Trump's border wall prototypes pass tests by military special forces
- Thread starter Catholic Crusader
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What's it like, "Patrick jane," when your own candidate refers to you as belonging to "the dumbest group of voters in the country" - his words, not mine!
The irony sure does seem to be lost on here...
Hey guys...
lain:
:think: Where is Trump's name? The whole reason for the wall is because it makes him feel relevant when he can brand things with his name.
As I said, it's not just that it won't work; it's also that illegal immigration from India and China is great than illegal immigration from Latin America.
As Rusha said, it's just a boost for Trump's huge and delicate ego.
As Rusha said, it's just a boost for Trump's huge and delicate ego.
What's it like, "Patrick jane," when your own candidate refers to you as belonging to "the dumbest group of voters in the country" - his words, not mine!
That meme is horse crap, never happened;
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/bogus-meme-targets-trump/
The advantage with people who come and overstay their visit is they came thru customs so we know they aren't prohibited or wanted criminals in their own country at the time.
People who sneak across the border can be wanted in their own country, prohibited because they've been thrown out before, or smuggling.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You're quite right. I was curious about it as even though it certainly sounds as something Trump could have said it seemed a bit too trite, even for him. It's fake and I should have checked sooner, rather than presuming it was legit.
You are forgiven, go forth and meme with a pure heart.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
They voted "no" on Trump's unworkable health care plan.
Despite Trump’s attempts to kill it, Obamacare is still pretty popular
More than half of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to a Gallup poll out Tuesday, marking the first time the law has gained majority support since Gallup began tracking public opinion on it in 2012.
Fifty-five percent of Americans say that former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law should remain in place
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/327267-poll-obamacare-has-majority-support-for-first-time
They voted against his tax-the-middle-class bill.
Gallup assessed attitudes toward the tax bill in early December and found disapproval outweighing approval by almost 2 to 1: 56% vs. 29%. A month later, after Congress passed the bill and President Donald Trump signed it into law on Dec. 22, a new Gallup survey finds little substantive change. Approval has edged up four percentage points to 33% as the percentage with no opinion dropped by a similar amount, but these changes are not statistically significant.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/225137/americans-remain-negative-tax-bill-passage.aspx
They voted against his successful attempt to make it easier for crazy people to buy guns.
But while that gap has widened, the Pew survey did reveal some areas of consensus:
89 percent of Americans want to restrict people with mental illnesses from buying guns.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533792054/americans-agree-on-some-gun-restrictions-pew-survey-finds
He did his best, cutting ads for the exchanges by 90%, and greatly restricting the sign-up period. Result? Down 3%. And yes, he had a tantrum.
Oh, yes, the wall... democrats voted against that, too.
Most Americans Oppose President Trump's Border Wall
President Donald Trump‘s proposed border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is more unpopular than ever — with double the number of Americans opposing its construction than those who want it built, according to a new poll.
A recent Quinnipiac poll, which surveyed 1,062 Americans between April 12 and 18, shows 64% of American voters oppose building the wall, while 33% support it. About 3% of voters said they weren’t sure how the wall made them feel.
http://time.com/4752746/americans-oppose-donald-trump-border-wall/
And DACA:
Nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) favor allowing young immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children to remain in the U.S. – a policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This is a view that spans partisan lines.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-support-daca-but-oppose-border-wall-cbs-news-poll/
His own party won't go along with it. So it's probably not a good idea to try to hold them hostage to get his wall; his own people don't have his back on that.
I suppose "Trump University" probably seemed like a good idea at the time, too.
You do realize Trump never said that, right?
Tattooed on all you guys' brains apparently. He lives rent free in the Left's heads
With 62 billion a year in healthcare/ welfare fraud this will more than pay for itself
So one long wooden ladder, and a rope ladder with hooks on top defeats the wall in less than one minute.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is the fact that most illegal aliens aren't even coming in from the southern border.
The Chinese and Indians must be laughing their heads off at us.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is the fact that most illegal aliens aren't even coming in from the southern border.
The Chinese and Indians must be laughing their heads off at us.
This isn't the first hare-brained defense idea to come along, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
SDI, better known as "star wars", consumed billions of dollars funneled into defense contractors before someone actually admitted that it wasn't going to work, and if it did,would have led to a huge offensive arms race with the Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
SDI, better known as "star wars", consumed billions of dollars funneled into defense contractors before someone actually admitted that it wasn't going to work, and if it did,would have led to a huge offensive arms race with the Soviet Union.
Turns out, even with today's technology, at best, we can build a 50% effective defense against ballistic missiles. You've been misled about the issue:
Some in Congress are pushing for construction of a third GMD site on the East Coast. That is not a priority for the Pentagon, as GMD interceptors based in Alaska have the range to provide some defense against an Iranian ICBM. It would be more prudent to put more funding towards getting the existing interceptors to perform more effectively. Interceptors that work at two sites would provide a better defense than interceptors that do not work at three sites.
Second, the threat of a limited ballistic missile attack against the United States has developed more slowly than anticipated. The 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States warned that, within five years of a decision to do so, North Korea and Iran could acquire an ICBM capable of striking the United States. Seventeen years later, Iran has tested a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, and North Korea has tested a missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers—both well short of what would be needed to reach America.
