Re: go interceptors!

From: John Clark (
Date: Thu Jul 19 2001 - 08:47:36 MDT

Spike Jones <> Wrote:

>Turns out the ground radar failed, so in an actual attack
>(on Seattle of course) it would have ordered a second
> missile to be fired, wasting millions of dollars, even tho the first one
> had already saved the fair city on the Pacific.

No, it means after the first hit all the debris confused the system and it
crashed, it was in no position to fire a second interceptor, it was in no
position to do anything. It also means there would not have been a first
hit if the attacker had released a few pounds of aluminum beer cans as chaff.

>Nor does it become more difficult to stop the nukes that have already
>been built,

Sure it does. Example: You spend a trillion dollars or so on a super powerful
LASER system to shoot things down. I paint my warheads white, now it needs
hundreds or thousands of times the intensity to do the same thing.

>Many are the potential customers who can afford only one missile,

North Korea, Iraq, Libya, China, they only plan to have one missile and one
warhead in their arsenal? I don't think so.

>and have not the sophistication to actually modify what has already been built.

So, this weapon will defend us providing the enemy is poor stupid and ignorant, but
remember, beer is cheap and beer cans even cheaper.

       John K Clark

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT