12/09/2004
Strategic Defense Initiative comes to Fruition?
by Todd Brendan Fahey
December 9, 2003
Having worked with the late Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, lobbyist and visionary of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed by media as "Star Wars"), it shouldn't surprise anyone that I support such a satellite-based defensive program. (See: Dems Decry Mystery Spy Program; CNN, Dec. 9, 2004.)
Firstly, satellites (as they are expensive and necessary--for reasons as mundane as, say, cellular phone connectivity, which we all will use soon enough...) should be able to fend off incoming projectiles. The satellites, themselves, should be self-protected.
Secondly, the laws of physics dictate that it is difficult and extremely "iffy," that a land-based missile interception program can and will and even would work. This is an old discussion. Suffice it to say, that with MIRVed (Multiple Re-Entry Vehicle) cones affixed to ICBMs (intercontinental-) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), any one rocket could dispatch several or many decoys, amongst which a few nuclear warheads are also dispatched. A land-based missile defense system (something far more advanced than Patriot anti-ballistic missile tech.) would still not respond quickly enough or discern accurately enough the probability of every incoming MIRV warhead.
The answer must be issued from space.
The U.S. wasted a hell of a lot of time in quashing Dan Graham and Robert Morris's "High Frontiers" program and vision. Obviously, research has been continuing on this front since the end of the Reagan era; to what extent is beyond my clearance-level (of which I have none).
With China and a Putin-led (increasingly scary) Russia possessing large quantities of ICBMs and SLBMs, the "Cold War" has never ended. Such is another media myth. And, no, the U.S. ain't the world's "good guy," either. But as any homeowner is allowed to possess and dispatch firearms, when necessary to protect his abode, so, too, should a nation be able to protect its terrain and citizenry.
December 9, 2003
Having worked with the late Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, lobbyist and visionary of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed by media as "Star Wars"), it shouldn't surprise anyone that I support such a satellite-based defensive program. (See: Dems Decry Mystery Spy Program; CNN, Dec. 9, 2004.)
Firstly, satellites (as they are expensive and necessary--for reasons as mundane as, say, cellular phone connectivity, which we all will use soon enough...) should be able to fend off incoming projectiles. The satellites, themselves, should be self-protected.
Secondly, the laws of physics dictate that it is difficult and extremely "iffy," that a land-based missile interception program can and will and even would work. This is an old discussion. Suffice it to say, that with MIRVed (Multiple Re-Entry Vehicle) cones affixed to ICBMs (intercontinental-) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), any one rocket could dispatch several or many decoys, amongst which a few nuclear warheads are also dispatched. A land-based missile defense system (something far more advanced than Patriot anti-ballistic missile tech.) would still not respond quickly enough or discern accurately enough the probability of every incoming MIRV warhead.
The answer must be issued from space.
The U.S. wasted a hell of a lot of time in quashing Dan Graham and Robert Morris's "High Frontiers" program and vision. Obviously, research has been continuing on this front since the end of the Reagan era; to what extent is beyond my clearance-level (of which I have none).
With China and a Putin-led (increasingly scary) Russia possessing large quantities of ICBMs and SLBMs, the "Cold War" has never ended. Such is another media myth. And, no, the U.S. ain't the world's "good guy," either. But as any homeowner is allowed to possess and dispatch firearms, when necessary to protect his abode, so, too, should a nation be able to protect its terrain and citizenry.
use rss for FYI from BATR
