US missile defense to be operative in 2004.

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

And by the time the system is 100% foolproof

It will never be 100% foolproof. No weapons systems are, really.

Well you are right, but 99.9 is probably doable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

And by the time the system is 100% foolproof

It will never be 100% foolproof. No weapons systems are, really.

Well you are right, but 99.9 is probably doable.

Assuming no improvement in ICBM technology. It would not take much to make a relatively small target moving at thousands and thousands of MPH harder to hit.

 

[JellyBaby]

Well you are right, but 99.9 is probably doable.

Perhaps but the military has and always will field weapons systems that aren't terribly effective. It's not eggsagerating to say early Sparrow missile couldn't hit jack squat but planes were equipped with them.

Given our technical lead, so long as we don't sell the defense system aboard (or develop it at Los Alamos), the system will probably be well ahead of the weapons it will defend against.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Or allow Scuds into Yemen . . . oops

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

And by the time the system is 100% foolproof

It will never be 100% foolproof. No weapons systems are, really.

Well you are right, but 99.9 is probably doable.

Assuming no improvement in ICBM technology. It would not take much to make a relatively small target moving at thousands and thousands of MPH harder to hit.

And so the the game continues. This is nothing new.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
At least an early phase of it. CNN.

I've always been for it personally 😉

It is a waste of taxpayer money.

It is like try to hit a flying mosquito with and elastic band. The money would be better spend on improving internal energy resources & consumption, so American wouldn?t need to rely on foreign resources.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Contrary to propaganda, the upper tier terrorists and despot governments aren't stupid. So they aren't going to be idiotic enough to launch nukes at the US, or any other country for that matter. If they did the entire world would come down on them like a ton of bricks. They would face complete ruin.

And hasn't this shield failed most of its tests anyway? In fact I remember reading that most military leaders think it's impossible to do with current technology.

 

[OFFascist]

This sounds like a good thing to me.

We need to get the infrastructure in place so that we can continue to work on and improve this technology.

 

[tRaptor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well since no one has an ICBM that can hit SF (other than Russia, France, UK) it will never happen which means the system works.

Seriously, you cannot PROVE that, not one bit.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: tRaptor

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well since no one has an ICBM that can hit SF (other than Russia, France, UK) it will never happen which means the system works.

Seriously, you cannot PROVE that, not one bit.

You know how much R&D for ICBMs costs right?

(not to mention the fact that they will need to be tested, which would kind of blow said contry's cover.)

 

[AndrewR]

So why are we deploying them in Alaska, and not Hawaii or Guam, wouldn't that be a better place to shoot down nukes from Korea and China? Bush is still fighting the Cold War with a nonexistent Soviet Union.

Go take a look at a globe, not a flat map. The missile flight paths from both North Korea and China pass right over Alaska, just going on the "great circle" routes like the airlines use.

So, no, neither Hawaii nor Guam would be the best place to deploy the interceptors.

I would wager that for every hundred billion dollars spent on defense, one billion dollars or less will defeat it.

That's a lovely, blithe statement with absolutely no facts or basis in reality. Nevertheless, standing up an entirely new system, NMD, is going to be more expensive than working with existing technology, ICBMs, until the former is to a stage where massive R&D is no longer needed. If we had to invent the F-15 without first having sixty years to perfect airframe and air components design, it would be a massive effort.

Why people think that something can be created perfectly when it's wished for is beyond me. Hell, why can't the U.S. government make Star Trek transporters yet?? I mean, the idea has been around since the '60s for God's sake!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

So why are we deploying them in Alaska, and not Hawaii or Guam, wouldn't that be a better place to shoot down nukes from Korea and China? Bush is still fighting the Cold War with a nonexistent Soviet Union.

Go take a look at a globe, not a flat map. The missile flight paths from both North Korea and China pass right over Alaska, just going on the "great circle" routes like the airlines use. So, no, neither Hawaii nor Guam would be the best place to deploy the interceptors. I would wager that for every hundred billion dollars spent on defense, one billion dollars or less will defeat it. That's a lovely, blithe statement with absolutely no facts or basis in reality. Nevertheless, standing up an entirely new system, NMD, is going to be more expensive than working with existing technology, ICBMs, until the former is to a stage where massive R&D is no longer needed. If we had to invent the F-15 without first having sixty years to perfect airframe and air components design, it would be a massive effort. Why people think that something can be created perfectly when it's wished for is beyond me. Hell, why can't the U.S. government make Star Trek transporters yet?? I mean, the idea has been around since the '60s for God's sake!!

Of course no one knows for sure what the cost of defeating NMD would be since it hasnt been built yet, however I do know something about the principles involved. IMO, this is our Maginot Line. Perhaps that failed because the French didnt throw enough money at it? No, what happened is that the French believed as many do here. Overconfidence has killed more than any missle. Oh BTW, the reason why transporters dont exist is because they can't, at least as envisioned. Sort of like an undefeatable missle shield.

