posted 05-01- 11:30 AM               

We already have missile shield that works and that has proven itself for the last 40 years. It's called M.A.D.

posted 05-01- 12:25 PM            

You hear from supposedly reputable sources in the media that missile defense is not possible...well, those are the people who were not selected to be part of the development of such a system and do not have the knowledge to build one...so of course they say it's not possible! For them it isn't...that doesnt mean that somebody else couldn't do it.

Is it politically wise to build one... maybe not. Is it in the best defense interest of the US to do so - certainly. Why is everybody complaining about it? Because it moves the world back to the days immediatly after it became known that the US had the A-Bomb when the world realized that at that instant there was no force on Earth that could oppose the US. That makes people nervous (understandably so) but does not change the fact that there are many un-accounted for Soviet ICBMS somewhere out there in the world - and in all likely hood they are still pointed at the US. It is increasingly possible that a missile with sufficient range to deliver a biologic or nuclear payload to US soil will fall to either a rogue country (like, oh say Iraq for instance) or a terrorist organizations hands - either of which would be more than happy to remove Washington DC from the map (not neccesarily a bad thing ). MAD works against another country with equal amounts of weapons...what about the small group of religiously motivated zealots who are willing to risk death to bring down the US?

The technology for an ICBM is old stuff. Hell, theres a guy down in southern California who builds amatuer rockets - a year or two back he launched one from the Mojave desert that splashed down on the far side of Cuba! This is just one guy who doesnt have an aernoautics or rocket propulsion background...just a hobbyist! Imagine what somebody with an agenda, financing, and an education could do (we do tend to school an alarming number of the people who later become terrorists here).

Missile defense would most likely be only somewhat effective against a large scale missile attack (some of those warheads will undoubtably survive the destruction of their rocket and fall to earth). Where it would really work is against the single missile or limited missile attack - like those that could be staged by a rogue country or terrorist group. I've heard the argument that "Well, that hasn't happened yet..." and I don't buy it. Personally I don't ever want it to happen and support measures to prevent it. The lives of an entire city far outweigh the costs (fiancial or political) of such a program.

posted 05-01- 01:21 PM            

I remember missile attack drills and lived on military bases where, as children, we were told straight out that we would not survive. It was not pleasant to realize your mortality in such a definate way at such a young age. The threat is still there, maybe not of total annihalation as it was at the height of the cold war but there is still a threat. I for one don't want to have to witness the destruction of a city and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that go along with it if it is indeed possible to safeguard against.

Many folks argue against the system saying it will spark a new cold war... well folks, I got news for ya - we are already in another cold war, in fact we never left it. China has been the enemy of the US for almost as long as the USSR was and if you don't think we are in a cold war with them you better re-examine the events of the last 2 months. Wkae up and smell the coffee folks - the US has many many enemies...and most don't distinguish between the Gov't in DC and the citizen walking down the street. This means that they will not think twice about killing you if it hurts the US as a country.

posted 05-01- 01:34 PM               

No one said it isn't feasible... just saying that there is no point in disturbing the balance of power for something that isn't even near to being ready to deploy.

>There is nothing impossible about a missile defense system. Hell, missiles have fairly predictable tracks through the sky which means you just have to detect them quickly enough to get a projectile in their way - the physics arent all that hard. Most of the individual concepts for a missile defense shield have already been proven and in fact a theatre defense system already exists and appears to work quite well (AEGIS anybody?).

Again, no one is arguing about whether it's possible or not. The only thing I'm saying is that Bush is needlessly agitating the world to promote a system that is not ready and that won't be ready for years and years. Why can't R and D on this stuff go on quietly? We didn't announce to the world our plans to build stealth bombers and fighters. Why are we telegraphing to the world our plans to build this missile shield? Maybe it's just me, but I simply don't understand the Bush administrations motivations for being so vocal about this right now.

So, I have to pose the question to you again... why is the Bush Administration raising such a ruckus about a system that is not even close to ready for primetime?

>You hear from supposedly reputable sources in the media that missile defense is not possible...well, those are the people who were not selected to be part of the development of such a system and do not have the knowledge to build one...

