed, Cloudmoderator. Namecalling (I guess that is "flaming") Does no good, merely angers the other person, inciting them to retaliate. (Is that "Flamebaiting" or "trolling"? What is the difference? Wish I knew more about Net jargon.) MagiK, how about the anti-missle systems that we hear about being tested? Is that SDI? (don't like the term, "Star Wars") Or something else? We would be insane not to be looking into this.

Muslim extremists are violent there's no argument there. Bin Laden, anyone? Who's responsible for violence in the Israel? No, it's not the israelis, it's the palestinian terrorists. How about the washington sniper? Everyione (including me) was expecting some white, disgruntled, postal worker or something. Turns out it was a muslim and his son.

Don't believe Islam states violence is acceptable? Read the Koran.

Irrefutable evidence? South African nationals who live there say muslim extremists are very active, and definitely a problem. Sounds like a more reliable source than some cia analyst who sits in a cubbyhole writing reports all day. I'll see if I can get some phone numbers for you, you can phone them yourself. (Incidentally, I used to work for an unnamed intelligence service, in my younger, foolish days - the cia are far from totally reliable on ANY issue - it's a huge bureaucracy with a lot of butt-covering going on...)

It's a matter of public record that Bin Laden has been active there, it's also a matter of public record that muslims are naming there kids after Bin Laden. Do a web search for the words "bin laden" and "south africa".

The bit about muslims equating world peace with world islamic rule was from personal experience interrogating, er talking to muslim extremists, so I can't do anything but say you're wrong there. If you don't believe me, there's nothing can say to change your mind.

A friend of mine that spends six months out of the year teaching computers to saudis corroborates this every time he comes back and relates stories to me.

Did you know that speaking against Islam in muslim dominated countries carries the death sentence?

Did you know that trying to convert a muslim to some other religion carries the death penalty?

You people need to travel more....

[ 12-17-2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

Actually, a lot was spent on x-ray laser research, I knew quite a few guys on the physics team that were trying to justify the project, but no success was met. The theory was sound - excite carbon rods with a nuclear blast to generate x-rays, but various technical problems kept rearing their ugly heads, not the least of which was the problem of aiming the damned things with any chance of success...and the ban on nuclear testing in space didn't help, either.

Nevertheless, your point stands - the whole point of black projects is to deny public access to what it's being spent on - aside from alleged congressional oversight.

No assumptions - I get this from muslims

Mind you, generalizations do get you in trouble. One of the kindest, gentlest people I know is a shiite muslim - generally considered to be the most extremist and violent of the muslim sects.

I really didn't think anyone would ask somebody this when they had to work with them every day - I thought maybe you'd talk to somebody on the street, or something. But never let it be said I made it difficult for you and your co-workers, by all means blame it on me! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I suggest you explain it to her, and apologize on my behalf. Perhaps a printed copy of this message may be in order... :D

Just a ruse? Bush rolls out missile defense system

Now we will have a nice false security blanket to hide under.

Those are tactical systems, totally incable of intercepting intercontinental ballistic weapons. (the speed of the incoming warhead would be too great; one reason SDI research was abandoned as unfeasible)

The systems you're hearing about are derivative of Patriot, which was originally intended to shoot down aircraft, and was adapted to shoot down missiles as well. (kinda like a land-based Aegis system)

Damn, first I heard of that one. I wouldn't be surprised if this move was spurred by 9-11. Flaming 747 anyone? Don't be fooled, I don't think this system has anything to do with ABM systems, no matter what they're publicizing.

[ 12-17-2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

I think this says just about everything that needs to be said about scud missiles.Link to story ----> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0250/smith.php

Damn, first I heard of that one. I wouldn't be surprised if this move was spurred by 9-11. Flaming 747 anyone? Don't be fooled, I don't think this system has anything to do with ABM systems, no matter what they're publicizing.</font>[/QUOTE]You mean our government would LIE to us? Are you one of those conspiracy nuts or somethin? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Well if it is a lie, then atleast we can study the tapes of Bush annoucing it and see when else he has been telling fibs!

That is one of the funniest lines I've read all month. Maybe instead of invading we can just send over a few thousands cell-phone using SUV drivers to wreck havok on Baghdad...

