Thread: Are you prepared?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It seems like being able to visibly see the funnel touching down would have warranted getting to the basement earlier!

Normally the weather service issues "tornado watch" when there are thunderstorms forming, an "alert" when conditions become more favorable for funnel clouds forming, and a "warning" when those conditions become especially favorable. That tornado was quite a surprise. I remember it pretty well because it made quite an impression on me. It was the last day of school before summer vacation. I was in 5th grade and it was close to the end of the day. A big thunderstorm had rolled in and the sky was really black. Me and a couple of other guys were looking out the window when the funnel cloud formed. About two seconds later, the Sirens started wailing (they would blow air raid sirens for tornado warnings). My teacher heard the sirens and told us to start lining up to go to the basement. She was a bit annoyed because most of the time when the sirens go off there isn't any tornado to take shelter from. She changed her attitude when she realized what we were all pointing at and yelling about. It was all quite an exciting last day of school

I've got a copy of that old "Duck and Cover" vid on the computer. I burned a copy of it to dvd for the Emerency Management director's collection. I was a stormspotter localy, and saw one funnel, and the effects of 2 others. You know it's bad when they have a one eyed spotter out in the middle of the night watching for funnels .

Tony

Evidently Ron Regan got it right from all those drills. He instituted the missile defense system and every one was mocking him. Now we have one. No thanks to the Democrats. It has been demonstrated twice for public consumption in the last year. It tells Iran we will shove it up your *** if you even think about it.

Are the Russians still considered a threat?

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

Evidently Ron Regan got it right from all those drills. He instituted the missile defense system and every one was mocking him. Now we have one. No thanks to the Democrats. It has been demonstrated twice for public consumption in the last year. It tells Iran we will shove it up your *** if you even think about it.

demonstrated like those patriot missiles?
the ones that were claimed sto be such a big success in the first ulf war?
the same ones that were afterwards proven to be completely defective? And the only reason the scuds didn't succeed was that they were so dodgy they never made it to their targets?

And the trials you mention -at least if they are the ones I read about- consisted of 1 team firing a missile, the other firing the interceptor, and both having agreed in advance where they would meet.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And the trials you mention -at least if they are the ones I read about- consisted of 1 team firing a missile, the other firing the interceptor, and both having agreed in advance where they would meet.

What about the satellite that the same Aegis system shot down? I don't think that satellite agreed to anything

Originally Posted by Bruno

demonstrated like those patriot missiles?
the ones that were claimed sto be such a big success in the first ulf war?
the same ones that were afterwards proven to be completely defective? And the only reason the scuds didn't succeed was that they were so dodgy they never made it to their targets?

And the trials you mention -at least if they are the ones I read about- consisted of 1 team firing a missile, the other firing the interceptor, and both having agreed in advance where they would meet.

Like every one else Bruno, you too are subject to an extremely slanted media!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What about the satellite that the same Aegis system shot down? I don't think that satellite agreed to anything

That's true.
But that sattelite had a known trajectory, so it was easy to point the interceptor.
It was also not going at mach 10, which is the cruising speed of an ICBM.

Continuing for a moment on the logistic of a missile shield.

It can only handle a handful of incoming ICBMs, assuming for a moment that the shield would actually work.
If a superpower like Russia or China would initiate first strike, they'd do so with everything they have. That's simple MAD in action. The first strike had better be good, because you will not get a second strike.
The shield will not work. It might get a couple, but the majority would rain down on the US.

The so called rogue states could probably not do better than a handful of warheads.
furthermore, they don't have the ICBM capability to deliver them.
But assuming for a moment they do: even if there were no rocket shield, they could never hurt the US so bad it couldn't hit back, and whatever nation fired them will be a radioactive hole in the ground.
Now leaders of a 'rogue' state might be many things, but not stupid enough to launch a nuclear ICBM attack on the US.

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's true.
But that sattelite had a known trajectory, so it was easy to point the interceptor.
It was also not going at mach 10, which is the cruising speed of an ICBM.

When you say "the satellite had a known trajectory" it reads as if a memo fell off of the satellite explaining where it would be. The trajectory was known because the engineers figured it out, just like they would do with an enemy missile. It wouldn't have been any easier to track any other object that was spotted. The satellite wasn't put into orbit with an exact prediction of when or where it would eventually fall to earth

You're right, it wasn't traveling quite as fast as an ICBM would be. But if you hadn't called NASA yourself to explain to them how easy it was to point the interceptor, they may have never hit it. Thanks