waitforufo

I believe I saw it on the websites of all the major news outlets on the day the NYT rejected the Op/Ed. Perhaps the day after. Drudge is often more interested in being first then correct. Being wrong on occasion doesn't seem to bother him, where others cannot afford to be wrong. Once the scoop is made, other news sources will often take more time in order to provide more background information or post "scoop" reaction. Hence they take longer. Bascule, you are correct, I should have directed my previous comment to Pangloss.

Do you have any evidence the McCain or is campaign went "straight to the Drudge Report" with is Op/Ed after it was rejected by the NYT. Perhaps he or his campaign just made the Op/Ed generally available to the media. If he did make his Op/Ed generally available, would it be surprising that the Drudge Report would be the first to provide it on the web. I think not. The Drudge Report seems to be obsessed with being first. Many news organizations made the Op/Ed available the same day it was rejected by the NYT.

If I gave that impression, that was not my intention. (I do however appreciate the humor in which you stated it.) One reason Navy captains get tense in the Straits of Hormuz is that they generally navigate these waters with only their navigation radars turned on. To do otherwise would be a provocative act. Something that might appear to be an act of war.

I'm just saying "nearby" is relative. A carrier battle group is very large including many ships and boats. Ships are positioned in the battle group to provide defense in a designated area with the primary focus being protecting the capitol ship, the carrier. In such a case you could argue that all ships and boats in the group are escorting the carrier but I don't think that would be the correct term. Perhaps I am wrong. Vital sea lanes can be protected by ships loitering in the nearby area. In such a case the capitol interest is the sea lane. Sea skimming threats however present a unique problem since they cannot be seen until they come over the horizon. To protect a ship in a sea lane against a sea skimming threat, the defender would have to be very nearby. Perhaps less than a mile. The above assumes that only the shipborne radar is used to detect and direct the shipborne missiles. US ships can coordinate radar detection with airborne and other seaborne platforms. Such coordination can permit further standoff with regard to detection and command missile guidance. To my knowledge, standard missiles are semi-active, requiring a shipborne illuminator to light up the target for terminal guidance. Again this would require near proximity but perhaps not as intimate (10 to 20 miles?).

The SM-2 (and SM-1 on Perry class frigates) was designed for fleet defense. The primary goal of ships equipped with such missiles is defense of the carrier in the carrier battle group. They can defend ships at quite a distance from themselves but it is a function of type of weapon deployed. Targets at medium to high altitude can be engaged at quite a distance. Sea skimming targets, however can't be seen until they come over the horizon. Then the Aegis equipped ship has to be close to provide defense. In such cases an escort roll is appropriate.

The Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burke class Aegis equipped ships would just fire SM-2 missiles instead of SM-3 missiles. The Aegis system was originally designed as a fleet defense system. Also, I don't think the Iranians would waste a nuke on the Straits of Hormuz.

We have both Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burke class Aegis equipped ships in the Persian Gulf. So yes, we have missile defenses that can protect the Straits of Hormuz.

Excuse me. I should have said... The problem most people have with understanding the intent of the second ammendment has to do with how to define the term "well-regulated." I stand corrected.

No offense taken, I appreciate comments that will improve my posts. I don't think the Czech installation would do much good in protecting the US. Most US aimed ICBM launches would come from Siberia and would go directly over the poll. I don't think the Czech installation would even see them. If they did it would most likely be after they were picked up by radar installations in Alaska and Canada. The system they are proposing would be quite limited and directed a countering the Iranian threat to Europe. As I have said, the Russians could easily overwhelm the proposed system. It would be expensive for the Iranians to produce enough weapons to counter such a system. If they set out on a program to build enough weapons to do so it would be difficult to hide and would provide more time for an international diplomatic response. By the way, the USSR for quite some time in the 50's had only limited ability of directly striking the US. If we struck them, they would retaliate by striking Europe. My opinion is that the US wants to deny Iran this strategy.

