May he burn in hell for leading the drive in the 1970s against ABM and later the drive to zero out funding for the SAFEGUARD system, after it had been fully operational for a few days.
Foreword from a book I have in my collection from the 1970s:
Let us, therefore, choose $20 billion as a likely (if low) figure for the completed Safeguard system, taking $19.5 billion as the median between $18 to $21 billion, and adding only $500 million for the other costs. What could this $20 billion mean for the advancement of security and justice here in the United States? How many young people could be saved who now go into the streets to commit violence? How many health centers could be built for those who now suffer from disease? Could we not, with this sum, clean up all our rivers and the air above all our cities? Could we not raise an entire generation of children with the advantages of a Headstart program?
Could we not, in sum, use the savings to offer new hope to those who have lost hope in the America of our dreams?
When our country is under attack, all of these expenditures give way to the protection of the national security. But when, as today, the debate is over a weapons system whose addition to our security is questionable, this money should be used for programs of security and progress here at home.
We in the Congress have a number of obligations as we vote on the Administration's request for funds to deploy Safeguard. We have obligations to our national security and safety; to world peace and stability; and to the shape of the world we pass to the next generation. We must also seek to avoid the horror of nuclear war; to reduce waste in the use of federal funds; and to establish a sound set of priorities for available federal funds. It is against all these standards that we must place the request for funds to deploy the Safeguard ABM system. It is our responsibility to see that the people we represent are not deprived of their tax money and of the opportunity to meet their own pressing problems, in order to purchase a defense capability they do not need.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
I love how Shep just seems to think anyone who takes a choice miltiary wise that was not a good one in his mind deserves to burn in hell. It say's a lot about him. I guess anyone who makes bad choices in military funding deserves to suffer though, I must of forgot.
Anyway this is quite a shame and condolences so his family.
Bluewolf wrote:I love how Shep just seems to think anyone who takes a choice miltiary wise that was not a good one in his mind deserves to burn in hell.
Fuck you. We had a fully operational and functional ABM system, and then Ted defunded it. It took over 30 years to gain back that capability, the capability of at least defending parts of america from ICBM attack.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Bluewolf wrote:I love how Shep just seems to think anyone who takes a choice miltiary wise that was not a good one in his mind deserves to burn in hell.
Fuck you. We had a fully operational and functional ABM system, and then Ted defunded it. It took over 30 years to gain back that capability, the capability of at least defending parts of america from ICBM attack.
Shep, we didn't need that protection. It would have meant spending 20 billion dollars on nothing. It would have been like wearing a condom all the time and not having sex to avoid AIDS. If you aren't putting yourself at risk, you don't technically need that condom. I'll support ABM and other weapons systems as much as the next guy, but when the chips are down, I'd cut the military budget first in order to protect civil services.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
Bluewolf wrote:I love how Shep just seems to think anyone who takes a choice miltiary wise that was not a good one in his mind deserves to burn in hell.
Fuck you. We had a fully operational and functional ABM system, and then Ted defunded it. It took over 30 years to gain back that capability, the capability of at least defending parts of america from ICBM attack.
Judging from all the ICBM attacks the United States has suffered over the years, I'd say that was money well saved.
Vehrec wrote:Shep, we didn't need that protection. It would have meant spending 20 billion dollars on nothing. It would have been like wearing a condom all the time and not having sex to avoid AIDS. If you aren't putting yourself at risk, you don't technically need that condom. I'll support ABM and other weapons systems as much as the next guy, but when the chips are down, I'd cut the military budget first in order to protect civil services.
Your Condom analogy breaks down at the bolded part. The "Sex" in question would be other nations out there with Nuclear tipped ICBMs. We are at risk and an ABM Shield helps keep us safe.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
Vehrec wrote:Shep, we didn't need that protection. It would have meant spending 20 billion dollars on nothing. It would have been like wearing a condom all the time and not having sex to avoid AIDS. If you aren't putting yourself at risk, you don't technically need that condom. I'll support ABM and other weapons systems as much as the next guy, but when the chips are down, I'd cut the military budget first in order to protect civil services.
Your Condom analogy breaks down at the bolded part. The "Sex" in question would be other nations out there with Nuclear tipped ICBMs. We are at risk and an ABM Shield helps keep us safe.
At risk from who? Exactly how many nations out there have both the capability and desire to fire ICBMs our way? (No, NK doesn't count). (ITT discussion about Senator's death is derailed by military wanking.)
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:
At risk from who? Exactly how many nations out there have both the capability and desire to fire ICBMs our way? (No, NK doesn't count). (ITT discussion about Senator's death is derailed by military wanking.)
You don't operate on desire, you operate on ability, and to answer that question, there were two - Red China and the USSR.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
General Zod wrote:
At risk from who? Exactly how many nations out there have both the capability and desire to fire ICBMs our way? (No, NK doesn't count). (ITT discussion about Senator's death is derailed by military wanking.)
You don't operate on desire, you operate on ability, and to answer that question, there were two - Red China and the USSR.
