Reagans Star Wars program

2006-07-10 19:33:07

#1

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

Ok, I think it is pretty much common knowledge that the US would not use WMDs on another country unless for defense. That is why I think that maybe the program Reagan thought it up should be considered again to deal with threats from countries like Iran, North Korea, and possibly China etc. Except that it was only supposed to cover the North Wester quadrilateral of the globe(not sure if that is the proper term). I think it should be made to protect all countries in the world. I know alot of people are going to disagree with this and say this REALLY unbalances power in the world. But think about it, would we seriously use WMDs unless it was possible to come about a peaceful solution and unless it would save many many many more life's then war? There is probably no one in our country that crazy except a few fuck ups that will never get in power. Ok, if you don't know what the Star War program is Ill let someone post NON-BIASED things on it because I'm to lazy to go find them. Ok flame on cause I know I will get flamed like hell for this.

Last edited by Capt. Foley (2006-07-10 19:34:43)

2006-07-10 19:35:32

#2

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6970|Portland, OR USA

I totally agree. I think a return to the Star Wars concept is an excellent idea actually. I can see how others may disagree, but they're probably not in the US. The arguement seemingly would be that we would have the ability to play favorites and cherry pick which weapons we shot down. But isn't that the point of allies in the first place? Selecting who and how you help??

2006-07-10 19:38:05

#3

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Oh god, could you please use the f'ing spell checker so I can take you seriously? C'mon, edit that!

I just did edit that haha, I did everything the spell checker said except a few " ' " marks like that. Used spell checker.

2006-07-10 19:40:15

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6972|Global Command

Thanks!
Star wars will be Reagans legacy.
It was genius.

2006-07-10 19:40:42

#5

spacebandit72: Dead Meat; +121|7173|Michigan

Well, If you can wait for about 4-5 hours, I have a great article for you to read on something kinda like star wars. "lasers" are being created that are mounted to an airplane on a turret... designed to take out missiles. They are currently testing this and it's slated for 2008 or so.

I'm at work so I can't post the link yet. I promise to do so ASAP.

2006-07-10 19:41:06

#6

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

puckmercury wrote:
I totally agree. I think a return to the Star Wars concept is an excellent idea actually. I can see how others may disagree, but they're probably not in the US. The arguement seemingly would be that we would have the ability to play favorites and cherry pick which weapons we shot down. But isn't that the point of allies in the first place? Selecting who and how you help??

Exatly, you should have alliances. I mean if Isreal is using some WMD on Iran or something after Iran and say Syria attack with other chemical weapons that might be deployed using artilery or things of that nature It would probably be a good idea if it would save more lives if that ended the war between them. Not a great example sorry.

2006-07-10 19:43:24

#7

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Thanks!
Star wars will be Reagans legacy.
It was genius.

Yea I think it will be, I hope that our country picks up on that idea and uses it, I mean every idea that was scrapped wasnt bad or not worth building. Look at the XM8, with a few changes it could of been made into a much better weapon. And it would of replaced almost all other .22 caliber weapons used. It had many models used off of the same thing. In my opinon that was the weapon of the future. The OICW is no where near useable and WAY to high of a price tag. The XM8/XM320 would of been a good combination, but now Im going off track again, sorry.

2006-07-10 19:44:42

#8

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

spacebandit72 wrote:
Well, If you can wait for about 4-5 hours, I have a great article for you to read on something kinda like star wars. "lasers" are being created that are mounted to an airplane on a turret... designed to take out missiles. They are currently testing this and it's slated for 2008 or so.

I'm at work so I can't post the link yet. I promise to do so ASAP.

Ive seen that a few times, the History and Military Channel both had a show on about that. Very interesting. But I think the Reagan Program might be better for a long term solution. They are both great idea and would wonderfully in conjunction with each other.

2006-07-10 19:49:15

#9

spacebandit72: Dead Meat; +121|7173|Michigan

Capt. Foley wrote:
They are both great idea and would wonderfully in conjunction with each other.

Yes. I think the idea of starting small like mounting to aircraft is a good thing. Then it can be stepped up and put on satellites. Very cool stuff we are seeing or going to see in the future.
+1 for great topic.

I'll still post the link when I get home for the viewers pleasure!!!

Last edited by spacebandit72 (2006-07-10 19:51:11)

2006-07-10 19:50:48

#10

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

Yea, I think it could also make the world alot safer. Of course its not gonna protect us from terrorists transporting one on like a boat and settings it off in NY harbor, that has to be done with grunts on the ground.

2006-07-10 21:14:37

#11

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6992|Southeastern USA

I'm pretty sure the aircraft one was scrapped, but I keep hearing it both ways.

2006-07-10 23:17:01

#12

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

I havent heard anything about it being scraped. But there was some other thing kinda like that that I heard was being discontinued. Not positive but Im pretty sure this one is still alive.

2006-07-10 23:38:31

#13

delta4bravo*nl*: Dutch Delight; +68|7195

I thought Reagans porn era was his legacy.

2006-07-10 23:59:01

#14

spacebandit72: Dead Meat; +121|7173|Michigan

OK... here you go!
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5790/

Kinda cool.

2006-07-11 06:55:37

#15

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6992|Southeastern USA

as I posted on another thread, the oppositions (kerry and kennedy and the usuals, as well as the UN pussies) reasoning was that if it was built someone may make a better ICBM, this is like telling a SWAT team not to wear kevlar because someone may start using teflon or armor piercing bullets

2006-07-11 10:21:02

#16

Capt. Foley: Member; +155|7031|Allentown, PA, USA

Yea pretty much, what did you expect from kerry and kennedy and the UN faggots.

