PDA

View Full Version : Do you support the Strategic Defense Initiative?




libertybrewcity
06-01-2010, 12:15 AM
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was created by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The ambitious initiative was "widely criticized as being unrealistic, even unscientific" as well as for threatening to destabilize MAD and re-ignite "an offensive arms race". It was soon derided as Star Wars, after the popular 1977 film by George Lucas. In 1987, the American Physics Society concluded that a global shield such as "Star Wars" was not only impossible with existing technology, but that ten more years of research was needed to learn whether it might ever be feasible.
Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; and its scope from global to more regional coverage. It was never truly developed or deployed, though certain aspects of SDI research and technologies paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today. BMDO was renamed to the Missile Defense Agency in 2002. This article covers defense efforts under the SDIO.

Space-related defense research and testing remains heavily-budgeted to this day, irrespective of the program names, operative/reporting organizations, politics, or reports to the contrary in the press.[citation needed] Although it is difficult to compile actual spending totals across the complete spectrum of space-based defense programs (including classified "off-budget" "black projects"), the U.S. has certainly invested well over $100 billion on "SDI" and follow-on programs, and holds a commanding lead over all current or potential future adversaries in the realm of space technology/warfare.

The vast majority of this investment has been made in basic research at national laboratories and universities, and these programs continue to be a key source of funding for top research scientists in the fields of high-energy physics, supercomputing/computation, advanced materials, and many other critical science and engineering disciplines: funding which indirectly supports other research work by top scientists, and which would be largely unavailable outside of the defense budget environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

nate895
06-01-2010, 12:33 AM
Since I believe the reasoning behind being able to maintain a large Navy constitutionally is that the equipment requires a lot of time to produce, time you don't have in a war, I think that SDI would be good if it focused on developing anti-ballistic missile SAMs, such as the Patriot Missile system, so that we can take out incoming missile threats of every sort with near 100% effectiveness. We should incorporate such systems under naval resources to maintain constitutionality.

libertythor
06-01-2010, 01:01 AM
I am all for "Star Wars". Being able to take out any enemy missile would remove any pretext the neocons would have for creating "strategic partnerships".

HOLLYWOOD
06-01-2010, 01:04 AM
Since I believe the reasoning behind being able to maintain a large Navy constitutionally is that the equipment requires a lot of time to produce, time you don't have in a war, I think that SDI would be good if it focused on developing anti-ballistic missile SAMs, such as the Patriot Missile system, so that we can take out incoming missile threats of every sort with near 100% effectiveness. We should incorporate such systems under naval resources to maintain constitutionality.


already in place. Shssh!