Oh come on... as though no scientists have been critical of NMDI... only the media. Not true.

My opinion of the missile shield is based on criticism leveled at it by scientists involved in it's development. Scientists involved with the SDI program were the first to be critical of the SDI program and many scientists are equally critical of NMDI. It's not just the media.

posted 05-01- 01:57 PM               

I see... so once our glorious missile shield is in place, there will be no other way for these people to deliver a nuclear strike? Hardly. In fact, I think that terrorists, and rogue nations for that matter, would probably favor a means of delivery that doesn't involve missiles... which of course makes our missile shield once again useless.

posted 05-01- 02:44 PM            

Why publicize it? Becasue you can't hide it. Testing will require firing ICBM's minus their warhead - you then have to shoot that ICBM down...kind of a noticable and observable activity don't you think? For a realistic test you have to fire from a significant distance (+3000 miles) - again, a highly noticable occurance for any countrywith any degree of Elint capability...which includes all of our allies and many of our enemies. Would you rather that we do it in secret and then get lambasted for yet another "black" program that threatens to shift the global balance and will undoubtably increase tensions far more than being honest about it would? The research that can be done quietly has already been done. It is now to the point where you have to start applying your theories and research in the real world to find out what you missed in the lab - this is the normal progression of weapons system design. By saying "hey, we want to do this" we avoid the whole sneaky bastard reputation that we have built for the last 50 years. For a change our Gov't has decided to level with the world about what we are doing militarily and I can't help but think that that is a good thing.

Also, I did not intend to say it was the reporters who were being critical... it is indeed scientists and academia but for the most part they are the people who were not asked to work directly on the system. Remember, many physicists not included in the Manhattan project firmly stated that splitting the atom was beyond human-kinds capabilities... they lacked the creative vision to see how the seemingly impossible could be accomplished. The same can be said of the development of rockets in the first place - the V1 was developed over the V2 because many influential scientists said it was a pipe dream and would never work very well. Obviously they were wrong or we wouldn't be having a discussion about a missile defense system... I guess what I am saying is that it is often a minority who is vocal that claims to represent the beliefs of the majority (the so called "moral majority" is a good example) while not truly doing so. Also, remember that while an individual journalists goal may be to provide information the goal of the media as a whole is to make money...and they make more money with controversy than with agreement.

BTW, much of the technology for "Star Wars" did indeed work - the real issue was cost. Placing the systems in orbit and maintaining them was far to expensive by even the military spending standards of the cold war. The laser systems developed are still in use for various projects today and are frighteningly powerful albeit fragile. One of the lasers is being used for research into alternative methods of earth to orbit propulsion (basically using the laser to lase a fuel on a craft and propel it upward with no actual engine on the craft itself).

posted 05-01- 03:41 PM               

Would you be upset if China started development of a Star Trek like "transporter"? Hell, they could beam troops over with that! Of course you wouldn't, because even if can be done it's years off. So why are you upset over our researching something that is 50 years off?

posted 05-01- 06:00 PM            

Anyhow, one real reason for the missile defense system is China. They are already building their nuclear stockpiles and they also are not a part of the 1972 ABM treaty and are therefore not bound by the same rules we are currently. The playground has changed drastically in the 30 years since the ABM treaty was signed and the rules outlined there no longer make sense with the current global picture. The USSR is no more, Russia could not proliferate nukes or buils a missile defense system if they wanted to (no money after all)... but China could. Russia is upset because they have fallen from their position of global military might and now have to actually face the realization that they could not stand up to the US, let alone NATO in a military confrontation. Hell, I'd be pissed too.

The simple truth is that China is somewhat of an unknown quantity and their intentions are much more closely held than the USSR's ever were. We know they have ICBM capabilities, including Boomers (SSBN's) and we know they have high-yield nuclear war-heads. What we don't know (at least publically) is how many they have. They don't fall under any treaties we had with the USSR and to ignore them and pretend that the world is the same as it was 30 years ago is pure folly.

Rogue countries with madmen at the helm are somewhat of a threat though not that great at the moment.

