Missile Defense: For Real?

[SDW2001]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html


I was reading this last night and got to thinking that we really haven't had a good discussion of it in a while.

I think that we can clearly say that we now have or will shortly have a real defense capability...at least for a limited number of incoming missiles.

Is it needed? I have long been a proponent of the system, whether it is fully viable yet or not. In an age where North Korea has ICBMs and Iran in on the way, I think we need to have a system like it. I also don't believe it will set off an arms race. There is not much logic in that. The alternative is to have no defense against a rogue regime launching a missile, or even an old foe like the Russians loosing control of one of their aging launch systems.

Your thoughts...

[hardeeharhar]

Their success rate is pretty low.

[Aurora]

Waste of Billions of dollars but govt is good at wasting our tax dollars.

[Aurora]

Billions of dollars wasted in defense spending, and it doesnt allways work. USA has a big problem with the pentagon and its spending habits.

[Aurora]

Why are my post concerning this subject being deleted? Are we trying to shape what we want to hear or is this a free discussion on a wasteful program that doesnt work??? edit -sorry for the double post but my post were gone just a few minutes ago and now back????:???: Maybe we are being censured.

[Anders]

Please ignore the black helicopters outside the windows.

Its probably a cache issue.

Regarding the subject: I guess you must have enough money to waste. If only we had the same surplus as US has perhaps we would use money on advanced fireworks too.

If you had the hardware and knowledge to produce a bomb what would you do? Fire a missile or import it in a cargo container? The only scenario I can imagine where a rocket born atom bomb would have any advantage would be if you tried to take out the military ability to strike back. And then we are not talking a rough nation or one-two missiles.

[Gene Clean]

Anders, the US has no surplus. We are just sinking deeper and deeper into deficit.

[Anders]

I know. That is part of my point ;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Anders
Please ignore the black helicopters outside the windows.

Its probably a cache issue.

Regarding the subject: I guess you must have enough money to waste. If only we had the same surplus as US has perhaps we would use money on advanced fireworks too.

If you had the hardware and knowledge to produce a bomb what would you do? Fire a missile or import it in a cargo container? The only scenario I can imagine where a rocket born atom bomb would have any advantage would be if you tried to take out the military ability to strike back. And then we are not talking a rough nation or one-two missiles.

First of all, how do you support the assertion that it is "waste"? You certainly don't make much of an argument against a nation like North Korea launching an ICBM like us? (a, cough....r-o-g-u-e nation). Or Iran? Or an accidental launch?

Yes, the Pentagon is a cash wasting whore. But that is not really the issue.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Anders, the US has no surplus. We are just sinking deeper and deeper into deficit.

But that's not true. The deficit is shrinking. Don't confuse the national debt with the deficit.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
But that's not true. The deficit is shrinking. Don't confuse the national debt with the deficit.


:lol:


I'm sure the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-012505budget_lat,0,1493879.story?coll=la-home-headlines) agrees with you.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
:lol:


I'm sure the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-012505budget_lat,0,1493879.story?coll=la-home-headlines) agrees with you.

That doesn't support your claim at all. It's an estimate. I'm talking about the actual numbers, which are the only ones worth a damn anyway.

[SpcMs]

Let's see:

A 'rogue' nation would never launch an atomic bomb cause that would mean total destruction of that nation.

An 'accidental' launch is like almost impossible, an accidental launch that cannot be aborted is like almost way impossible, and both possibilities are much much smaller than for example a nuclear accident on US soil.

In any case, there are far bigger and more realistic threats where the money could've been spend. Or maybe even on something non-military (imagine that!! :wow:)

There is however the possibility that China sees this as a provocation (Bush has repeatedly said he wants to protect Taiwan), so this does have the potential of another arms race.

I say, nice waste of billions in the best case, beginning of the next cold war (world war?) in the worst case. Anyway, it's not pretty :no:

[johnq]

Why bother with missile defense? They won't use missiles.

http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/next_time_can_be_worse.html

Better to spend the money making less enemies.

[Anders]

Originally posted by johnq
Why bother with missile defense? They won't use missiles.

http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/next_time_can_be_worse.html

Better to spend the money making less enemies.

I didn´t like Raskin (RIP) but this comparisment hits the nail straight on:

Just as the Germans easily drove around France’s Maginot line, an impenetrable thicket of defensive bunkers, this small plane would barely be noticed, much less brought down, by anything the Defense Department has in its armamentarium.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think that we can clearly say that we now have or will shortly have a real defense capability...at least for a limited number of incoming missiles. I'm glad the Navy's tests are going better than the Air Force's. IIRC, the last two attempts to test the ground-based intercetor resulted in the interceptor not even launching.

