Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missle defense systems"

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
It's a waste of money, they're building defense systems for a nonexistent enemy, and it escalates tensions between the larger nations. That's probably exactly what they want, too, some new conflict.

Are there countries that have missle capability and have declared hostilities toward the US?

 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: manowar821
It's a waste of money, they're building defense systems for a nonexistent enemy, and it escalates tensions between the larger nations. That's probably exactly what they want, too, some new conflict.

Are there countries that have missle capability and have declared hostilities toward the US?

If you mean are there any countries with declared hostilities toward the US that posses or that are likely to posses within 50 years missiles capable of hitting the US, then no. North Korea has missiles that can reach Japan very inaccurately. They've sold those missiles to Iran, which means Iran can pretty much only hit Israel.

There is no threat to the US.

Originally posted by: Genx87
When that rogue missle comes crashing into a city near you.

From where would this "missle" come from?

...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Descartes
Link to where Obama says this specific anti-missile defense system is unproven?

I don't understand why so many people take such a hard stance on what politicians say, and that goes for McCain, Obama, Clinton or whoever. Obviously, if this evidence shows a successful test, then it's clearly not unproven. Unless you can show that he still says he'd scrap it despite successful tests, then I see no issue here.

Well, which missile defense system does he mean then?
The Aegis system? Successful in tests so far.
The THAAD system? As mentioned above, it is currently in service
The Patriot system? Track record of success

I don't know of any missile defense systems beyond these. And note, he doesn't say "system". He says "systems".

He nearly certainly meant NMD systems as those are the ones that are 'unproven'. I'm guessing you don't know a lot about NMD systems, I've actually written several papers on them and discussed them at length in other threads on here.

In short: Obama is 100% right. (assuming he's talking about national level missile defense)

As I've mentioned before, an effective NMD system simply isn't possible using the technology we are attempting to use. Terminal phase intercept is great for theater level BMD because you only have to protect a relatively small area from attack. Defending our nation using terminal phase interceptors is simply impossible. It would cost so much that we would probably be better off letting someone nuke a city (in terms of dollars at least).

The actual problem that our NMD system needs to overcome is the mid course guidance decoy issue, one that we are completely incapable of solving. Simply put a nation that wants to launch a ballistic missile at us can very cheaply make a large amount of decoy warheads that we will have no choice but to intercept as well, making it very easy (and cheap) to overwhelm whatever system we would put in place.

On top of all this, as I've mentioned many times before, this isn't even the likely avenue of attack. We're spending truckloads of cash on something that isn't even the primary threat. Any intelligent leader would prioritize the actual areas where we are likely to be attacked with these warheads (through borders, shipping, etc.) as opposed to this technology.

Thank god Obama is willing to trash this piece of crap. Another excellent reason to vote for him.

:thumbsup: I'm no expert but everything I've read on this subject leads to exactly what you just said.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
A) Can it stop hundreds of ICBM's that Russia has pointed at us?
B) Do you approve of pork barrel military spending like the Iraq War that allows defense contractors to illegally (see: no bid defense contracts) line their coffers?

If you answered NO to both, then you have your answer (which Obama would agree with).
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

Not at all. These are defensive systems. Like I said, if we knew where it was coming from we wouldnt need the shield. But what is your take on fleet and land based systems to defend against tactical weapons?

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

Not at all. These are defensive systems. Like I said, if we knew where it was coming from we wouldnt need the shield. But what is your take on fleet and land based systems to defend against tactical weapons?

Tactical BMD systems are far more technologically doable, logistically possible, and far less geopolitically destabilizing. Sounds great to me. It's the national missile defense program that's stupid crap.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

Not at all. These are defensive systems. Like I said, if we knew where it was coming from we wouldnt need the shield.

The thing is, we KNOW WHERE ICBMs will come from. That's why we don't need to have shield. Our nuclear deterrent is pretty damned imposing.

I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to come up with a likely attack scenario that will be prevented by a national missile defense program.

But what is your take on fleet and land based systems to defend against tactical weapons?

They're much less expensive, far less controversial, far more effective, and much more likely to be needed. Keep them and continue development.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Vic
It's always nice to see a thread in which the self-professed "small government" conservatives reveal themselves for the big government blow-your-taxdollars-on-their-pet-projects SOCIALISTS that they are.

Look at them whine and cry and spread partisan lies over a possible cut in government spending.

Hypocrites :roll:

Article 1 Section, 8.

(Without even looking it up) It specifically says provide for the common defense AND general welfare in the first sentence, making my analogy apt, and your point here moot (whatever it might have been).

I believe my point would be what they refer to as "scoreboarding".

Besides, the preamble also includes the word blessings, so I guess that would prove the so called separation of church and state doesn't go as far as some would like to believe.

The Preamble is not law, but thanks for trolling yet again.

My point was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of claiming this is an ideological battle when in reality it's just a fight over money.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Vic
It's always nice to see a thread in which the self-professed "small government" conservatives reveal themselves for the big government blow-your-taxdollars-on-their-pet-projects SOCIALISTS that they are.

Look at them whine and cry and spread partisan lies over a possible cut in government spending.

Hypocrites :roll:

Article 1 Section, 8.


I'm with Vic. I'm not really sure what your point is either.

Art 1. Sec. 8 refers to the duties/role of Congress and has nothing to do with the executive. Unless you are trying to say that Congress should be the one making the decision on NMD and not the Executive branch.

Oh, and Vic didn't quote the Preamble....first sentence form the article:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There is no mention of blessings there.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

Not at all. These are defensive systems. Like I said, if we knew where it was coming from we wouldnt need the shield.