The other reason for this is that it has recently come to light that much of the Soviet block's equipment, which we assumed to be inferior (esp radar, missiles, and aircraft) has in fact turned out to be the equal or even better of western equipment. With the dissolution of the USSR much of this equipment has proliferated world wide in previously unforseen ways - arming many potential enemies with equipment good enough to be a real issue. A missile defense shield, being worked on publically, gives the US and her allies a chance to catch up to and surpass those technologies in short order. By going public with the missile defense system you can pour vast amounts of money into research that can be used for radar systems, missiles, aircraft, ships, etcetera much more easily than you can if you are having to hide money in Pentagon budgets (remember 800 dollar hammers??). The NMDI could be viewed as a way to upgrade many weapons systems while putting the funding under one umbrella that Congress doesn't have to get pissed about because they don't know where the money is actually going.

posted 05-01- 06:07 PM            

-Stark

posted 05-04- 12:18 AM               

Isn't the goverment CREATING a job for people through the building of arms, Still just a large social program in its essence?

Wouldn't it benifit the US in the pocket book potientialy? Instead of draining it to reseach alternative energy?

Research in the feild of alternative engery can be viewed as an investment, while arms research is only a drain.

And wouldn't it infact give jobs to those same type of people that you are worried about?

"educated and skilled engineers and other scientifically trained people"

Sorry but I personally feel the money would be better spent on lothars suggestion and would benifit more people overall in the US.

Where as the missle system just makes the arms people money. AND has a slight chance of one day being usefull.

While the alternative engery research will result in cheaper, cleaner energy and reduce the United States dependency on foreign oil.

And as an extra added bonus, The US could sell licences from the results of the research and make money for the US.

Its not like they will be selling the results of the missle defence system to maybe countries, if any.

posted 05-04- 12:27 PM            

As for military research not being useful - well, a great deal of that research ends up being used by the general populace more than the military - case in point, the Internet started out as the DARPAnet and was a military project. X-ray machines, Blood transfusions, Jet engines, Radar (wouldnt like to hop on a passanger jet without it!), GPS, Surgical laser, industrial laser, vaccinations in general, etc... All of these things received major portions, if not all, of their development funding from military based monies. Many things that have come out of military research have been totally unrelated to the military purpose of the research - those items wnet directy to the public as they were useful but did not serve a specific military purpose. Advancements that could come out of a NMDI system are unknown - but I guarantee that there are quite a few. Alternative power is not popular amongst congressmen, they have too much invested in conventional technologies and unfortunatly he oil companies currently have alot of clout in Washington (always have really - irregardless of who was president). While it would be nice to see a large sum of money dropped into alternative nergy research it is not realistic to think it will happen within the current political climate. Smaller scale research will continue and eventually it will become the darling of Congress - when the public yells loud enough. Right now, that isn't happening - the day may not be far off but it isn't here yet.

The great thing about the US develpoing missile defense is this... within about 10 years of a succesful system being developed here all of the other global players will also have a system in place. Why? becasue we can't keep our secrets secret very long - the plans and technologies neede will either be stolen or simply purchased from our allies ith whom we share the technologies. This is actually a good thing as far as I can tell. I would much rather live under the threat of destroying our enemies (and we will probably always have powerful enemies) missile than under the threat of mutual annihalation. If everybody can defeat ICBMS then it no longer becomes useful to have them... they are very expensive to maintain - so, if they weren't useful you probably would not keep them around right? I wouldn't. I would much rather see this variety of arms race (who can build the better defensive system) than the ones we used to have. Wouldn't you?

posted 05-04- 12:45 PM               

I would be more afraid of the false sense of security that a missile shield provides. Once the shield is deployed, our future presidents might base their foreign policy on the notion that no one can touch us... that we can act with impunity. They might even feel comfortable pushing the world close to the brink of an all out nuclear war. Well, what if we do have a war then and the shield doesn't work as well as they had planned? What if countermeasures are developed that we don't know about? I would imagine such a system is easily spoofed or overwhelmed. Put all our chips on a shield? No thanks. It would just give our leaders the false sense that they can act with impunity.

Yes, MAD is grim, but it works. It's a simple premise, but everyone understands it. It has a great track record too... it has kept all of us alive through the Cold War. Don't be so quick to discount the policy that has protected all of us for years and years.