You don't operate on desire? lol. That's kind of dumb, how else are you going to measure whether something is a viable threat? Otherwise we'd have to worry about any allies of ours that happen to have ICBM capability. The fact that "Red China" and the USSR haven't been a threat for more than twenty years really just enforces the point that the ABM was a waste.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:You don't operate on desire? lol. That's kind of dumb, how else are you going to measure whether something is a viable threat? Otherwise we'd have to worry about any allies of ours that happen to have ICBM capability. The fact that "Red China" and the USSR haven't been a threat for more than twenty years really just enforces the point that the ABM was a waste.
I'm sorry you're so ignorant of the world around you. Both the PRC and Russia still have ICBMs, as does the DPRK, and from their actions Iran wants them. Thus Nationwide ABM is a good idea, because it costs less than losing even one city to an ICBM strike.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
MariusRoi wrote:
I'm sorry you're so ignorant of the world around you. Both the PRC and Russia still have ICBMs, as does the DPRK, and from their actions Iran wants them. Thus Nationwide ABM is a good idea, because it costs less than losing even one city to an ICBM strike.
Because someone with ICBMs wouldn't be glassed the instant one of their missiles hit American soil right?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:Because someone with ICBMs wouldn't be glassed the instant one of their missiles hit American soil right?
Cost of ABM is far far far less than replacing one city.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
To weigh in on this issue perhaps Sheppard, you should be addressing the billions spent on ABM shields since then, since we did have one in place for a very short time and Ted Kennedy was instrumental in killing it. How many billions has THAAD and the like cost us since then?
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Mr Bean wrote:To weigh in on this issue perhaps Sheppard, you should be addressing the billions spent on ABM shields since then, since we did have one in place for a very short time and Ted Kennedy was instrumental in killing it. How many billions has THAAD and the like cost us since then?
Which we wouldn't have spent, if we hadn't killed Safeguard. Anyway, why was this split anyway? Or is the Ted thread going to be a complete lovefest of the guy?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
It's not a general complaint of Kennedy; it's a specific policy discussion which IMHO fits best in a new thread. Not that MHO matters or should matter, but eh.
Mr Bean wrote:To weigh in on this issue perhaps Sheppard, you should be addressing the billions spent on ABM shields since then, since we did have one in place for a very short time and Ted Kennedy was instrumental in killing it. How many billions has THAAD and the like cost us since then?
Which we wouldn't have spent, if we hadn't killed Safeguard. Anyway, why was this split anyway? Or is the Ted thread going to be a complete lovefest of the guy?
Since this is likely to become a very technical conversation that is only peripherally about Ted Kennedy, and since there are a lot of other things, good and bad, that people will want to say about him without getting drowned out, I think the split was a good idea.
As for ABM, do you seriously claim that we would not have spent significant money updating, maintaining, and upgrading this system over the decades? That defies everything I've ever heard about the US military.
So it's nonsense to claim that we wouldn't have spent the money we spent on other ABM shield projects since then. On the contrary, we would have had a continuous budget expense to maintain our existing ABM shield, combined with projects to improve its software and hardware.
Simon_Jester wrote:So it's nonsense to claim that we wouldn't have spent the money we spent on other ABM shield projects since then. On the contrary, we would have had a continuous budget expense to maintain our existing ABM shield, combined with projects to improve its software and hardware.
Compare that with having to start afresh each time, and redo everything from the beginning several times?
Here's a hint -- systems integration is $$$
Safeguard itself was the final culimination of several earlier attempts to build ABM, all of which were stillborn by McNamara's hand.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
GBI weighs 28,000 lbs fully loaded, Spartan was 29,000 lbs -- now, I'm sure GBI can fly out further due to propellant improvements in the 30 years since.
Which makes me wonder, how did they calculate the range of Spartan anyway?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
making the ABM system into an anti-virus program analogy seems to work well. sure if your careful about where you go and what you download your reasonably safe from viruses, but do you really want to take the chance of a nasty one surprising you and fucking up your system?
If a black-hawk flies over a light show and is not harmed, does that make it immune to lasers?
IIRC the US ABM was scrapped mainly because the later generations of Soviet ICBM had enough MIRV capacity to drown it in targets. A 1:1 exchange ratio was OK but a 10:1 (or 50:1 when decoys and other countermeasures are factored in) made it to expensive. Also the US ABM defence was deployed around one of the US ICBM sites to insure second strike capacity - something the expanding SSBN fleet also provided. Had the US deployed it's ABM defence around a major city rather than a military base it would have been politicaly harder to close the porject down.
With the spread of nuke armed long range missiles the even a primitive ABM is of value, the Russians kept and still keep their old ABM defence of Moscow.
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
Marko Dash wrote:making the ABM system into an anti-virus program analogy seems to work well. sure if your careful about where you go and what you download your reasonably safe from viruses, but do you really want to take the chance of a nasty one surprising you and fucking up your system?
Except nukes are targeted. This is like saying being shot at by nuclear missiles is like falling down the stairs - it's something that happens by accident.
CJvR wrote:IIRC the US ABM was scrapped mainly because the later generations of Soviet ICBM had enough MIRV capacity to drown it in targets. A 1:1 exchange ratio was OK but a 10:1 (or 50:1 when decoys and other countermeasures are factored in) made it to expensive.
Were decoys and countermeasures effective back then?
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