Here is some info on Iraq and SCUDs which gives a good insight into this weapon:

During the Iran-Iraq the soviets provided Iraq with scuds, these scuds were fired at Iranian cities and killed over 2000 people and injured over 6000. The SCUDs used in the golf war by Iraq were less accurate than the original soviet design. The Yemen scuds are from North Korea and as such are of better design and construction than the rag tag scuds Iraq used. The Iraq scuds achieved a 1-5 casualty rate during the golf war. The Iraqi scuds had poor guidance systems and due to the modifications Iraq made were more prone to disintegration upon reentry. Its a known fact that the further a SCUD travels the less accurate it gets, this is why casualties in Israel were low; they were right on its range capacity. Its never been proven Iraq used biological or chemical warheads on their scuds in the Golf War. There were many reports that they did, but they have been never been proven as each known SCUD warhead was examined for chemical/biological agents. People who witnessed scud impacts saw yellowish-to reddish-to brownish clouds - believing them to be chemical agent. The clouds were infact Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid; a component of the SCUDs fuel. IRFNA is dangerous in its own right causing: burning sensations in the eyes, nose, throat, and on the skin, to shortness of breath and temporary loss of voice but its not known if it can be lethal. Iraq never used chemical/biological agents in their SCUDs because they never managed to design a warhead capable of carrying such things. If Iraq had managed to design such a war head the accuracy of their SCUDs would have been less of an issue. Scuds did not only kill 2 troops in Israel, they also injured several hundred Israeli citizens. The SCUD attacks in Saudi Arabia, according to my source, killed 31 and injured over 400. There were around 88-93 scud missiles launched, i couldnt find any casualty data from other Iraqi successful hits. SCUDs may be old by todays standards but that doesnt mean they cant kill 1000s of people, especially so with biological/chemical war heads and good design. Now tell me why SCUDs heading to Yemen is not a concern?

Sources: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...on/dodscud.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/envs/scud_irfna.htm
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqmissile-pr.cfm

They ARE a concern, that's why they were intercepted. I just don't understand why they are giving them back.

They didnt have a choice. Theres no law that stops Yemen from having SCUDs. I dont think there is a law that stops North Korea from selling them either.

I don't think that laws would help here, now matter whether they are dealing with having or selling SCUDs (or whatever). I couldn't imagine, that anybody would really care...

Thought I would share a few comments as a fellow member, not as a moderator. I live in South-East Asia where a sizable portion of the world's Muslim population live.

I have Muslim neighbours, Muslim schoolmates, Muslim relatives, Muslim friends. Although I am a non-Muslim, we get along just fine. If you come here and visit, you will come to realise that they will not shun you just because you have white skin, it may even surprise some of you that they will welcome you with open arms. Why, most of them have friends in USA, Canada and/or European countries like Germany, England, France, etc... and/or Australia.

The key in all this is tolerance. I know they are not allowed to do some things, they know I am uncomfortable with some things. We cater for each other the best we can.

It is the extremists that give them a bad name, just as how the sex scandals smeared the name of Priests around the world, or KKK, or neo-Nazis, etc... It would be foolish to assume that a religion or a race has no black sheep, but it is also equally foolish to assume that all are black sheep.

So while I and my Muslim friends wish Osama to be dead and good riddance, we also wish that certain people stop wholesale labelling worshippers of Islam as effigy-burning, American-hating, flag-tearing, vengeful people. It is simply not the case.

Which was why I was particularly upset by all the travel advisories against SEA countries. What happened to the battle cry that we shall not let the terrorists to dominate how we do things? That we shall not fear them? That we shall go on with life despite what they do, because we shall never let them win.

Cheers... ...

No assumptions - I get this from muslims

Mind you, generalizations do get you in trouble. One of the kindest, gentlest people I know is a shiite muslim - generally considered to be the most extremist and violent of the muslim sects.

I really didn't think anyone would ask somebody this when they had to work with them every day - I thought maybe you'd talk to somebody on the street, or something. But never let it be said I made it difficult for you and your co-workers, by all means blame it on me! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I suggest you explain it to her, and apologize on my behalf. Perhaps a printed copy of this message may be in order... :D </font>[/QUOTE]The assumption you made was that myself and my muslim friend live in America.
That's an assumption.

You have veered from talking about 'all' muslims to talking about 'muslim terrorists'. You have gone from a generalisation to a specific group.

No-one will argue that Muslim extremists want world domination.

I know this coz a bloke down the pub told me!

*sighs*
Like Donut already pointed out, you're switching from talking about all muslims to talking about all muslim extremists suddenly, hardly the explanation I was looking for... I was actually calling you out on the blatant generalizations you were making about all muslims in the world, generalizations you came up with by talking to muslim extremists as you're suddenly saying now, while earlier on you stated your "fact sources" were non-muslim Arabs.
And if you *did* talk to extremists, that's hardly what I'd call representative for the entire muslim population... It's like asking a member of the KKK about his worldview and his fellow Americans; is it really all that strange if that worldview is clouded and biased?
If you were "forgetting" the explanation about why *all* muslims want world domination in your opinion though still feel that way, I ask you once again, please elaborate. If not and you decide to take those words back, I have nothing more to say. But if you really base all your "facts" on personal experiences and on hear'say, that's your choice; just don't expect me to automatically buy it.

