Current effort at Missile Defense in all its iterations have really been woefully inadequate, and despite all the efforts otherwise.
In the intercontinental front, trying to shoot down ICBMs has not proven successful, and though continuous technological advancements are continuing to be made, proof-of-theory generally have failed. And against a real ICBMs that split apart upon reentry into multiple warheads? Not to mention that it would likely be multiple ICBMs incoming as well? It will be a VERY long time before a single missile can be consistently be knocked down, let alone multiple simultaneously. Mind you, it really only takes one to slip through to render the 'shield' worthless...the target will be quite thoroughly destroyed.
Shorter range missiles, and cruise missiles of the sort are even more problematic. Instead of stopping a "sniper bullet" midair with another "sniper bullet", you now need to stop something more akin to a semi-automatic rifle by shooting all its bullets down with another semi-automatic rifle. Patriot missiles fired off in the Persian Gulf War against SCUDs were heralded at the time, but military review later showed that they actually very ineffectual, with studies ranging from a 10% hit rate, down to 0%. Yes, 0%. If such a 'successful' missile defense system proves to be so mediocre, what can we say of the current system that is 'unproven/unsuccessful' at best?
I'm not saying that this can't improved, and I'm sure constant technological innovation will change this. But it 2004, and we don't have anything close to 'moderate defense.'
It's a long road until anything solid comes together, if ever. And until then, it'll certainly be a bumpy one, for both us and everyone else who tries to keep up with this Missile Defense race.
I'm not sure how to reconcile how I feel about this.
There is an obvious mismatch of interests going on here, and on such a wide spectrum of issues at that, for all these national interests for our current administration. Eye rolling and groaning widespread, but what of the tacit acceptance that this entails? For all the Stop Bush rhetoric, how much has he actually been 'stopped' ? Barring the questionable results of the elections, the "voting population" of the US approves of these actions.
*rant* ~sigh~
Nifty. I've always loved photography that brings out a novel aspect of something common place that you would never expect. (especially now that we can all cheer how much more beautiful beer really is).
Just the other day, I found some neck ties with surprisingly abstract-yet-stylish colors and designs, only to find that they were just more examples of microscopic photography, something like close ups of flowers and silicon wafers. Good stuff.
Nice turn in position in the prompt. But if it was REALLY wanted to me to show my imagination, I'd let me put in some sheep for good measure.
posted by CrossPivot 19 years ago
In "Missile Defence - thanks but no thanks"
Current effort at Missile Defense in all its iterations have really been woefully inadequate, and despite all the efforts otherwise. In the intercontinental front, trying to shoot down ICBMs has not proven successful, and though continuous technological advancements are continuing to be made, proof-of-theory generally have failed. And against a real ICBMs that split apart upon reentry into multiple warheads? Not to mention that it would likely be multiple ICBMs incoming as well? It will be a VERY long time before a single missile can be consistently be knocked down, let alone multiple simultaneously. Mind you, it really only takes one to slip through to render the 'shield' worthless...the target will be quite thoroughly destroyed. Shorter range missiles, and cruise missiles of the sort are even more problematic. Instead of stopping a "sniper bullet" midair with another "sniper bullet", you now need to stop something more akin to a semi-automatic rifle by shooting all its bullets down with another semi-automatic rifle. Patriot missiles fired off in the Persian Gulf War against SCUDs were heralded at the time, but military review later showed that they actually very ineffectual, with studies ranging from a 10% hit rate, down to 0%. Yes, 0%. If such a 'successful' missile defense system proves to be so mediocre, what can we say of the current system that is 'unproven/unsuccessful' at best? I'm not saying that this can't improved, and I'm sure constant technological innovation will change this. But it 2004, and we don't have anything close to 'moderate defense.'
It's a long road until anything solid comes together, if ever. And until then, it'll certainly be a bumpy one, for both us and everyone else who tries to keep up with this Missile Defense race.
posted by CrossPivot 19 years ago
In "Adware and Privacy together at last."
I'm not sure how to reconcile how I feel about this. There is an obvious mismatch of interests going on here, and on such a wide spectrum of issues at that, for all these national interests for our current administration. Eye rolling and groaning widespread, but what of the tacit acceptance that this entails? For all the Stop Bush rhetoric, how much has he actually been 'stopped' ? Barring the questionable results of the elections, the "voting population" of the US approves of these actions. *rant* ~sigh~
posted by CrossPivot 19 years ago
In "This is totally sweet."
Nifty. I've always loved photography that brings out a novel aspect of something common place that you would never expect. (especially now that we can all cheer how much more beautiful beer really is). Just the other day, I found some neck ties with surprisingly abstract-yet-stylish colors and designs, only to find that they were just more examples of microscopic photography, something like close ups of flowers and silicon wafers. Good stuff.
posted by CrossPivot 19 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)