Anti-nuke missile defense shield = new MAD policy?

[JEDI]

USA has been experimenting w/their star wars missle defense shield.

Now europe wants one as well.

this has been fueled by the failure to keep iran + north korea's nuke program in check.

MAD = mutaully assured destruction

if the shields are perfected, missile nukes are now obsolete.

russia is probably going to start a shield program as well.

now is an arms race to defend against missle nukes.

 

[Uhtrinity]

It has never worked. Twenty plus years and how many billions spent?

 

[fskimospy]

Anti missile shields are actually next to useless against any significant attack. Maybe many many years from now this would be different, but right now they can barely get one of our interceptors to hit an incoming missile when they know when, where, and how it's coming.

Anti-missile shields are extremely easily overwhelmed, that's the biggest problem. Against countries like North Korea that only have a handful of nukes, and maybe a few more missiles... it might (MIGHT) work. Against another superpower... or even significant power. Say they launch 50 nukes at you, and maybe 300 other dummy missiles. (or in the case of ourselves and Russia, maybe 2,000 nukes and 10,000 dummy missiles). The system simply won't be able to handle it.

Either way, there will be no ABM missile shield arms race for a long time. They are way too expensive, and way too ineffective for countries to consider building for quite awhile.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
It has never worked. Twenty plus years and how many billions spent?

That's what I thought. Scientific American ran an article of how current technology can not accurately intercept and destroy a missile. There are too many ways to foil it. If we use small missiles to intercept ICBM's, they'd have to be able to figure out how to avoid standard countermeasures such as chaff and flares. It would also likely require humans to be watching the skies all the time. I wouldn't trust today's technology to have 100% accuracy in telling the difference between an airplane and a missile.

 

[piasabird]

It took us a while to figure out how to land on the moon also. However, if we had your attitude we would have just said, "We can't do it, let's give up!"

 

[homercles337]

Years ago TechReview covered this too. This was back when the military was making some "interesting" claims about success rates. Independent analysis, expert opinions, and a source from inside confirmed that it was all BS. They got close to intercepting ONE missle that (like eskimospy pointed out) they knew everything about. So for them it was all in how you define success. Close == success?

 

[Jaskalas]

I?m reminded of an Israeli ground based laser defense system. Not yet deployed for use, but in practice nothing in the sky survived, including normal artillery shells.

I can?t fathom all the fools not wanting us to develop such defenses, simply based on the idea that they?re not perfect while in development. Suppose it gets in the way of your surrendering if we have fewer reasons to do so.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I?m reminded of an Israeli ground based laser defense system. Not yet deployed for use, but in practice nothing in the sky survived, including normal artillery shells.

I can?t fathom all the fools not wanting us to develop such defenses, simply based on the idea that they?re not perfect while in development. Suppose it gets in the way of your surrendering if we have fewer reasons to do so.

Just because I don't like systems based on missiles doesn't mean I don't see potential in others. The Laser idea makes more sense than 20 years ago now that we have better technology.

Second, try not painting just broad negative opinions of others just because we might not agree with you on a few things.

 

[f95toli]

The problem with lasers is that their range is very short (diffraction due to the air) meaning you have to be quite close to the missile (as far as I remember the range is something like 100 km). The next problem is that powerfull lasers use a LOT of energy and are very big. Currently a 747 is used to carry a single laser but it can only shot a few times (it is a chemical laser so is litterarly needs to be re-fueled).
You would need hundreds of aircraft airborne at all time patrolling the pacific to create an shield that would protect the US from an attack from NK.
Also, it would not protect you from the most likely delivery system of a single nuke: A small ship (e.g. a small trading vessel) sailing into the harbor of a major city.

Also, lasers have been around for a long time and the technology is quite mature, i.e. it is unlikely that someone will be able develop a much more efficient laser regardless of the amount of money you spend on R&D.

 

[techs]

Any country that tried to send over a missile would be committing suicide.
The real threat is from a nuke in a cargo ship.
When are we going to protect adequately against that?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Anti missile shields are actually next to useless against any significant attack. Maybe many many years from now this would be different, but right now they can barely get one of our interceptors to hit an incoming missile when they know when, where, and how it's coming.