[ 12-18-2002, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips move. :D

Seriously, look up the capabilities of the SPY-1 radar (the main tracking component of Aegis, mentioned as one arm of the new ABM system) and compare it with the characteristics of yer typical Ballistic Missile (terminal velocity, target size, etc).

The time the warhead spends in the firing range of the defensive battery is just too short, and the weapon system would extremely unlikely to intercept the warhead even if the radar could get a solution in time to fire...and you wouldn't get more than one shot per launcher used. Doesn't sound like a very useful system to me, particularly on a dollars-spent view.

All muslims want the entire world to be muslim, that's a central tenet of the religion, and it's a "promise" in their religious writings.

Some are more polite about it than others, but the central fact is they fully believe violence is justified in converting others to their religion, and defending the "purity" of their own group.

I don't waste my time at "the pub". [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I know this because:

1) Muslims told me.
2) Non muslim arabs told me.
3) South Africans with intimate dealings with muslim groups in SA told me.
4) The koran "told" me.

Some muslims won't tell you, but still think it. Some are "live and let live", but all believe the same things - that's kinda the definition of a religious group.

Read my message to donut. I've got several sources, some non-muslim arab, some muslim, come south africans. And last but not least - their own religious writings.

I must admit, that's an excellent point. Much like the policeman that gets a jaundiced view of society by constantly associating with the criminal element I've spent a lot of time keeping tabs on various terrorist groups, both muslim and not - it would skew my viewpoint if not countered. (gad, I'm glad to be away from that...it was burning me out)

But I will repeat, I know a lot of muslims socially as well. My shiite associate is one of the kindest men I know - but he still "jokes" about us "corrupt westerners"...but I'm not so sure he's not serious. He freely talks about the destiny of islam taking over the world, and fully believes it is inevitable IT WILL HAPPEN, even if everybody has to be dragged kicking and screaming. We have a lot of fun "debating" this stuff. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I will say this - he's got a sense of humour.

Hearsay is when you repeat someone elses witness; I am relating my experiences - a totally different kettle of fish.

All muslims do want world rule - it's a central tenet of their religion.

<font color="#ff00cc">Umm Rokken, The Reagan Era Starwars has nothing to do with the current plans to deploy ABM's. The Bush ABM system is being developed under some older research and current $$'s being spent on new black projects. Someone Mentioned the SPY-1 Radar system [img]smile.gif[/img] hehe Yep SPY-1's and their upgrades would be just dandy for shooting down incomming warheads, (see Clancy's Red Rabbit Novel, he gets the tech exactly right) The ABM system is not inteneded to be a "false safety blanket to quiet the public" it will be a working system that will not be 100% effective untill further work is done, shit no system ever fielded for anything has ever been 100% effective. Just because it isn't 100% are you saying we should just leave that door wide open? The ABM's will be built, they will be a bargaining chip on any future issues with China and or N. Korea.

In the end the socilists and pacifist amongst us will always argue that every dollar spent on defense programs is wasted and should have been spent paying to help the indigent or put into schools. Guess what, Federal Government does not have a constitutional priority placed on public schools. The federal government has two things as their primary concern, Foreign Relations and National Defense. All the other shit is secondary. (I suppose Interstate commerce is there too). Anyway, hope this cleared up some stuff....and didn't stirr too many pots ;) </font>

You? Stir a pot? I am shocked, shocked, I say. I totally agree that we MUST be working on and doing research on, anti-ballistic missles.What is not possible today may be possible tomorrow.

Do the math, MagiK. BM's at terminal velocity travel on the order of 10km/sec. SM-2's travel at about 2000km/hr (or roughly 550m/sec). The BM will reenter at about 100km altitude, leaving the Aegis at most 15 seconds to react. That's detection, identifying, tracking, programming the weapon, and launching - and let's not forget the limits on the Aegis system, only four missiles may be terminally guided at any given time. (That's how many illuminators are on deck) What happens when you have 10 warheads per missile entering the target area? (the number of MIRVs per SS-20). Could get ugly quickly.

It just isn't possible with todays technology; the only reason SDI had even a hope of succeeding was the orbital detonation-lasers and hunter/killer satellites - more time to react, and they hit the BM's when they are travelling the slowest, during the orbital phase. Once a few billion was spent trying to make it work, and coming up with nothing they basically had no hope of successfully building an ABM system.