Third, defending the United States against a major Russian or Chinese ballistic missile attack is currently not feasible. A reliable and affordable defense that could protect America against a Russian ICBM and SLBM force that could launch some 1,500 ballistic missile warheads simply does not exist. While the Chinese force is much smaller, numbering several dozen ICBMs, it probably includes countermeasures that would seriously complicate disruption by missile defense systems.
Fourth, for the foreseeable future, offense wins the offense-defense relationship. Offensive ballistic missile technology is far more mature than that of missile defense, and cost considerations favor the offense. Adding fourteen more GMD interceptors by 2017 will require the Pentagon to spend about $1 billion. The Russians and Chinese can each add fourteen more warheads to their strategic offensive forces at considerably less cost. One reason that the Russians are building a replacement for their heavy SS-18 ICBM is to have a missile that can carry ten-fifteen warheads as a means of overwhelming a future American missile defense.
It is important to remember that the other side may not sit passively as the U.S. military develops missile defenses. Other nuclear powers may choose to build up their strategic offensive forces in response, increasing the number of nuclear weapons targeted at the United States (China, in particular, comes to mind). Indeed, it was concern that the ABM systems of the 1960s would spark an uncontrollable strategic offensive arms race that led to negotiation of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
None of this is to say that a future technological breakthrough might not produce a change in the offense-defense equation. Some new technology could be developed that would make defense against ballistic missiles far more lethal, cost-effective and attractive, tilting the equation to favor defense instead of offense. But that breakthrough does not appear to be on the horizon, at least not for the next fifteen-twenty years. And a key lesson of the past thirty-two years is that technology in the missile defense area often does not deliver on its potential—at least not as rapidly, or as inexpensively, as originally thought.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-limits-of-u-s-missile-defense/
Missile defense, hitting a bullet with a bullet, is a very challenging task that is difficult to master, especially without a real combat scenario to test effectiveness. “People think missile defenses are a magic wand. They aren’t,” Jeffrey Lewis, a renowned arms expert, told TheDCNF. The U.S. missile shield has a test success rate of 55 percent, with eight failures out of 18 interceptor tests.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...defenses-really-beat-icbms-fired-russia-20973
Some in Congress are pushing for construction of a third GMD site on the East Coast. That is not a priority for the Pentagon, as GMD interceptors based in Alaska have the range to provide some defense against an Iranian ICBM. It would be more prudent to put more funding towards getting the existing interceptors to perform more effectively. Interceptors that work at two sites would provide a better defense than interceptors that do not work at three sites.
Second, the threat of a limited ballistic missile attack against the United States has developed more slowly than anticipated. The 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States warned that, within five years of a decision to do so, North Korea and Iran could acquire an ICBM capable of striking the United States. Seventeen years later, Iran has tested a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, and North Korea has tested a missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers—both well short of what would be needed to reach America.
Third, defending the United States against a major Russian or Chinese ballistic missile attack is currently not feasible. A reliable and affordable defense that could protect America against a Russian ICBM and SLBM force that could launch some 1,500 ballistic missile warheads simply does not exist. While the Chinese force is much smaller, numbering several dozen ICBMs, it probably includes countermeasures that would seriously complicate disruption by missile defense systems.
Fourth, for the foreseeable future, offense wins the offense-defense relationship. Offensive ballistic missile technology is far more mature than that of missile defense, and cost considerations favor the offense. Adding fourteen more GMD interceptors by 2017 will require the Pentagon to spend about $1 billion. The Russians and Chinese can each add fourteen more warheads to their strategic offensive forces at considerably less cost. One reason that the Russians are building a replacement for their heavy SS-18 ICBM is to have a missile that can carry ten-fifteen warheads as a means of overwhelming a future American missile defense.
It is important to remember that the other side may not sit passively as the U.S. military develops missile defenses. Other nuclear powers may choose to build up their strategic offensive forces in response, increasing the number of nuclear weapons targeted at the United States (China, in particular, comes to mind). Indeed, it was concern that the ABM systems of the 1960s would spark an uncontrollable strategic offensive arms race that led to negotiation of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
None of this is to say that a future technological breakthrough might not produce a change in the offense-defense equation. Some new technology could be developed that would make defense against ballistic missiles far more lethal, cost-effective and attractive, tilting the equation to favor defense instead of offense. But that breakthrough does not appear to be on the horizon, at least not for the next fifteen-twenty years. And a key lesson of the past thirty-two years is that technology in the missile defense area often does not deliver on its potential—at least not as rapidly, or as inexpensively, as originally thought.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-limits-of-u-s-missile-defense/
Missile defense, hitting a bullet with a bullet, is a very challenging task that is difficult to master, especially without a real combat scenario to test effectiveness. “People think missile defenses are a magic wand. They aren’t,” Jeffrey Lewis, a renowned arms expert, told TheDCNF. The U.S. missile shield has a test success rate of 55 percent, with eight failures out of 18 interceptor tests.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...defenses-really-beat-icbms-fired-russia-20973
Yes we are. I hope you return soon