[This message has been edited by JT (edited 05-04-2001).]

posted 05-04- 12:50 PM            

Apparently modified versions of this system are dues to be deployed as a part of the ForceXXI initiiative of the army - including and ormored vehicle mounted medium range antiaircraft weapons system capable of tactical defense from cruise missiles, rockets, and even SRBM's. Should also be able to defeat chem and bio-agent delivery weapons completely due to the extreme heat created by the laser pulse - should basically cook the chem or bio warhead.

A larger, more powerful system is a candidate for a portion of the NMDI - it would probably be a ground based, large truck chassis mounted system.

The technology exists, now.

posted 05-04- 01:11 PM            

Yes, no doubt about it, MAD does work. The problem is, it only takes one accidental firing to destroy the entire planet. If a missile is inbound, with absolutely no way to stop it do you think whoever the target is will say "Oh, an accidental firing...well, we understand - no problem about that city you just vaporized." I sincerely doubt it. The first response (indeed, the only response) that current doctrines call for is to retaliate immedately - not wait around for more missiles to be launched.

With a missile shield in place an accidental firing does not mean the end of the human race, as it does now. It is reduced to a truly spectacular inernational incident. Depending on which technologies are put into use, even if no-one else developed a missile shield (highly unlikely) and we accidentaly launched a missile we would have the ability to shoot our own missile down. BTW - destruct codes for a missile in flight do not exist - that is only in the movies. If they did exist it would be possible for an enemy to get ahold of those codes and destroy your missiles before they reached their target - so they don't exist at all. Another product of MAD thinking.

A missile defense shield is the fist true step mankind has taken away from the brink of annihalation that MAD brought us to. Hell, the world came within hours of ending during the Cuban missile crisis - it can happen again, and eventually something will go wrong and everybody will pay the price.

The arguments I've heard against the NMDI on the grounds of preventing an arms race are just plain naive. The Chinese are doing their best to build a blue water navy, modern jets, and bring their military on par with ours technologically. Well, that means that we have to develope better technology faster because we cannot match them man for man. Until China no longer has a communist gov't the United States will never consider them to not be an enemy at some level. Ergo, there is already an arms race going on and it's progression is unstoppable at this point. The Chinese are the only major power that is till actively designing new ICBM's and doing undergroud test of nuclear warheads (yes, pakistan and India do nuclear test but they are not considered a threat to anybody but each other) - both of which were long ago banned by treaty between the US and USSR - but which China is not bound by and chooses not to follow voluntarily. If China suggests a treaty with the US that puts them in the spot we are then there would be less need for missile defense - our only other option is to rebuild our nuclear stockpile and update our ICBM's to stay ahead of or with China's capabilities - and then MAD is born all over again.

Just because MAD works doesn't make it a good idea.

posted 05-04- 01:16 PM               

Of course it exists... the problem is that it doesn't work yet. Well, except for under very controlled circumstances... like the one's described in that article you provided a link to... which, by the way, is written by the same people making the system... not exactly an independent analysis.

posted 05-04- 01:30 PM               

A fun and related article...
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news00/000307-nmd-trw.htm

posted 05-04- 04:36 PM            

A couple quotes from your article..

"She seeks to recover for the government more than a half-billion dollars, some part of which a judge could award her as compensation."

and

"In 1998 the Pentagon rejected the TRW interceptor as the leading antimissile candidate in favor of a rival design by Raytheon. However, it is still a backup and could win the lead role since the Raytheon design has stumbled in recent flights."

So, it would appear that the good doctor there stands to gain a significant windfall if she wins this case - kind a non-pure motive don't ya think.

Also, TRW's interceptor, as stated above is not the primary system being considered for he interceptor portion of the NMDI. Raytheon has no such claims as the doctors made agaisnt them and as far as I can tell their differentiation system relies more on radiation snesors than IR signatures - radiation signature could be faked but would be much harder and prohibitively expensive to do.