 

[Damage]

Right.. all military spending is a waste.. UNTIL WE NEED IT!.. It is also responsible for a ton of technical advancement.. (No really that whole GPS thing just appeared by magic!)...

Even if it is flawed, advancement happens.. German Me262's used to catch fire by accident and kill people around them, but now everyone here has had a flight on a SAFE jumbo jet that opens the world to our doorsteps.

And just the idea alone of we can't use it.. It would be like someone anticipating a left hook, but not ducking.. "Sure clobber me, I had to spend my money on ballet lessons!"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's see we need NMD to protect us from rogue nations developing ballistic missiles. But nations need billions of dollars and years (if not decades) to develop ICBMs. Every country on the planet that has the technology and finances is either an ally (UK, France) or not openly hostile at the moment (Russia, China).

NMD is designed to protect us from Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Yet Iranians as a people had the largest spontaneous outpouring of sympathy after 9/11, Iraqis (if you believe our administration) are going to overthrow Saddam, and North Korea is a basket case . . . trust me if they had 1 nuke they are going to mess Japan up, try to take the South, or resort to plain old nuclear blackmail.

NMD will not protect South Korea or Japan.

There's only one country that stands to benefit significantly from these expenditures . . . Israel. Israel has nukes . . . they stole it (or it was given to them) but what they really need is a ballistic defense system to match their formidable Theatre weapons. Israel couldn't possibly fund anything along the scope of NMD. I think the US should do more to support a secure Israel but NMD is not the way.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And just the idea alone of we can't use it.. It would be like someone anticipating a left hook, but not ducking.. "Sure clobber me, I had to spend my money on ballet lessons!"

You know if you spent your money on ballet lessons and were expecting a left hook; a pirouette is all you need. It pays to be light on your feet.

 

[Damage]

Ok.. look at the smallest achivement this program could generate.. Being able to track supersonic (possibly hypersonic) small devices... SETI alone would love it!

Not everything developed for the military is used by the military alone... (Night vision? GPS? radar?)...

 

[Damage]

Continients haven't shifted in years.. I like your train of thought though.. (Fencing guy myself.. easier to move than to parry sometimes..)

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's see we need NMD to protect us from rogue nations developing ballistic missiles. But nations need billions of dollars and years (if not decades) to develop ICBMs. Every country on the planet that has the technology and finances is either an ally (UK, France) or not openly hostile at the moment (Russia, China).

NMD is designed to protect us from Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Yet Iranians as a people had the largest spontaneous outpouring of sympathy after 9/11, Iraqis (if you believe our administration) are going to overthrow Saddam, and North Korea is a basket case . . . trust me if they had 1 nuke they are going to mess Japan up, try to take the South, or resort to plain old nuclear blackmail.

NMD will not protect South Korea or Japan.

There's only one country that stands to benefit significantly from these expenditures . . . Israel. Israel has nukes . . . they stole it (or it was given to them) but what they really need is a ballistic defense system to match their formidable Theatre weapons. Israel couldn't possibly fund anything along the scope of NMD. I think the US should do more to support a secure Israel but NMD is not the way.

I would agree with you except for the fact that N. Korea makes a point of shooting their missiles over Japan during testing. This system was designed and is specifically being deployed to protect Japan and S.Korea from N. Korea. The system, when it works as designed, is made specifically to shoot down a limited number of missiles. It was never intended (in it's current stage of development) to shoot down a Russian first strike. Mind you I am only speaking of the design capability of the system. Please read the last statement again. The arguments of it causing a new arms race, wheteher it is cost efficient, how easily it can be defeated, etc. are all seperate and valid arguments that should be given heavy scrutiny before we really deploy this thing. However the system as it sits is designed to protect against a country that has a limited amount of ballistic missiles.

 

[Damage]

Limited amount is the key.. this is not the "cold war" mentaility poeple think of.... Rumsfeld was actually considered BECAUSE of his new thinking .vs cold war train of thought...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dave if the NK had a ballistic missile they would not use it on Seoul. They would hit Seoul with some other system that would require a ligthning fast Theatre System to defend against. The only place a ballistic missile would make sense would be to hit Jeju Island which is still less than 300 miles from the DMZ.

Now Japan could probably use a system of rapid detection and ship based missiles (I imagine that's why they buy Aegis class ships from Uncle Sam). But we're still talking distances of less than 500mi to strike most locations.

Japan and Korea are looking at a very different system than what Rumsfeld is talking about in the US. Unless of course the plan is to use forward intercept capability (ie ships close to rogue nations) and then North American batteries as back up.

North Korea can be bribed; they can't be trusted but they definitely can be bribed. It makes more sense to give them some love and affection and wait for the old cronies (including US) die than invest tens of billions in defense weaponry that could be spent building a sustainable society. Too many people look at these situations on political time scales instead of generational.

