Comments on: Star Wars Missile Defense is Now a Reality

By: Gavdin

Gavdin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:22:59 +0000

I was doing some research with my son online regarding the SDI project(s), and we thought this might apply… in jest. On a humerous level, it IS related. “Isn’t THIS Star Wars missile defense…?” ^_^
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=80374&l=7424da2538&id=100000154003132
Great article, btw. Very enlightening.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:24:05 +0000

Yes, I remember the days when Reagan was talking about such a program, and how the concept was considered a fairy tale at the time.

Like the current Bush administration, anything Reagan did to try and defend this country was met with the shrill voices of protest from the left wing in the country..

And while history will probably judge GW better then he is being treated right now, Reagan’s proposed Star Wars program is finally receiving the credit it deserves..

I don’t think a “missle to missle” defense initiative is foolproof, and does present limitations.

However, it is worthy of testing and an ongoing testing to perfect the system. I think Airborne Lazer Gunships hold more promise when it comes to knocking down Ballistic and Nuclear tipped war heads.

Laser Gunship Revealed
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003897.html

Portable lasers to knock out SAMs and other non-nuclear projectiles are also showing promise…

(M-THEL) Technology Demonstration Program

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

The YouTube video of it is here..

YouTube – MTHEL – Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg

Robert C..

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:22:02 +0000

That’s cool man! Do you know how much it cost?

By: John P.

John P. — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:09:49 +0000

Tommy,

I’ve never removed a comment no matter how much I disagree with it. Comments on this blog only get removed for violations of the rules. I also have several moderators so I don’t even know what comment you are referring to, but you might just review the rules and try again.

Sorry if there was a mistake, but I deal with a large number of daily spam comments.

John

By: Tommy Cash

Tommy Cash — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:35:05 +0000

You have removed my comment, because you did not like mine point of view on this question?

By: Tom Barr

Tom Barr — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:13:13 +0000

There’s a lot more that we gain from a program like this. Many of the technologies we enjoy today have their roots in military programs like the nuke proof network launched in the late sixties that we now know as the Internet.

And instead of having unemployed engineers we have tax paying engineers….the government will always prime the pump and I much prefer it through engineering and manufacturing than through welfare checks and foodstands.

By: Derek Wong

Derek Wong — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:37:39 +0000

Wow that’s pretty amazing, and you’re right that this event didn’t make the news (at least not any news that I read). Personally, I don’t think that this is a bad system at all. However, I’m sure that if we found out how much it cost to develop and build it, we’d have some second thoughts about the worthiness of it all. I suppose, though, that the safety of humans and the comfort of mind that this might provide is rather priceless.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:00:55 +0000

John…found this recent Rolling Stone article “The Death of High Fidelity” very interesting….
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print
Enjoy!
Mike

By: RHB

RHB — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:56:23 +0000

One success does not a program make. Boeing has had a succession of failures with this system for the last at least five years. It’s obviously to counter any ICBM attacks from China or N. Korea. It is a sign however that they are getting closer to operational status.
Not designed to be effective against aircraft, unless they are flying in space, (80,000′) plus or minus.