The link I provided was more for the energy weapons systems being developed (not the interceptors) as they appear to have more potential. The advantage to the laser systems is that they could quickly engage a great many targets with absoulute accuracy (can't get faster or more exact than a light beam). The last tests that were done with the laser were only semi-controlled. the operators of the ssytem knew that rockets would be fired but did not know exactly how many or from what direction. the rockets were fired in 2 round volleys in rapiid succession from two different bearings - a total of 12 rockets fired in less than 1 minutes. The system destroyed all of them in flight. This system uses conventional targeting systems - proven technologies like IR, SAM style radars, TV visual etc.. While it is capable of missing (as are all weapons systems) it is also capable of a high rate of fire and can keep firing until it hits the target.

They are supposed to start inclement weather testing this year to see how it perfomrs in rain, fog, cloudy conditions etc. The forecasts are that it will suffer very little degradation as the beam is powerful enough that it simply vaporizes water in it's path rather than being refracted. The only forseeable environmental conditions that could really cause it trouble would be things like extremely thick smoke (oil well fires for example) or dust storms etc. Luckily, most battlefield weapons systems don't work very well in these conditions anyways and a system powerful enough to tackle an ICBM prior to re-entry will probably have sufficient power to "burn" it's way through just about any environmental obstacle.

No, the technology for missile defense is not yet perfect...but then again it hasn't really been worked on to any production attempt type levels. The basic interceptor technology has been proven by Raytheon. The basic energy weapon technology by TRW. Now is when you take those basics and refine them, make them work better, iron out the problems encountered in the early prototypes.

Hell, the Wright Flyer could barely get off the ground and had no ability to actually turn on it's frist flight... that didn't mean it was a failure. It proved than man could fly in a heavier than air vehicle. Ballisitc missile defense it at the same phase of development - you rpoven the concept now make it really work.

The simple fact is that one way or another the US is going to develop this technology - either it wiil be done in the dark where advancements will come slowly and no peripherl technologies will be shared or it will be done in the light and progress much more rapidly. I prefer it to be done in the light - done in the dark it would cause much more global consternation when it finally came out than it has right now.

posted 05-04- 04:40 PM            

Look, all it boils down to is there are tax
dollars to spend. Would you rather see it
spent on programs like Lothar is talking
about or would you rather see them going to
the defense industry.

As far as welfare, one form is to give it to
poor people who can't/won't work or whatever.
The other form is to give it to big businesses
for manufacture of defense related products
that either we don't need or they won't work
or both.

posted 05-04- 05:03 PM            

I know you think the corporations are all evil... but do try to remember that it was the company, not the Union, that gave you your job and paid your check. Without the corporations there are no jobs. Without jobs, there is no tax base. Without a tax base there is no welfare. You get the picture...

There are indeed some who cannot work. They are the minority of those in the system. Don't believe me? Go hang out at your local social services office on check day sometime and see for yourself. The system is terribly abused in it's current form and will continue to be abused until going to work pays better than not going to work. For those who cannot work, I have no problem with welfare programs... for the rest, well, I have a big probelm with my taxes going to pay for bozo's beer becasue he's too lazy to get up off his ass and work for a living.

-Stark

posted 05-04- 05:08 PM            

BTW I believe you about some welfare/unemployment
people. I have known people who never had a
job or a mediocer job and recieved welefare or
unemployment or both and could sit on a bar
stool and drink just as much beer as me, and
pay for it, when I was working 60 hours a
week and getting overtime for anything over
8 and 40. The only difference was they had
more time to drink than I did and they didn't
have to hold their head at work the next day.

posted 05-04- 05:21 PM               

Beyond that, however, the concept is problematic at best, deeply flawed at worst. No matter how accurate this shield is, it's shoot-down potential is finite. It can be overcome simply by volume. And that's not even taking into account counter-measures. And that of course means that it will probably start an arms race the likes of which would make even Reagan blush.

posted 05-04- 05:21 PM            

Your right about the "coprorate welfare" but then again there are about 20 times more people with jobs than there are people on welfare. If you spent proportionatley to the number of people working as opposed to those on welfare I think we'd have far fewer folks without work.

posted 05-04- 05:29 PM               

I'm not comfortable with this analogy. When the Wright bothers figured out how to do it, there weren't people behind the scenes figuring out how to undo their work. The Wright brothers had to contend with the laws of physics. The missile shield has to contend with man. The laws of physics, however difficult to deal with, do not plot countermeasures. Man does.

posted 05-04- 05:57 PM            

As I've said before, the other option is to continue with business as usual until China matches us in capability at which point we go right back to the old US-v-USSR style cold war arms race - the one that nearly killed us all a few times.