I just realized that I've heard about the tests they mention in the article, about a year ago. Interestingly enough, the tests were rigged - they kept failing, but the heads of the project wanted success so they just kept skewing the parameters of the test in favour of the system until they got a success. (eg, the firer knew when the missile was coming, where it was coming from, and they didn't have to id and arm the system first)

In the real world, the Aegis system is never left on automatic, since the disaster with the Vincennes. This would be required to have any hope at all to stop any incoming ballistic weapons.

Edit> for math...

[ 12-18-2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

OKay gang...what say we strip this discussion of all the bulk filler, nifty statistics, pronouncements about race and religion, and look at the central fact of the case:

Yemen, an unstable Mid East country with a frothing fundamentalist loony fringe of the Islamic bent (which has already attacked the USS Cole and killed 19 US sailors in a suicide bombing while said vessel was docked...in Yemen) has received a shipment of medium-range missiles capable of being loaded with all sorts of explosives, bugs, and gas which they purchased form North Korea, a country which (under the non-proliferation agreement) is NOT-- I say again, NOT-- supposed to be selling or otherwise transporting missile technology of ANY kind. The North Koreans had no business sending them a Fed Ex tube full of schematics for a SCUD, forget selling them actual SCUDs.

Once again-- just like with Saddam and Al Queda-- international law and treaty was broken. Once again-- just like with Saddam and Al Queda-- the same people I see on this board and others pissing and moaning about the US breaking the law and/or arming whacko regimes is doing its usual 180-degree spin and claiming the both parties were within their rights and we should dutifully butt out of their business.

You can pile as much window-dressing around this issue as you like-- the sale was not supposed to happen, nor should it have. It's illegal, reckless, and dangerous. Period. End of story. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference WHAT you think of North Koreans or Arabs.

Now, as far as addressing the point of the effectiveness of SCUDs...well, they pretty much do suck for accuracy and reliability. However, that is also their (sort of) benefit: you launch one of those puppies in the air and nobody REALLY knows where the hell it's gonna fall. I could break up on re-entry and drop a warhead in place and flaming wreckage in another. Thus, it fit right in with the combat doctrine of the Iran/Iraq War which featured human-wave attacks, suicide bombings, random gassing, and point-blank armor battles.

Also, I notice someone mentioned they had a Shi'ite friend who was a nice person in spite of being part of the radical fringe of Islam. Actually, being the two main branches of Islam-- Sunni and Shi'a-- the Shi'ites are more moderate and progressive. Saudi Arabia-- home of Osama bin Laden, much of the Al Queda leadership, and many of the radical groups that operate in Saudi Arabia (as well as the majority of the 9/11 barnstormers) are of the ultra-strict Sunni Wa'habi bent.

Do the math, MagiK. BM's at terminal velocity travel on the order of 10km/sec. SM-2's travel at about 2000km/hr (or roughly 550m/sec). The BM will reenter at about 100km altitude, leaving the Aegis at most 15 seconds to react. That's detection, identifying, tracking, programming the weapon, and launching - and let's not forget the limits on the Aegis system, only four missiles may be terminally guided at any given time. (That's how many illuminators are on deck) What happens when you have 10 warheads per missile entering the target area? (the number of MIRVs per SS-20). Could get ugly quickly.

It just isn't possible with todays technology; the only reason SDI had even a hope of succeeding was the orbital detonation-lasers and hunter/killer satellites - more time to react, and they hit the BM's when they are travelling the slowest, during the orbital phase. Once a few billion was spent trying to make it work, and coming up with nothing they basically had no hope of successfully building an ABM system.

I just realized that I've heard about the tests they mention in the article, about a year ago. Interestingly enough, the tests were rigged - they kept failing, but the heads of the project wanted success so they just kept skewing the parameters of the test in favour of the system until they got a success. (eg, the firer knew when the missile was coming, where it was coming from, and they didn't have to id and arm the system first)

In the real world, the Aegis system is never left on automatic, since the disaster with the Vincennes. This would be required to have any hope at all to stop any incoming ballistic weapons.

Edit> for math...</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff00cc">HihO Sir Krusty ;) You are limiting your assessment of the SPY-1 and SM2 system by not including the fact that the ship launching the missiles is not limited to its own sensors [img]smile.gif[/img] You have more than 15 seconds if you integrate your entire sensor system (a project I worked on when I was with SAIC) trust me, there is way more than 15 seconds to react and yeah only 4 missiles may be temrinally guided at a time, however since you can stagger your launches, 4 at a time is plenty. Im not saying that the SPY-1/SM2 are the ultimate ABM but it can be used effectively expecially with the newer technologies being fielded. I think we should continue to improve all aspects of our ABM and Anti-missile systems, directed energy weapons will probably be the method of the future, but we arent there yet...at least not quite.

