🚀 go-pugleaf

Not that I really want to rehash the "Star Wars" debates of the
eighties (and probably seventies and sixties--how many times does this
ferris wheel go around anyway?) but I had to respond when John Pike
<johnpike@fas.org> mistakenly opined: 

>1 - No, 90% is still 90%, regardless of what number it is 90% of.
>
>2 - The way BMDO expresses it, it is x% confidence that y% of
>missiles will be intercepted (your mileage may vary). So as with
>any other probabilistic function, there is some non-trivial risk
>that the system might under-perform, or as with Patriot in DS,
>more or less fail completely (in that the failure mode is not
>merely random but rather the result of a systematic fault, as
>in Patriot's discrimination and lethality problems).

Do you really believe that a system that would be ninety percent
effective against a massive strike wouldn't be even more effective
against a minimal one?  For example, what is ninety percent of one
missile?  It is nonsense to talk about system effectiveness percentages
in the absence of the number of missiles to be defended against.  This
also ignores the confidence level in whatever effectiveness number is
assigned.  Even if it were only theoretically ninety percent effective,
there would still be a good chance that none of a salvo of ten would
get through.  (Of course, there would also be a good chance that one or
more would.)
-- 
***********************************************************************
*     ____     ___       *     simberg@ix.netcom.com                   
*    / __ \   /__ \      *     76667.3247@compuserve.com               
*   / / / |  //  ||      *     (310) 372-7963 (California)             
*  | /_/ /  //  //       *     (307) 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)           
*   \__ /  //_-/___      *     (307) 733-1391 (Fax)                    
*        _//   / __ \    *                                             
*      / //   / / / |    *                                             
*    ||_//   | /__/ /    *    "My opinions *are* those of my employer" 
*     \_/     \____/     *                                             
*      interglobal       *      "Next year in Orbit"                   
*      space lines       *                                             
***********************************************************************