Can't Hit a Bullet With A Bullet: Litany of Genius

[Overpaid Slacker]

On Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet
Missile-defense naysayers were the ones peddling fantasies.

By Mona Charen

The Aegis-class cruiser Lake Erie (“Courage, Determination, Peace” reads her shield) was pitching and rolling in heavy seas west of Hawaii on the night of February 20. Her mission was to shoot down a disabled satellite that was tumbling toward the Earth’s atmosphere. The spy satellite carried a toxic fuel, hydrazine, that might — on the off chance it hit a populated area — have posed considerable health risks. March 1 was the deadline for action: on that date, the bus-sized craft would bounce against the outer reaches of atmosphere, thus sending it into a more erratic orbit. The firing window was only about 30 seconds long. At 10:30 eastern time, the USS Lake Erie was able to fire an SM-3 missile 153 miles into space and score a direct hit on a target that was traveling at 17,000 miles per hour. A fireball and vapor cloud testified to success.

General rejoicing? Not exactly. The Washington Post reports that “Scientists, arms-control advocates and others said the shoot-down was based on questionable modeling by the government of the risks to human health and was a danger to the future peaceful use of space.” Questionable modeling? Aren’t these the same people who argue that we must all abandon our passenger cars because computer modeling suggests the world may be getting a bit warmer? As for arms-control advocates, where were they back in January 2007 when China blew up a satellite that was orbiting the Earth? The Chinese were obviously testing military technology as the weather satellite they destroyed was in no danger of plunging to earth. Further, that satellite was orbiting at an altitude of 537 miles. Its destruction therefore spread debris through space, complicating the orbits of other satellites. But the arms control advocates were quiet.

They’ve been dreading a U.S. anti-missile capability since Ronald Reagan first proposed it in the 1980s. Then congresswoman (now senator) Barbara Boxer called the Strategic Defense Initiative “the president’s astrological dream . . . a dream of laser weapons powered by nuclear explosions, particle beam weapons, chemical rockets and space based interceptors parked in ‘garages’ in orbit.” Then-senator Al Gore called SDI “not feasible.”

Journalist Ted Koppel summed up the conventional wisdom among liberals when he declared “I think that what is being proposed for expenditure on Star Wars [sic] . . . is absolute nonsense. Anything like an SDI program is going to put us in a position where, naturally, the Russians are going to feel threatened.” Besides, he continued, reciting the then prevalent “It’s Dangerous and it Won’t Work” mantra, “There is no way it is going to work within the next twenty years and it is going to cost not billions, not tens of billions, not hundreds of billions, but trillions of dollars.” The New York Times labeled the idea “a pipe dream, a projection of fantasy into policy.” Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis was equally dismissive. He called SDI “a fantasy — a technological illusion which most scientists say cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future. The defenses they envision won’t make the United States more secure. . . .”

As recently as 1999, when Congress was considering funding for missile defense, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., OR) once again invoked the old George Lucas imagery to debunk the idea. “Like the movie, this is a phantom solution — hitting a bullet with a bullet in outer space.”

But hitting a bullet with a bullet has become almost routine. On September 28, 2007, also high above the Pacific Ocean (75 miles), another “Star Wars fantasy” vehicle successfully destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. Many other recent tests have shown similar success. In fact, the U.S. is joined by 30 other nations who are working on missile-defense systems. For those whose delicate constitutions forbid them to take comfort in military strength, they may consider that this same technology may one day save Earth from a catastrophic meteor strike.

Contra Ted Koppel, our capability to shoot hurtling satellites —and more dangerous flying objects — out of the sky did not cost trillions of dollars. Since 1983, we’ve spent approximately $100 billion on missile defense, a small percentage of overall defense spending during that period. And in the end, it worked.

American ingenuity can hit a bullet with a bullet. But there is still no cure for liberal short-sightedness.

(To be fair, it was not only liberals that were shortsighted about this, but true to form, they personalized it and heaped ad hominem arrogant scorn on its proponents -- JP)

[M.D. Holloway]

Mythbusters actually did hit a bullet with a bullet! Tough shot but it can be done. I still want to see Billery catch a bullet in her teeth or at least attempt to (JK).

[MRM]

One of the weapons of the future is a gun that is fired electronically with many barrels that can throw up something like a million bullets a minute. The idea is that this much lead would act as a kind of a shield against incoming bullets.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I stopped reading that article when it reverted to an unrelated attack on global climate change by attempting to trivialize it. "A bit warmer"? Are they kidding?

Yea, let's just trivialize the problem and that'll make it go away.

FWIW I think there is compelling evidence for global climate change and overpopulation by humans is directly attributable to it. However, as with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's not going to kill off the entire planet in the next 100 years, but it isn't something that should be ignored either.

As with most things, the extreme position parties on both sides only make themselves sound stupid and lose credibility when they open their gobs.

[alf]

Very cool technology! Maybe there is an asteroid heading our way...

Originally Posted by MRM

One of the weapons of the future is a gun that is fired electronically with many barrels that can throw up something like a million bullets a minute. The idea is that this much lead would act as a kind of a shield against incoming bullets.

What happens when they come down? Shields up!

[MRM]

I don't remember what the idea was. There was some plan for handling the outgoing lead. Maybe they were going to shoot straight up or something?

[island911]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I stopped reading that article when it reverted to an unrelated attack on global climate change by attempting to trivialize it. "A bit warmer"? Are they kidding?

Yea, let's just trivialize the problem and that'll make it go away.

FWIW I think there is compelling evidence for global climate change....