Isn't it time for a change?

posted 05-04- 07:14 PM               

IMO there is absolutely no reason for any country of this world to be against an anti missle system, they may have what they think are good reasons, but honestly there arent any.. example.. NATO is no threat to the former USSR, so if NATO deployed an anti balistsic missle system that could knocj out all of Russias missiles, they might not like it, but then, where's the problem, since they should never be fired at NATO countries to start with, and they aren't needed for a retaliatory strike since we're not going to fire at them. Thats cuttin it down to pure basics, but the points the same however you say it.

As time goes on it becomes more and more likely that some terrorist organisation will develope or capture a usable missile.. why should it be wrong to have a good defence against this? Lets face it, if the former Eastern Block countries weren't so stubborn there's no reason why an agreement couldn'y be reached whereby they would also be coverd by the net, and taking this to it's natural conclusion, the whole world, it both cases, 1 would cover all of the northern hemisphere from anyone and each other, and the second everyone would be protected from everyone so no-one gets to use missles.. Lets be honest here, ICBM's will always be around, and therefore always a threat, so when under threat what do you do?? You defend yourself ofcourse, Defence doesn't have to mean Offence, we don't need to build ICBM's to defend ourselves, by their nature thats impossible, so you develope a system that defends against them. Back in the cold war it was a touchy subject because one side didn't like to think the other could counter it's strike/counter strike, but we're not and never have been a threat to the UdSSR, and probably they were never a threat to us.. but thats not the problem anymore anyway.. Looks at picuters and movie reel of Hiroshima and try to tell me we shouldn't defend against that kind of thing.. but also imagine just how tiny that bomb was by todays standards.

posted 05-04- 07:24 PM               

Same thing with GW's missle defense plan. It won't stop an all out assault by a super power (read professional thief) but it will defend against an amature or a vandal (read limited attack). GW just wants to lock the door.

A policeman carries a handgun which is enough for most situations, but not enough for an attack by a gang armed with assault rifles. Using your arguement, he shouldn't even carry the gun since it can not guarantee his safety against all forms of attack!

posted 05-04- 08:17 PM               

Jerry, I think JT is arguing about the viability of the project, not whether or not its a good idea in general.

Stark your still talking about welfare, how did alternative energy research turn into welfare.

I still don't understand why your talking about social programs when lothar said he would rather see it used for alternative energy research.

Yes I realize that alot of good has come from military research and development. I just said you couldn't sell it and turn it into cash as fast and easily as alternative energy. I knew you would bring that aspect up, I should have talked about it in my original post.

If I could pick areas to spend research money right now it would be:

Nanotechnology, because it will lead to MASSIVE breakthroughs in all aspects of life.

Alternative energy, because we have to end the pollution we are spewing into the atmosphere, and get rid of this dependency on oil rich countries.

posted 05-05- 06:48 PM            

The best explanation for reviving star wars
is still what the reason for it was in the
first place. Payoff by republicans to their
defense industry benefactors. Bush spent his
first 100 days trying to pay off the people
and corporations who donated to his campaign.
This is just a continuation of those practices.

Clinton sold nights in Lincoln's bedroom. Bush sells rides on submarines and access to
taxpayer dollars. There's really no difference.

posted 05-05- 08:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
It doesn't cost billions of dollars to lock your door or arm a cop with a gun.

---

Smokey, what's the cost if you don't lock your door or arm the cop - nation wide?

We're talkiing high stakes here. What home burglar or street thug can wipe out a whole city? What's New York City or Washington D.C. worth to you if we don't try to defend them?

posted 05-06- 05:00 PM            

Now do we put more money into locks and
handguns or don't we? That's where were at
right now with starwars. We are looking at
spending a hell of alot of money, that could
be used for other useful purposes, with no
guarentee that we will have any missle defense
that will amount to a damn.