The problem most people have with the second amendment has to do with how to define the term "well-regulated." A well-regulated clock keeps time accurately. Members of a well-regulated militia can hit their targets when they shoot. America has always highly valued marksmanship. In order to keep yourself well-regulated in the use of arms you have to practice. Owning your own weapons facilitates you ability to practice. Also, when the bill of rights was written, firearms were all a bit unique with their own idiosyncrasies. Maintaining familiarity with your own weapon was important.

done deal, with immunity http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5341118&page=1

Pangloss, My applogies for the "re-read" comment. I was simply trying to be brief. I will refrain from such comments in the future. You also asked; I don't think we would like that at all. But I don't seem them doing it anytime soon. What purpose would it serve? With regard to the merits of missile defense staged in the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic is centrally located in Europe. It has an eastern mountain range (jeseniky) with elevations over 1000 meters. I'm sure those mountains are full of great locations to place missile defense radars. Such radars could guide SM-3 missiles launched from various sites throughout Europe. The Czech Republic is an ideal location for missile defense radar implements to protect Europe.

iNow, Perhaps you should read post 17 again. Sisyphus, There is some merit to your argument. The difference here being that Iran wants to hold Europe hostage if they strike at Israel. Thats why the US wants to put the shield system in the Czech Republic. With regard to Israel, we can put an Aegis capable ship in Haifa harbor.

Bascule, I agree with your entire post, except that we are not deploying the system against the Russians. The point of deploying the system is to deter the Iranians. It increases their cost of deploying an effective offensive nuke missile system. With regard to the money spent to date on missile shields, well those are sunk costs. Currently we have a system that would be effective against the Iranians. Why not deploy it?

Several billion dollars? Perhaps you should take a look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer This ship comes equipped with the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar and surface to air Standard Missiles in dense packed vertical launch modules. These vertical launch modules can come equipped with the Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3 theater-wide ballistic missile defense system http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html. Publicly, this missile has been tested 5 times against intercontinental ballistic reentry targets with a 5 for 5 kill ratio. So, all you have to do is plop the phase array and support electronics of an existing SPY-1D radar in the Czech Republic and a couple of existing dense pack vertical launch modules equipped with RIM-161 SM-3s and your done. All existing technology. Again the Russians could easily overwhelm such a system, but the Iranians? I think not. One answer to why the Russians don't want such a system on their border is the capability of the SPY-1D radar. That thing can track every satellite orbiting the earth. We would gain intelligence on any object above the radar horizon. They can't like that much. On the other hand, aren’t we friends now?

Military strategy always has a psychological component. By dubious nature I meant that your enemy always has to guess at the shields true effectiveness. Even if they monitor your testing, they still don't know. You may have intentionally missed to keep them guessing. You may have created targets that had internal beacons falsely increasing test effectiveness. Enemies that are not reasonable and critically thinking human beings are the ones you have to worry about the most. If building a missile shield deters their actions, the costs may be worth it. How much would it cost to replace Berlin? Again, if it is such a waist of money, why are the Russians worried about it?

If it doesn't include retroactive immunity, Bush will just pardon them all before he leaves office. Can you pardon someone not convicted? It worked for Nixon.

The dubious nature of there success rate can work to increase their deterrent effect. Reasonable and critically thinking human beings? We are talking about Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Raising doubts in the minds of such people is generally a good thing.