The thing is, we KNOW WHERE ICBMs will come from. That's why we don't need to have shield. Our nuclear deterrent is pretty damned imposing.

I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to come up with a likely attack scenario that will be prevented by a national missile defense program.

But what is your take on fleet and land based systems to defend against tactical weapons?

They're much less expensive, far less controversial, far more effective, and much more likely to be needed. Keep them and continue development.


Fair enough. But I would think once we have those smaller systems built and an expertise understood. The cost of erecting a shield for longer range missiles would be minimal. /shrug
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Genx87
From where would this "missle" come from?

And what relevance does me being able to name where it will come from serve? If we knew where the missle would come from we wouldnt need a missile shield now would we?

Because you are making up a threat that doesn't exist.


Boy will we have egg on our faces when the space aliens invade and we didn't spend $30 trillion on alien defense.

Not at all. These are defensive systems. Like I said, if we knew where it was coming from we wouldnt need the shield.

The thing is, we KNOW WHERE ICBMs will come from. That's why we don't need to have shield. Our nuclear deterrent is pretty damned imposing.

I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to come up with a likely attack scenario that will be prevented by a national missile defense program.

But what is your take on fleet and land based systems to defend against tactical weapons?

They're much less expensive, far less controversial, far more effective, and much more likely to be needed. Keep them and continue development.


Fair enough. But I would think once we have those smaller systems built and an expertise understood. The cost of erecting a shield for longer range missiles would be minimal. /shrug

That's unfortunately not true. Theater BMD systems are all about terminal phase intercept. A terminal phase interceptor can only cover a relatively small geographical area for fairly obvious reasons. In order to have a national system you would need a mid course or boost phase system, both of which are much much different and much harder to implement.

Even if you consider effective mid course BMD possible, the costs will be heavy even if we have perfected terminal phase intercept.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Aimster
Russia continues to build missiles to counter these systems

so it's a big waste of money.

Unless these missiles are for rogue states like Iran. Iran cannot hit us and Israel has a better missile defense system than us.

Who else is there? NK? We can't stop their artillery anyways so if we ever do piss them off it's over for SK anyways.

the missile defense system was never to counter russia. the US and USSR realized decades ago that it would be cheaper for either of them to build another ICBM than another defensive missile. and so the US and USSR didn't put tons of money into the projects.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
And if we never develope the technology, then there would be no intercept.

I mean, once a couple more states get midrange ICBMs developed, it would be just total fantasy to imagine a groupe hijacking a freighter and using it as a launch platform.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: lupi
And if we never develope the technology, then there would be no intercept.

I mean, once a couple more states get midrange ICBMs developed, it would be just total fantasy to imagine a groupe hijacking a freighter and using it as a launch platform.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know how hard it is to launch a missile from a naval platform? If they have a freighter and a nuke, why are they launching ballistic missiles at us when they could just sail it over anyway? Are we fighting Rube Goldberg terrorists?

You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of this topic. I'm pretty sure the entire purpose for your position and posting is your blind hatred of Obama.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87


Not at all. These are defensive systems.

Says you.

Can you prove that there is no possibility of these being used offensively?

I'm not familiar enough with the science to say, but strategically, that would exactly fit with the sort of thing a nation would like to have.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: lupi
And if we never develope the technology, then there would be no intercept.

I mean, once a couple more states get midrange ICBMs developed, it would be just total fantasy to imagine a groupe hijacking a freighter and using it as a launch platform.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know how hard it is to launch a missile from a naval platform? If they have a freighter and a nuke, why are they launching ballistic missiles at us when they could just sail it over anyway? Are we fighting Rube Goldberg terrorists?

You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of this topic. I'm pretty sure the entire purpose for your position and posting is your blind hatred of Obama.

Yes, I have no knowledge of naval matters :roll:
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: lupi
And if we never develope the technology, then there would be no intercept.

I mean, once a couple more states get midrange ICBMs developed, it would be just total fantasy to imagine a groupe hijacking a freighter and using it as a launch platform.

Or they hijack a battleship and launch its cruise missiles at Hawaii! Quick, we must place Steven Segal clones on all of our cruise missile equipped ships.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: lupi
And if we never develope the technology, then there would be no intercept.

I mean, once a couple more states get midrange ICBMs developed, it would be just total fantasy to imagine a groupe hijacking a freighter and using it as a launch platform.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know how hard it is to launch a missile from a naval platform? If they have a freighter and a nuke, why are they launching ballistic missiles at us when they could just sail it over anyway? Are we fighting Rube Goldberg terrorists?

You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of this topic. I'm pretty sure the entire purpose for your position and posting is your blind hatred of Obama.

Yes, I have no knowledge of naval matters :roll:

I bet you my naval knowledge compares pretty favorably to yours.

What makes me question what you know is that you think some sort of terrorist group is going to hijack a freighter and start launching ballistic missiles off of it.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy


What makes me question what you know is that you think some sort of terrorist group is going to hijack jetliners and start ramming buildings.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: eskimospy


What makes me question what you know is that you think some sort of terrorist group is going to hijack jetliners and start ramming buildings.

That is a pathetic counter argument. You could use the same thing to argue against me dismissing the probability of space Nazis releasing radioactive moon tigers in downtown Manhattan.

If you think groups can steal a ballistic missile complete with nuclear payload, hijack a ship, fit it with the capability to launch IRBMs or SRBMs from the deck, and have a credible method for which do to so let's hear it. Please also address why they would be launching missiles off a freighter instead of just taking it into a port.

Defend your ridiculous statements or shut up about it.