Anti-missile shields are extremely easily overwhelmed, that's the biggest problem. Against countries like North Korea that only have a handful of nukes, and maybe a few more missiles... it might (MIGHT) work. Against another superpower... or even significant power. Say they launch 50 nukes at you, and maybe 300 other dummy missiles. (or in the case of ourselves and Russia, maybe 2,000 nukes and 10,000 dummy missiles). The system simply won't be able to handle it.

Either way, there will be no ABM missile shield arms race for a long time. They are way too expensive, and way too ineffective for countries to consider building for quite awhile.

That's a good summary imo. The current U.S. project is pretty limited in scope, and very very expensive.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Brilliant Pebbles

The smartest, most cost-efficient approach in Space Based Missle Defense.

Period.

 

[Lemon law]

Correct me if I am wrong but the idea of developing an anti-missle defense is outlawed by treaty.
Which the US signed and now is trying to get out of.

But the argument against is simply the fact that an opposing side would just be encouraged to deploy more missles to compensate for those that are intercepted--fueling yet another arms race when the idea is to reduce the number of nukes.

The other argument against is that it may be a psycholical crutch that permits the policies of one nation to become so outragious that it almost invites nuclear retaliation---which will then becomes scant protection to the civilian population when they discover their shield did not preform very well
as hoped.

But the horrible threat of mutual assured distruction has kept foreign policy rational among
larger nuclear powers---And it becomes very scary to contemplate a world where one side would strike first with such power that the other nation(s) would be unable to retaliate--with the new worry that as smaller players join the club---sooner or later another nuke will be set off in anger by some nut.---which fails to even consider what a nut GWB is.

But the other myth is that such a nuke will be delivered via ICBM---when a smaller player will likely use porous borders to smuggle the nuke in.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I?m reminded of an Israeli ground based laser defense system. Not yet deployed for use, but in practice nothing in the sky survived, including normal artillery shells.

I can?t fathom all the fools not wanting us to develop such defenses, simply based on the idea that they?re not perfect while in development. Suppose it gets in the way of your surrendering if we have fewer reasons to do so.

Last I heard that tactical laser was not being pursued by both the Israelis or the US (Raytheon was the builder IIRC). The reason was the incredible amount of fuel that needed to be deployed along with the laser itself.

The Israelis are now focusing on small interceptor missiles with the capability of intercepting Katyusha type rockets as well as motor rounds.

The Israelis already have deployed the second generation of their anti-theater-missile called the Arrow 2. The Arrow 1 entered service in 1998. The Arrow 3 is on the drawing board. These are designed to down missiles such as the types Iran has using high accuracy coupled with a HE warhead.

Liberals seem to be in a time warp on this issue. Theatre missile defense systems are being deployed (Arrow 1/2, PAC-3, even the S-300V) or being developed with success (THAAD, Standard). It is only a matter of time before ICBM defense systems are improved upon to the point where they can negate the missile arsenals of countries like N. Korea, future Iran (maybe), even potentially China.

 

[fskimospy]

We've actually pulled out of the ABM treaty. Pretty sweet huh?

Techs mentioned earlier the biggest reason why our current system is a bad idea. It's not protecting us from the real threat. Why would a rogue nation (which is what our leaders claim is the threat this missile shield protects us from) launch a missile at us? We would instantly know who did it, and that country would be leveled in a matter of hours.

If you're really excited about nuking the US... why not sneak it in on a ship, or on a truck through canada... or pretty much any other way that isn't going to have a "made in North Korea" sticker stamped on it? We would probably find out anyway, but some chance is better then no chance (from their perspective).

Captnkirk, that article on the "Brilliant Pebbles" is more then 15 years old... and that article is from the Heritage Foundation. (not exactly a reputable source). I don't know much about these pebbles, but with the fact that Dick Cheney was promoting them so heavily back then, and they were not tried this time around (when 'ol Dick is considerably more powerful) says to me that there is something wrong with them. If you have any more info I would be interested to see it though.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I?m reminded of an Israeli ground based laser defense system. Not yet deployed for use, but in practice nothing in the sky survived, including normal artillery shells.

I can?t fathom all the fools not wanting us to develop such defenses, simply based on the idea that they?re not perfect while in development. Suppose it gets in the way of your surrendering if we have fewer reasons to do so.