[Aurora]

Its political big business miltary contract B.S. In the end it doesnt even matter if it worked. The pentagon gets its toys, the politician gets his campaign money from defense corporations and the tax payer gets screwed a little more by a govt that answers to who when talking national security ? the common folk have no say and it also starts another arms race with anyone who doesnt like George or us.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html


I was reading this last night and got to thinking that we really haven't had a good discussion of it in a while.

I think that we can clearly say that we now have or will shortly have a real defense capability...at least for a limited number of incoming missiles.

Is it needed? I have long been a proponent of the system, whether it is fully viable yet or not. In an age where North Korea has ICBMs and Iran in on the way, I think we need to have a system like it. I also don't believe it will set off an arms race. There is not much logic in that. The alternative is to have no defense against a rogue regime launching a missile, or even an old foe like the Russians loosing control of one of their aging launch systems.

Your thoughts...


They've been trying to perfect this for years! Every time the experts have concluded it's not enough to protect the entire couintry. This little fantasy brought to you by the original Battlestar Galactica.:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That doesn't support your claim at all. It's an estimate. I'm talking about the actual numbers, which are the only ones worth a damn anyway.


Yes lets only look at the set of numbers that sort of support my argument.:lol:

[THT]

The Aegis system is a theater defense system, good for regional conflicts like the Koreas and Japan. The troublesome child of the NMD program is the ICBM defense program where it tries to stop intercontinental ballistic missiles. Everyone sees the theater defense as ok and required, but the ICBM defense is problematic. R&D is fine. Deploying a system when it isn't required is wasteful. I don't think it is required.

As with other big ticket military programs, we are trying to develop weapon systems against an imaginary foe, the defunct USSR. Maybe if the USA and the European Union become mortal enemies, there will be a need for such programs, but in today's world, what's really needed are urban warfare development programs.

[e1618978]

The reason that we need this, is so that we can invade North Korea. If we invade, the North Koreans might launch an ICBM attack on the US - but I don't think that they will have enough time to smuggle a nuclear weapon in a cargo container (unless they do it ahead of time, and store it somewhere).

If we have both missle defense for the US and artillery defense for SK, then invade-o-rama.

[Anders]

That would be a sick line of thought.

What about missiles against SK? What about Japan? From a pure threat angle NK has a lot of options if they wanted to hit US.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Anders
That would be a sick line of thought.

What about missiles against SK? What about Japan? From a pure threat angle NK has a lot of options if they wanted to hit US.

That is why we need both long range and short range missle defense. Japan is already talking about their missle defense program.

[johnq]

Originally posted by THT
Maybe if the USA and the European Union become mortal enemies, there will be a need for such programs, but in today's world, what's really needed are urban warfare development programs.

FYI, the original Buck Rogers novel had the U.S. and a kind of E.U. battle it out to the point where they both severely weakened each other at which time China swept over and dominated what was left.

Racist caricatures of the 1928 book aside, I don't think that's too far fetched.

[Gilsch]

It's amazing how uninformed the wingnuts in this thread are. The deficit is NOT shrinking. Deal with it.

The missile defense system does not work and will never work. The Russians are laughing their asses off because they are ALREADY TESTING missiles that would have no problem piercing our missile defense systems(anti-missile missiles like the SS27). If they worked that is.

Of course we know for a fact that Russia would never sell those right? :rolleyes:

[dmz]

someone needs to invent a suitcase nuke defense shield

[THT]

Originally posted by e1618978
The reason that we need this, is so that we can invade North Korea. If we invade, the North Koreans might launch an ICBM attack on the US - but I don't think that they will have enough time to smuggle a nuclear weapon in a cargo container (unless they do it ahead of time, and store it somewhere).

If we have both missle defense for the US and artillery defense for SK, then invade-o-rama.

We don't need to invade North Korea, just like we didn't need to invade Iraq. I've said it before, democracy by ["preventive"] military force is nothing but tyranny. Let them be. Give them humanitarian and economic aid if they ask, at a certain price, otherwise, I would leave them alone if they wished it.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by THT
We don't need to invade North Korea, just like we didn't need to invade Iraq. I've said it before, democracy by ["preventive"] military force is nothing but tyranny. Let them be. Give them humanitarian and economic aid if they ask, at a certain price, otherwise, I would leave them alone if they wished it.

Being left alone would have been easy for them - just don't build any nuclear weapons. They decided to play high stakes poker, and we will kill them for it, eventually.

