You are confusing "dead" with "the visible system for public and international consumption ran it's course, our black projects are more readily militarized so we'll just put this 747 out here in the desert and no one is the wiser."

Except the Soviets kept their ABM site around Moscow and have upgraded it since 1969.

The US version, Safeguard was only on line for about four months.

The Soviets and now Russian Federation have an advanced, multilayer ABM system around Moscow.

So why are you pointing at the United States as being the bad player in the missile defense game?

I'm no MS fan boy, but you are 100% on about Microsoft Research. When I lived in the Seattle area, a friend of a friend got me on the focus testing list for MS Research and I got to go down to Redmond a few times to talk about the Xbox webpages and live.com.

It's an amazing place with extremely dedicated researchers.

Video is a terrible medium for teaching people about something new.

The written word is much better, but I know, that doesn't justify all the toys like cameras and upgraded storage devices and new networking purchases.

I hate video and audio (podcasts) when they don't add value, so thats why this old timer isn't ever going to give "slashdot video" a click.

When dealing with missile systems, nothing works 100% of the time, nor do they hit a target every time it's fired, to think otherwise is pure fantasy. This isn't Quake or Unreal.

The first thing to remember is that the United States isn't the only country working on these systems. The Russian Federation has a ring in place and is expanding their advanced S-300 and S-400 deployments around cities, India is working on systems with tests scheduled for this year, the Japanese have access to all of the Patriot and Standard R&D and test data and are adopting them too, Israel is working on SRBM and MRBM interception missiles.

Even when dealing with nuclear weapons, no warhead hits the target directly or close enough to destroy it 100% of the time, this is why when dealing with force and counter force calculations, multiple warheads are targeted at a point.

Adding interceptor weapons, something the Russian Federation already has batteries of around Moscow and St Petersburg, to the US arsenal gives the US a chance to intercept a small decapitation strike, or to attrit it enough that it isn't guaranteed to be 100% effective.

For small nuclear arsenals like North Korea or a nuclear Iran, a battery of interceptors could be better than ~70% per interceptor, eliminating a small arsenal's threat value. For medium sized arsenals like France, Great Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel and China, interceptors would make them devote more of their force and counter force warheads into a strike.

The Russian Federation getting so upset by a handful of interceptors either means their current ICBM and SLBMs are very vulnerable to boost and post-boost interception or they only plan on using a handful of missiles in decapitation strikes, which is the only thing US ABMs could deal with in regards to the Russians.

The Barada river area has been settled for at least 11,000, Jericho for at least 11,000, Byblos for at least 9,000.

Yep, that or the hardware to leech off Russia, French, Israeli and Chinese recce satellites is 2 x 1m now.

1. No idea, payload bay is 2.1 × 1.2 m and its launch weight is 5000 kg
2. Hundreds of millions to billions - "Details on the funding level remain within the Air Force's classified budget request"
3. Launch vehicle is an Atlas V (~$13,000 per kg to LEO - $65 million per launch)
4. Yes, supposedly, OTV-1 came back, has not launched again yet, OTV-2 is still up there

http://www.space.com/8239-details-secretive-37b-space-plane-revealed.html

You don't want "surplus army boots" they will be broken into someone else's foot pattern.

From my experience, combat boots break in about the same as Birkenstocks break in.

Sorry, I forgot.

So let me rephrase.

A Alaska Seaplane Services float plane going from Juneau to Angoon could "theoretically fly down to Moscow", so it's interstate commerce.

A Alaska Seaplane Services float plane going from Juneau to Angoon can't "theoretically fly down to Washington", so it's not interstate commerce.

Oh it could if it stopped in X, Y and then Z to get fuel, but thats not a scheduled flight.

If its an airline they have to comply with TSA rules at the current time if they depart from an America airport, doesn't matter if it's flying to Nome or Quebec.

The Coasties will stay in Alaska just because they are adrenaline junkies and like the challenge.

The Marines won't come up here because it's too cold. The cold weather Marines are all in Atlantic Fleet.

The thing you and all the other "Federal Law trumps State Law" posters are missing is that the TSA rules about scanning, being touched, etc are not Federal Laws.

They are rules imposed by a Federal Agency and are not laws which have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The fact that Congressmembers have been talking about passing laws to limit the TSA clearly shows that what the TSA imposes on travelers are not Federal Law.