I hope that I have the chance to make an in depth post, unfortunately messed up ribs and heavby doses of codine are forcing me to bed now...night night [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I wish a muslim was around to speak for themselves.

This is kind of like saying all Christians want doomsday so all the sinners will be destroyed and only the righteous will live in heaven. Its a central tenet of their religion.

I wish Yemen the best and hope they don't use their weapons offensively. ;)

"There is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea. While there is authority to stop and search, in this instance there's no clear authority to seize the shipment of Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen and, therefore, the merchant vessel is being released."

Yemen is unstable but the US wants to maintain good relations with them to wage war against Iraq. That is one of the reasons why the Spanish were sent to intercept the ship.

I wish a muslim was around to speak for themselves.

This is kind of like saying all Christians want doomsday so all the sinners will be destroyed and only the righteous will live in heaven. Its a central tenet of their religion.

I wish Yemen the best and hope they don't use their weapons offensively. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff00cc">As usual when it comes to things Christian, Chewy you got it wrong [img]smile.gif[/img] but thats ok [img]smile.gif[/img] Christians don't lust for doomsday. Christians if they believe the bible as literal believe that there will be war and famine and an "End of times" but they don't lust for it, they aren't exhorted to bring it on...Unlike Muslims, who if they are true to the laws and rules of Islam must work toward the destruction of all infidels.

Try actually reading some of the new testement guy [img]smile.gif[/img] you might be surprised to find it isn't as hate filled as you might think. </font>

[ 12-19-2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Not international law, perhaps...just the various treaties the North Koreans have entered into where they promised to dismatle their WMD and missile programs and not export missile technology of any type in exchange for political recognition and economic aid (the latter being something they desparately need).

North Korea remains one of the (if not THE) world's top missile exporters...so much for treaties.

<font color="#ff00cc">HihO Sir Krusty ;) You are limiting your assessment of the SPY-1 and SM2 system by not including the fact that the ship launching the missiles is not limited to its own sensors [img]smile.gif[/img] You have more than 15 seconds if you integrate your entire sensor system (a project I worked on when I was with SAIC) trust me, there is way more than 15 seconds to react</font></font>[/QUOTE]I was aware of that, but datalink only goes so far, and maximum early warning is still somewhere less than 3 minutes. This still doesn't change the physics either. I still invite you to do the math. Here's a general idea:

The BM is arriving at 10,000km/sec (that's 10^7 m/sec), the interceptor is travelling 550m/sec - that's a 20,000:1 advantage on the part of the BM. That is, while the BM is traversing 100km of atmosphere, the SM-2 has traversed exactly 5 meters from the launcher. Think about the ramifications of this. At the very least, the defensive battery has to be right on top of the BMs target to be of use, and pK will be down around 10% or so. (Just look at the statistics for the Patriot shooting down the much slower and more vulnerable SCUD)

Actually, it's better than that. The SM-2's fly where directed until an illuminator becomes available at which point the SM-2 goes into terminal guidance mode....but the timing is critical, and you still have to deal with the physics of ballistic missiles.

When they were using the old mk11's they used to go to rapid fire, even when all 4 directors were in use. Now with the box-launcher it's even sweeter. Pretty much empty the magazine in 30 seconds sending missiles into "the basket" and handing them off to directors as targets get elminated.

I wish a muslim was around to speak for themselves.

This is kind of like saying all Christians want doomsday so all the sinners will be destroyed and only the righteous will live in heaven. Its a central tenet of their religion.

I wish Yemen the best and hope they don't use their weapons offensively. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff00cc">As usual when it comes to things Christian, Chewy you got it wrong [img]smile.gif[/img] but thats ok [img]smile.gif[/img] Christians don't lust for doomsday. Christians if they believe the bible as literal believe that there will be war and famine and an "End of times" but they don't lust for it, they aren't exhorted to bring it on...Unlike Muslims, who if they are true to the laws and rules of Islam must work toward the destruction of all infidels.

Try actually reading some of the new testement guy [img]smile.gif[/img] you might be surprised to find it isn't as hate filled as you might think. </font></font>[/QUOTE]Actually I was illustrating a point about making incorrect generlizations. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I didn't know I had made previous assumptions about things christian. Based on your tone, You would be suprised by how little you know of what I know. ;)

You are making an assumption about Muslims and what the rules and laws of Allah are.

http://islampeace.org/

Here is a place to start about Islam. I found this and thousand of other sites using Google.

Be warned: Islam is as multi-faceted as every other religion.