2006-07-11 11:59:01

#17

GATOR591957: Member; +84|7070

spacebandit72 wrote:
Well, If you can wait for about 4-5 hours, I have a great article for you to read on something kinda like star wars. "lasers" are being created that are mounted to an airplane on a turret... designed to take out missiles. They are currently testing this and it's slated for 2008 or so.

I'm at work so I can't post the link yet. I promise to do so ASAP.

Here's an article quoting the improbability of it ever working.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002317.html

2006-07-11 12:05:20

#18

Havazn: Member; +39|7137|van.ca

The problem with having lethal lasers in space, is that they could in turn be used as a weapon against cities. A first strike weapon with no defense.

In regards to launching nukes only in self defence, the term self defence is being used very loosely these days. A proactive attack seems to be considered self defence. Therefore, in your line of logic, any first strike weapon could be used in the name of 'self defence'.

2006-07-11 12:06:54

#19

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6992|Southeastern USA

it also seems like it would need a huge powerplant too, what are they gonna do stick a 5 megawatt generator on the plane as well? one of the posters on that def tech site brought up a good point, would it be in violation of chem weapons treaties? technically it's not using the weapons to cause the damage, but one gallon of sulphuric acid overhead is one gallon too many for me, especially since it's a Boeing and will probably end up on my base.

2006-07-11 12:13:13

#20

Richard2000: Banned; +39|6988|England

am from the UK and i think the USA should go for a new star wars program

2006-07-11 12:24:44

#21

K8Kommunist: Member; +26|7010

The Star Wars program was just another ploy by Reagan to force the Soviet Union into economic turmoil. It was never a practical idea or all that feasible.
Practically, in this day and age, Patriot ADS systems are far more reliable, and even cost effective despite their enormous pricetag.
Also, it's important to consider that the Star Wars program was intended to be used against mulitudes of incoming ICBMs, a threat which the US does not face today. A Star Wars-esque program won't stop a suicide bomber from detonating a dirty bomb, a much more probable threat then ICBM attack.

2006-07-11 12:35:47

#22

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6992|Southeastern USA

Patriots wont hit suicide bombers either, the key to orbiting anti-missile platforms is that they can swat missiles that are still on their ascent path, the reason this is important is that after an ICBM reaches the zenith of it's flight path is that it launches multiple warheads, which are then armed (they are not armed on the ascent so you don't nuke yourself when one fails like it did last week). If anything, the de-stabilization of the Soviet Union, has increased the likelihood of an ICBM sent our way. If we don't develop a program like this, we have to rely on mutuallly assured destruction, which would destroy the entire planet, is that really what you want? If it's not such a big threat then why have Lil Kim's missiles been aimed at japan and the US?

2006-07-11 12:50:32

#23

K8Kommunist: Member; +26|7010

Lil Kim lacks the economic prowess to create the fleet of missiles necessary for the Star Wars program to be worth it's cost. A Patriot system could destroy the few missiles Kim could launch, if it happens.
The de-stabilization of the USSR has increased the chance of nuclear attack, but not airborne or ICBM nuclear attack. ICBMs require extensive maintence and expertise to keep them in working order, and currently, the CIS nations lack the technology and ability to even mantain their ancient ex-soviet MiGs.
Mutually assured destruction is a relic of the cold war and is no longer really possible as all the nations that possess the ability to mantain and fire nuclear weapons in conventional manners are allied.

2006-07-11 12:58:34

#24

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6992|Southeastern USA

so you're confident in saying that for the rest of human history NK will be the only aggressive state to ever use ICBM's? Even if they are, I for one would rather it be smacked down while still in NK airspace, which a patriot can't do, unless Kim lets us station them within a few miles of each launch site. That alone is reason enough to justify the cost. and rogue soviet generals can do alot more than just launch a missile, they can sell targetting tech, engineering, the warheads and triggers themselves, NK was also involved in that huge nuke tech smuggling ring with china, the former soviet union, india, and pakistan as well

whether or not he builds an arsenal is irrelevant, he only needs one as far as I'm concerned.

2006-07-11 13:08:15

#25

Havazn: Member; +39|7137|van.ca

kr@cker wrote:
Patriots wont hit suicide bombers either, the key to orbiting anti-missile platforms is that they can swat missiles that are still on their ascent path, the reason this is important is that after an ICBM reaches the zenith of it's flight path is that it launches multiple warheads, which are then armed (they are not armed on the ascent so you don't nuke yourself when one fails like it did last week). If anything, the de-stabilization of the Soviet Union, has increased the likelihood of an ICBM sent our way. If we don't develop a program like this, we have to rely on mutuallly assured destruction, which would destroy the entire planet, is that really what you want? If it's not such a big threat then why have Lil Kim's missiles been aimed at japan and the US?

The problem there, is that you will have America with nuclear ICBMs and a missle defense shield that is impenetrable. This equals the ability to destroy any country without the possibility for retaliation. And the only thing preventing this from happening, is a 'promise' not to do it. Mutually assured destruction is the only way to keep that 'promise' really just a promise.

BF2S Forums Reagans Star Wars program

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

puckmercury wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

spacebandit72 wrote:

Capt. Foley wrote:

spacebandit72 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Board footer