Detonate a nuke out of laser range but close enough to have it hit the area with an EMP... follow up with actual missile attack. You just negated the laser.

Far as I know we don't have the ability to power lasers powerful enough to destroy massive objects that are still in space. Let alone with any real accuracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Termagant, the problem with ABM defenses isn't that they are impossible. I have no doubt that with enough research we will be able to effectively intercept an incoming ICBM.
It is that they:
A.) don't protect against the real threat.
B.) are easily overwhelmed.
C.) are hideously expensive.

Conservatives seem to always be awed by the technological superiority of our country, and seem to think that with enough technology and enough spending we can overcome any problem. This is being proven wrong every day in Iraq and in Israel where two of the most technologically advanced and powerful military forces the world has ever seen are being humbled by a bunch of random jackasses with some homemade bombs.

It is vital that we understand the nature of the treat, and use our resources in order to combat it most effectively. Simply put, a missile flying from north korea is low... low... low on the list of security risks to the US.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It took us a while to figure out how to land on the moon also. However, if we had your attitude we would have just said, "We can't do it, let's give up!"

And if we had started our trip to the moon 10 years sooner then we did we wouldn't get to the moon a day sooner. There is a good time to expend resources on a project and a bad time. Now is a bad time to try and make a missle shield because the cost of one intercepter is much greater than the cost of one enemy missle.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
We've actually pulled out of the ABM treaty. Pretty sweet huh?

Techs mentioned earlier the biggest reason why our current system is a bad idea. It's not protecting us from the real threat. Why would a rogue nation (which is what our leaders claim is the threat this missile shield protects us from) launch a missile at us? We would instantly know who did it, and that country would be leveled in a matter of hours.

If you're really excited about nuking the US... why not sneak it in on a ship, or on a truck through canada... or pretty much any other way that isn't going to have a "made in North Korea" sticker stamped on it? We would probably find out anyway, but some chance is better then no chance (from their perspective).

Captnkirk, that article on the "Brilliant Pebbles" is more then 15 years old... and that article is from the Heritage Foundation. (not exactly a reputable source). I don't know much about these pebbles, but with the fact that Dick Cheney was promoting them so heavily back then, and they were not tried this time around (when 'ol Dick is considerably more powerful) says to me that there is something wrong with them. If you have any more info I would be interested to see it though.

It was figured out and was capable of functionality way back then, and technological improvements make it an even better option now.
I was 'kinda-sorta' remotely involved in the aspect of the concept, and am still, 'kinda-sorta' involved in the technology today,
and, yes - it's vastly improved . . and even more viable with some evolved techonogical improvements and enhancements.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Termagant, the problem with ABM defenses isn't that they are impossible. I have no doubt that with enough research we will be able to effectively intercept an incoming ICBM.
It is that they:
A.) don't protect against the real threat.
B.) are easily overwhelmed.
C.) are hideously expensive.

Conservatives seem to always be awed by the technological superiority of our country, and seem to think that with enough technology and enough spending we can overcome any problem. This is being proven wrong every day in Iraq and in Israel where two of the most technologically advanced and powerful military forces the world has ever seen are being humbled by a bunch of random jackasses with some homemade bombs.

It is vital that we understand the nature of the treat, and use our resources in order to combat it most effectively. Simply put, a missile flying from north korea is low... low... low on the list of security risks to the US.

For some reason the cost of ABM systems constantly comes up.... how many other weapons systems are hideously expensive yet don't address "the current threat." The US has remained militarily superior by building weapons to deal with the full range of threats. Just because someone could bring a nuke into the US by boat doesn't mean we should ignore capabilities to protect against other emerging threats.

I'll respond to your "conservatives are dazzled by technology" line by saying that it appears that liberals have latched onto the ABM issue as a weapon system they have a possibility of canceling because of technical problems which have plagued its development, especially in the past. When the reality is that a lot of those problems have been overcome, the nature of the system has been changed (to defend against small scale/accidental attacks rather than the USSR), and there are more expensive weapon systems out there of equally dubious immediate military utility.