[THT]

Originally posted by johnq
FYI, the original Buck Rogers novel had the U.S. and a kind of E.U. battle it out to the point where they both severely weakened each other at which time China swept over and dominated what was left.

Racist caricatures of the 1928 book aside, I don't think that's too far fetched.

Don't know about an actual war with guns and bombs, but the economic battle is already engaged. I don't think the administration even realizes it. Or rather, they would rather protect the conservative vote by chopping American R&D institutions at the knees instead of protecting the long term health of the nation as a whole.

The East and South Asians are definitely rising. The EU seems to get it and are competing. American R&D institutions are only getting older. I see that in the Aerospace industry at least.

[THT]

Originally posted by e1618978
Being left alone would have been easy for them - just don't build any nuclear weapons. They decided to play high stakes poker, and we will kill them for it, eventually.

Let them have nukes. I'm quite sure that we, and by extension, South Korea and Japan, will win the arms race. Technology development lies on the shoulders of a strong economy. If North Korea doesn't have an economy, they don't have a chance and will eventually collapse.

[sammi jo]

Why would a 'rogue regime' develop an ICBM system at huge expense when its cheap (and probably far more reliable) to pack a nuke into a cargo container (lined with several inches of lead to avoid satellite detection), and sail it into a port? Or load one on a yacht, land it in Mexico and then into a semi truck and take it across the border. (In the interest of 'free trade', recent NAFTA rulings now allow trucks to cross the US Mexican border virtually without inspection).

[e1618978]

Why would a 'rogue regime' develop an ICBM system at huge expense

Why don't you ask the Kim Jong Il? He already test fired one at Alaska.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/Niksch020599.html

[Towel]

Originally posted by e1618978
... and artillery defense for SK, then invade-o-rama. Artillery defense? This would be what, a magical energy shield extending dozens of miles in every direction that can instantaneously stop several thousand artillery shells and rockets volleyed simultaneously across the border? And instantaneously stop the next several thousand fired 30 seconds later? And the next several thousand fired 30 seconds after that?

There is no way for us, much less the SK's, to destroy even a minor fraction of NK's hardened, dispersed, dug-in artillery tubes before they pulverize Seoul and cause hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Even the US military realizes that. For this reason, there...will...be...no...invasion of North Korea. There is no conceivable scenario right now, and none likely in the next few years, that could possibly make the certain consequences of an invasion less disastrous than the potential danger such an invasion would be intended to pre-empt.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Towel
Artillery defense? This would be what, a magical energy shield extending dozens of miles in every direction that can instantaneously stop several thousand artillery shells and rockets volleyed simultaneously across the border? And instantaneously stop the next several thousand fired 30 seconds later? And the next several thousand fired 30 seconds after that?

There is no way for us, much less the SK's, to destroy even a minor fraction of NK's hardened, dispersed, dug-in artillery tubes before they pulverize Seoul and cause hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Even the US military realizes that. For this reason, there...will...be...no...invasion of North Korea. There is no conceivable scenario right now, and none likely in the next few years, that could possibly make the certain consequences of an invasion less disastrous than the potential danger such an invasion would be intended to pre-empt.

Those are technical problems only, suitable technolgical solutions will appear eventually - it is only a matter of time.

Computer guided laser defence springs to mind, or rail gun bombardment from orbit of all the land in NK that is within range of Soeul.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
They've been trying to perfect this for years! Every time the experts have concluded it's not enough to protect the entire couintry. This little fantasy brought to you by the original Battlestar Galactica.:lol:

Excellent post, jimmac. You know, there's another thing they tried for years too: The Airplane

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yes lets only look at the set of numbers that sort of support my argument.:lol:

Oh, you mean the ones that are FACTS, rather than estimates? But wait, you wouldn't be interested in that....

Gilsch:

It's amazing how uninformed the wingnuts in this thread are. The deficit is NOT shrinking. Deal with it. The missile defense system does not work and will never work. The Russians are laughing their asses off because they are ALREADY TESTING missiles that would have no problem piercing our missile defense systems(anti-missile missiles like the SS27). If they worked that is.

Of course we know for a fact that Russia would never sell those right?

According to the actual numbers, the deficit is not running itself up at the rate we thought for this year. But that is besides the point...

How do you know missile defense will "never" work? And how can you make a rational argument against a system that could potenially shoot down ICBMs. Even if it takes 20 more years, how can you argue against the capability?

That side of the argument was lost in the 1980's. Not developing something because you hope the other guy won't develop something to counter it is a fundamentally flawed logic.