The problem with man portable or even container shippable WMDs is that they leave the control of those that deploy them and they take a long time to arrive at the target. You really have to trust the person that is in control of such a weapon from the time of deployment to detonation. You have to control the people who know that the weapon was deployed at least until it is detonated. If you don't, you just might find the weapon going off in your own back yard. There is a reason why all countries seeking to be in the nuke club are also developing or purchasing missile technology. They do this even though the costs, political and financial, are high. Missile shields just work into the probability game. Let's say your enemy has a missile shield with a 50% probability of shooting down an incoming missile. So how many missiles do you have to shoot to have a 90% probability of hitting the target at least once? One missile 50%, two missiles 75%, three missiles 87.5%, four missiles, 93.75%. That's assuming your missiles never fail during lift off and flight. So let's assume your missiles have 90% success rate. Combining that with a 50 % shoot down rate makes 45% success per shot. Now after 4 shots you have a 91% probability. So you have to shoot 4 missiles to get back to your raw 90% success rate without your enemy having a shield. That costs lots of money. The above should demonstrate why limited capability missile shields are an effective deterrent to countries like Iran and North Korea. But why is Russia concerned? Russia has more than enough missiles to overwhelm any missile shield deployed in the Czech Republic. First, it eliminates all notions of a limited exchange. You have to shoot a lot right from the start. Second, it means you have to maintain a lot of missiles. Third, it makes them look weak.

Intelligent life, to me, seems impossibly remote. Consider how many life forms exist and have existed on this planet. How many were intelligent? How many of them can or could meaningfully modify their surroundings? Finding life elsewhere? Well, if it's not in our solar system our best bet is SETI. Again, such life would have to be intelligent. Even with SETI, I don’t see much possibility of picking up radio signals outside the Milky Way. Perhaps one day we will have telescopes powerful enough to detect some kind of probability of life signature from another planet. I imagine the spectrum of light reflected from our planet is unique. I can't imagine that such a method would ever produce certainty. Again, limited to the Milky Way. If we were to find life elsewhere I would not be surprised if we were a bit disappointed with the results of the discovery. Carbon based, DNA, and so on. The same rules apply everywhere so similar results should be expected. I think it would be similar to discovering an unknown chain of islands on this planet. That would be very cool but I wouldn't expect something radically different. That last paragraph was quite the flight of fancy. It supposes that one day a human being will actually be able to walk on such a newly discovered planet. I see nothing in our current understanding that suggests we will ever visit any planet outside our own solar system. Along those same lines, I don't see humans ever creating a self sustaining breading population on any planet other than this one. But who knows, we are stubborn and persistent.

No warming in the last decade. No warming predicted for the next decade. Argos Ocean buoys have actually shown cooling. Hang in there global warming enthusiasts. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294880707561262

Yea, yea we have had this weather/climate arguement before. The article talks about "decade long forcasts", "internal climate variability", "a winding climatic journey " and an "overall temporary cooling of the climate." So how many years of weather data does it take to make a climate claim? Sounds to me like they are expecting this "slowly fluctuating oscillation in Pacific Ocean temperatures" to be with us for some time. I'm sure they are hoping long enough for them to move on to other topics. With regard to the hockey stick, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Yes, I actually read the articles. Now that it's cooling, the warming enthusiast have to hedging their bets. They have everyone worked up into a frenzy then oops, it starts getting cooler. Well of course, cooling trends are natural. They never said occasional cooling wouldn't occur on our ultimate path to a warming doom. That pesky occasional cooling is just natural fluctuation. Just ignore that. No don't turn up your thermostat, you will cook us all. How dare you suggest that the recent warming was also influenced by "natural fluctuations." What are you anti science? Don't you understand there is a consensus? Just read the IPCC…. Like a said, hilarious.

If these predicted cooling trends prove true, watching the fallout in the global warming community is going to be hilarious. I bet Hanson is "a little concerned." Concerned about his credibility. Natural fluctuations? So let me get this straight, warming is man made and cooling is natural fluctuations. That is what we call science these days? So why don't all you global warming enthusiast show me your hockey stick graphs again? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/can-climate-campaigns-withstand-a-cooling-test/?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?em&ex=1209787200&en=ddd0094cc411eb2f&ei=5087%0A

Ethanol subsidies in the US are about the Iowa presidential caucus. Since this caucus is so important in picking presidential candidates, these subsidies will never end. No potential presdential candidate will ever suggest or vote for reducing these subsities. All federal politicians hope one day to be president.