You have it backwards, the evidence is that the problem has gone away (never existed) and that's why it's trivialized.

---the mind-set of the crowd claiming "SDI will never work, and if it dose it will cost trillions, and if it does work won't work politically" is some how the same mind-set of those championing "Man is evil and is killing mother-earth by unnaturally exhaling CO₂."

Weird. ...maybe these people just loath themselves so. ...and want some sort of annihilation solution.

[MBAtarga]

Originally Posted by MRM

One of the weapons of the future is a gun that is fired electronically with many barrels that can throw up something like a million bullets a minute. The idea is that this much lead would act as a kind of a shield against incoming bullets.

This already exists. Looking for the link now.

Company name is Metal Storm. Here's an article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/06/26/australia.metalstorm/index.html

Technology was patented in 1997.

And a video:
http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=news&prid=77&category=Latest%20Video%20%26%20Live%20Firings

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77

Mythbusters actually did hit a bullet with a bullet! Tough shot but it can be done. I still want to see Billery catch a bullet in her teeth or at least attempt to (JK).

I TOTALLY thought this thread was going to be about the Mythbusters 'Firearms' episode.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by MRM

One of the weapons of the future is a gun that is fired electronically with many barrels that can throw up something like a million bullets a minute. The idea is that this much lead would act as a kind of a shield against incoming bullets.

Already exists...do a search on, "Metal Storm". We unfortunately had an "Ice Storm" here and the net is slow.

One of the next wave of point defense weapons are systems that track and engage near the terminal point of the weapons route. Very interesting stuff.

[MRM]

Yes, that describes what I was thinking of. Very cool. The part I remembered was that the bullets could be fired so fast because they were detonated electronically rather than mechanically with a firing pin. I thought that was a quantom leap in technology.

[widebody911]

Good job, Rumpelstiltskin! This $60million shot at an object with a known trajectory and several weeks worth of lead-time get spun into not only a defense of Star Wars, but also an attack on 'liberals', all the while conveniently forgetting the umpteen prior high-profile (and high $^7) failed attempts.

[varmint]

you're a genius.

that sixty million would have been far better spent painting a giant red bullseye on the roof of every school in america.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Metalstorm is seriously cool stuff, I saw it on "Futureweapons" several years ago.

[island911]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Good job, Rumpelstiltskin! This $60million shot at an object with a known trajectory and several weeks worth of lead-time get spun into not only a defense of Star Wars, but also an attack on 'liberals', all the while conveniently forgetting the umpteen prior high-profile (and high $^7) failed attempts.

You're missing the technology of it... ICBM's have a huge heat sig. (easy, whereas satellites do not). Even with the advanced planning, that hit showed a high level of control. ...and that Liberals are kooks.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Mythbusters?

Oh Please.

Lining up two rifles (by use of laser sights), the barrels pointing at each other, a foot or two apart, on fixed bases, with electronic triggers....

relates to...

hitting an object traveling at (what speed?) from 150 miles away...

in what way?

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Good job, Rumpelstiltskin! This $60million shot at an object with a known trajectory and several weeks worth of lead-time get spun into not only a defense of Star Wars, but also an attack on 'liberals', all the while conveniently forgetting the umpteen prior high-profile (and high $^7) failed attempts.

So you're on the record that it can't/won't happen?

[jluetjen]

On Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet
Missile-defense naysayers were the ones peddling fantasies.

General rejoicing? Not exactly. The Washington Post reports that “Scientists, arms-control advocates and others said the shoot-down was based on questionable modeling by the government of the risks to human health and was a danger to the future peaceful use of space.”

Journalist Ted Koppel summed up the conventional wisdom among liberals when he declared “I think that what is being proposed for expenditure on Star Wars [sic] . . . is absolute nonsense. Anything like an SDI program is going to put us in a position where, naturally, the Russians are going to feel threatened.”

Am I the only person who finds the "militarization of space" argument against the "Star Wars" defense ludicrous to the extreme? Space was militarized some time in 1944 when the Germans started firing off V2's. ICBM's from the 50's and later just continued the militarization. The fact that they resided on the ground until they were fired doesn't diminish this fact. Since when is a technological parry of an incoming missile threating or militarization? The MAD ("Mutually Assured Destruction") strategy was adopted by the US to discourage other countries from firing their missiles at us. For 40 years it worked.

We are under no obligation to continue that approach when it is no longer useful for us. With the advent of the latest technologies, we no longer need to threaten to lay waste to an attacker, and risk millions of casualties. All that we need to do is to knock down (or disable) an attacker's missiles in flight. To be honest the world should be happy for the improvement!

Curiously, it's the Russians and the Chinese who seem to be screaming the loudest? Why? Because now they're going to need to spend billion and billions of dollars to counter the strategy. And they both know (especially the Russians) that it's damned difficult to outspend the US!

[varmint]

Watched Nova last week.They had a special on the Soviet era Almas space station. It had a 20mm cannon mounted to the side. This was in the early 70s. But I'm sure it was for purely peaceful purposes.

They tested it once. seems to have worked fine.


There are a host of revalations coming out about the Russian program. Yuri Gargarin wasn't the first man in space. He was the first to survive. One of the Soyuz cosmonauts had a full mental breakdown, and had to be restrained. The Russians currently have a gun in a survival kit aboard the international station.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Quote: "It had a 20mm cannon mounted to the side."
___________________

Hummmm ...interesting recoil problem I would assume?

"...anyone seen Gregori since he fired that cannon?"


(Back on Earth)
"Sir, that Ruskie station we have been tracking ...just left its orbit and is rapidly moving to a Venus orbit!"