THT:

We don't need to invade North Korea, just like we didn't need to invade Iraq. I've said it before, democracy by ["preventive"] military force is nothing but tyranny. Let them be. Give them humanitarian and economic aid if they ask, at a certain price, otherwise, I would leave them alone if they wished it.

Not that I'm advocating attacking North Korea, but where do you think that aid will end up? Sounds like the definition of insanity to me.

[curiousuburb]

NK has probably learned from the Korean War and every significant conflict since that it cannot withstand massive aerial bombardment. They have probably continued with tunnels (much of the DMZ is undercut by tunnels) and figure they can wait out the iron rain safe in bunkers deep below the mountains.

Any shortsighted 'we can hit what we can see' thinking completely misses their history of munitions bunkers, sappers and hollow mountains allegedly full of artillery tubes zeroed on Seoul.

I'd wager only 40% of their military is actually accounted for above surface, but if you're intent on preserving Seoul unscathed, you'd better get all the stuff, not just a percentage.

Missile defense is largely a fantasy, since for every 'kill technology' that costs Billions, there are a dozen or so cheap spoofing methods that are available to those with much lower technological skill.

Case in point:
pricey interceptor rockets trained to kill the warhead with radar lock.
Low-tech fix:
release dozens of $20 Mylar balloons with the warhead... the radar operated rocket suddenly has a one in 24 chance of doing it's multi-Million dollar job
if the rocket uses some kind of Geiger counter lock-on, dose the balloons.

The threat from a container full of dirty bomb stuff entering the *cough* still unprotected ports *cough* is much higher, but no defense contractors can profit from solving it without people actually witnessing success or failure.

Several of the "successful" missile interceptor tests have run under conditions where a range safety officer has pyros aboard both target and interceptor, so it's pretty easy to push the destruct button and claim you hit the target when you control the camera views.

Remember the alleged success rate of the Patriot missiles in Gulf War I?
The military claimed an absurdly high ratio of between 50 and 80% success?
After the War, according to Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/patriot.html), the real figure was released...
less than 9% success, and most of that anecdotal and not supported by actual evidence.

Expensive and easy to spoof systems don't sound like smart investments in safety.
They might make nice bedtime stories to soothe manufactured anxiety in the same way "Duck & Cover" whitewashed the real odds of cold war era nuclear survival, but from a purely scientific standpoint, Missile Defense is ridiculously optimistic and probably a false sense of security at worst.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Excellent post, jimmac. You know, there's another thing they tried for years too: The Airplane


I'll bet they didn't spend billions on it. :lol:

Honestly most of the experts say with our level of technology it can't work. Plus the whole idea of MAD is what keeps us from using said weapons in the first place. The best defense is in realizing no one can win a war like that.

[THT]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Not that I'm advocating attacking North Korea, but where do you think that aid will end up? Sounds like the definition of insanity to me.

The price of accepting humanitarian and economic aid from the USA is that said aid is delivered directly to the people by non-gov't forces.

What? You think I was just suggesting giving the aid to a bunch of corrupted fat cats on both sides? That's the normal way of doing business, yes, but like a lot of things, it shouldn't be and doesn't have to be.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
According to the actual numbers, the deficit is not running itself up at the rate we thought for this year. But that is besides the point... lol First you claimed the deficit was "shrinking". After someone pointed out how clueless your statement was...Now you're saying it is "not running itself up". Careful you don't trip with all tht backtracking. How do you know missile defense will "never" work? And how can you make a rational argument against a system that could potenially shoot down ICBMs. Even if it takes 20 more years, how can you argue against the capability? I don't know if missile defense will ever work and neither do you. What I do know, which obviously you had no clue about, is that the Russians are already testing anti-missile missiles which will render any missile defense system (that worked) obsolete. I even gave you the name of the bloody missile. Did you miss that part or are you arguing from ignorance on purpose? That side of the argument was lost in the 1980's. Not developing something because you hope the other guy won't develop something to counter it is a fundamentally flawed logic.I don't know how to dumb down this argument so that you can understand it. Here, one more time: the Russians are already testing missiles that will render the current anti-missile defense system- you know, the one we want to spend billions if not trillions of $ on and doesn't work- obsolete. The system doesn't work against test missiles TODAY. And even if they finally got it to shoot down a conventional ICBM TODAY, the Russians already testing one that it won't work against. :lol: You are so 1950's. Not that I'm advocating attacking North Korea, but where do you think that aid will end up? Sounds like the definition of insanity to me. You wingnuts would love us to attack NK. So long as someone else, and not YOU go and do the fighting.