I contend North Korea MUST shoot missiles over Japan in order to have a market for its missile technology. I for one wouldn't buy a manual can opener from NK without proof it worked. I will parrot on . . . NK is full of delusional paranoids but they are not stupid. They can intimidate the South, Japan, rile up the US, and get new customers in one fell swoop. Any notion that they can be isolated into compliance is ridiculous since its already the most insular country on the globe. The only predictable response is that if intimidated they will bite. I would treat NK like a pit bull. Feed him, smile a lot, but never turn your back.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Continients haven't shifted in years.. I like your train of thought though.. (Fencing guy myself.. easier to move than to parry sometimes..)

Well I'm sabre. If you control your distance it's easier to Prise de Fer.

People need to learn to live on the same ball. Let's pretend a nation is rogue enough to launch a missile attack. Do you think such insidious people would also be willing to design such a weapon to detonate if the likelihood of interception was high. I'm sure the consequences for us would be better than if it landed in the homeland but Gaia would not be happy. Now what will be the US response? NMD does nothing about our response. Conventional only? Limited nuclear? Our defense (and offensive) postures are shrouded in limited (unrealistic) scenarios.

Fencing is far more realistic . . .

Salute
en garde
pret
allet
Balestra-attack
parry-riposte
counter riposte
prise de fer
remise
retreat-attack au fer
derobement
attack into preparation
counter-coupe
disengage
counter-disengage
reprise
coule
passata-soto-redoublement
finta in tempo
counter time parry
trompement
simultaneous fleche
corps-a-corps
black card

 

[rahvin]

A big problem with what you are saying Baby is that you are neglecting the projections that NK at their current rate of development will be able to strike the west coast of the US by the end of the decade. Currently the missle just developed is believed to have sufficient range to hit alaska. The next phase of development will be a true ICBM and work has undoubtably already started on it. NK's leaders believe that they are entitled to attack the US. In reality the Korean war never ended and NK is still at war with the US and SK. Not only do you now have a xenophobic nation that will have the ability to strike US home soil directly you also have a country that will be able to field Nuclear weapons in that strike.

This is also complicated by the fact that NK does in fact sell all their missles to anyone that can buy them. So not long after NK develops the missles many rouge nations would have the ability to strike distant targets which is additionaly complicated by nuclear proliferation. I think having a system in place by the time NK develops missles that can stike the US is frankly a good idea.

I'm not real fancy on the idea of giving money and food to a nation run by a group of old men who don't care about their populace and have nothing to lose in attacking us. There are lots of evil SOB's in this world and when they run countries you can't bribe them to end a threat, you only make the threat stronger by giving them money and supplies.

 

[Damage]

Oui Bali, je compri pas..

However much there may be no "forseable" use for this defence, it is still a deterent.. As much as I hated the whole MAD (Mutualy Assured Destruction, duck and cover everyone...) mentality, it seemed to work, and it also spruned (arguably) some of the highest tech developments of the century.

As much as political grandstanding or whatever may take advantage of current (or anticipated) events is concerned, I still see value in the program above it's intended use. People ridicule trickle down ecomonics, however trickle down technology is a proven reality and the US will benefit from it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm neglecting neither projections about NK weapons capabilities nor technological trickle down.

If NK missile development is so far a long why did we allow those Scuds into Yemen (besides having no legal authority . . . that's never slowed this administration down before)? NK is either exporting vital intermediate components and technology or junk. I don't think its customers are paying for junk b/c every fledgling missile program in the world is blamed on NK.

We wink at Pakistan and now shush shush for Yemen. Pakistan is the most dangerous regime on the planet. Al Qaeda is on the border and has popular support in the streets. Al Qaeda does not have the money but I bet you they could get their hands on weapons grade material (Pakistan) and pass it along to several nations in the Gulf that will at least have regional missiles (Scuds). Assuming they studied well at Harvard/MIT/CalTech I bet there's a few people in the region that can make serious progress with technology provided by various sources.

But we can't speak about a nuclear free Gulf b/c Israel is packing heat. We can't talk about a nuclear free Central Asia b/c the world's largest democracy (India) is under nuclear threat from Pakistan (our buddy).

NK is a convenient boogy man. If there was not a NK we would invent an enemy just like them; "unreasonable untrustworthy xenophobes who hate America and what it stands for". You can be against feeding people all you want but eventually the famine and pestilence far away will show up on our shores in one form or another. Most NKoreans will never leave NK but sooner rather than later NKoreans will start to see SKorea. The hostility directed at the South has almost everything to do with the American presence/perceived influence. Let's be clear if NK really wanted to attack the South it would be over in no time. The US would probably be able to hold out at the southern tip but Seoul would be a distant memory.

NMD-based trickle down technology is a horrible waste of limited resources. The genome project makes sense b/c the imagined potential is incredible not to mention the unimaginable utility considering the expense. NMD has one easily conceivable auxillary use . . . defense against an extraterrestial object . . . it would almost certainly fail against that as well. The great discoveries postulated by the wishful are delusional compared to the likely real benefit from investing tens of billions into basic research and then capitalizing on subsequent applications. NMD is bass ackwards. You're deploying the application and trying to figure out how to make it work while lacking necessary knowledge about the basic science and evolving applied science which would make said application a reality.