The desire to cancel ABM systems is not rooted in capability or budget but rather in ideology and liberals' overall desire to curtail US military power.... and ABM presents itself as one program which they have the possibility of succeeding in.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I do agree that US military power should be massively scaled back... like to about 20% of its current level.

Regardless though, I think you may have missed my point. The threat of a missile from a rogue state is already so incredibly low due to our other methods of deterrance (ie. massive retaliation) that it is a waste of money. If you want to keep that money in your military budget.. you're still better off spending it on means by which to better detect the radiation signatures of weapons smuggled in other ways.

Secondly, mentioning that there are other even more expensive, even less useful weapons platforms out there doesn't really bolster your argument.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Termagant

I'll respond to your "conservatives are dazzled by technology" line by saying that it appears that liberals have latched onto the ABM issue as a weapon system they have a possibility of canceling because of technical problems which have plagued its development, especially in the past.

I think you are missing the point which is that this is as far as we know this is a technological problem which does not have a solution, not because of lack of funding for R&D but because what is essentially basic physics. All known approaches have serios problems which have no known solutions (in the case of laser the limited range, projectile weapons are too slow etc). This has nothing to do with politics.

Now, if the aim was still to produce a space based "shield" that could e.g. shot down 30% of all incoming ICBMs in a full scale conflict between USA and USSR it might be possible (and 30% would have been pretty impressive and maybe even worth the money). But a single missile, launched without warning, is almost impossible to stop unless you are extremely lucky (e.g. a 747 with a laser just happens to be less than 100 km from the launch-site when the missile is launched ).
Several reports (available online, check the Scientific American website for links) from various commites, experts and organizations have all come to this conclusion.

 

[Jhhnn]

For proponents of ABM development, the whole deal is near perfect- they can create an imaginary defense against an imaginary threat, make a lot of money and get a lot of political mileage at the same time...

And, of course, any unlikely success will necessitate the beefing up of existing nuclear stockpiles to maintain an effective deterrent by nations who don't have an ABM shield...

The massive overkill potential on both sides at the height of the cold war makes this seemingly sensible statement into pure gibberish-

"Now, if the aim was still to produce a space based "shield" that could e.g. shot down 30% of all incoming ICMB in a full scale conflict between USA and USSR it might have been possible (and 30% would have been pretty impressive and maybe even worth the money)."

Instead of putting 10K weapon on target, there'd only be 7K... whoop-ti-freaking-do.... total annihilation exists at a much lower threshold than that...

 

[piasabird]

I doubt if we could defend a real all-out attack on the USA. Scaling back to 20% would be stupid. If we did that Canada could take us out.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Termagant

I'll respond to your "conservatives are dazzled by technology" line by saying that it appears that liberals have latched onto the ABM issue as a weapon system they have a possibility of canceling because of technical problems which have plagued its development, especially in the past.

I think you are missing the point which is that this is as far as we know this is a technological problem which does not have a solution, not because of lack of funding for R&D but because what is essentially basic physics. All known approaches have serios problems which have no known solutions (in the case of laser the limited range, projectile weapons are too slow etc). This has nothing to do with politics.

Now, if the aim was still to produce a space based "shield" that could e.g. shot down 30% of all incoming ICMB in a full scale conflict between USA and USSR it might have been possible (and 30% would have been pretty impressive and maybe even worth the money). But a single missile, launched without warning, is almost impossible to stop unless you are extremely lucky (e.g. a 747 with a laser just happens to be less than 100 km from the launch-site when the missile is launched ).
Several reports (available online, check the Scientific American website for links) from various commites, experts and organizations have all come to this conclusion.

Wrong.... with a strong enough network of sensors there is no physical hindrance to intercepting a single missile or several missiles with a missile interceptor. Airborne lasers are not billed by anyone to be used against ICBMs. Rather the goal of the 747 airborne laser is to provide theatre or battlefield protection against intermediate and shorter range missiles.... think N.Korea firing on Japan, or Iran firing at Israel. A fleet of several 747 lasers is envisioned to be sufficient to provide full coverage in a scenario like that.

And needless to say, a source like Scientific American has an agenda on a subject like this. I love how earlier claims about how missile defense was "impossible" by academic world physicists have already been proven wrong by physicists and engineers in private industry.