Scrap missile defense and fund community development...

I don't know ANYTHING about military science if that is such a thing, but I do know that teachers are underpaid horribly even as we continually argue about needing better education systems and there are thousands of children living on the streets without homes. If we can't fix those problems, we really have no business doing anything else.

Personally, if I thought we were taking care of the real quality-of-life issues that were a part of our everyday lives, I wouldn't care if GW built his little missle thingy. But, until then, it is a terrible waste of money.

------------------
I don't get mad. I get stabby.

 

How do you know the $70 million has been "wasted"...? That's a rather subjective term, don't you think?

We still have poverty in America despite pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into anti-poverty programs. Do you think that money was "wasted"...?

1. It doesn't work.

And several rockets exploded on the launch pad during the development of the Apollo program. There was never any promise the program would work from day one of testing. Let's be a bit more patient.

Even if they eventually get "shoot to kill," perfectly, most scientists believe that it will be utterly impossible to EVER solve the problem of decoys

This seems like saying that when you go duck hunting, there are too many ducks to ever think you'll shoot down one.

2. Rogue states aren't a danger for nuclear launch... none of them have an ICBM/nuke capable of hitting us... and they won't for AT LEAST 15 years

Should I cash out my 401k then? I'm 26. I won't need it for 30 more years.

3. If the missile shield were to protect us against China or Russia, it's irrelevant.

No, China certainly does not. I think you've been reading too many of Jim's posts.

Russia, agreed, but again to draw an analogy, this is like saying you're not going to wear a seatbelt because you might get hit head-on by a semi going 100 mph.

4. It ruins deterrence and will just provoke another arms race.

It does not ruin deterrence. It adds another layer on our part.

The possibility for nuclear war is actually INCREASED, according to most think tanks

Tut-tut. Not the think tanks I read literature from. This is a mistake I make too sometimes-- you can't assume that just because the people you agree with say something, they're the majority.

1. it becomes imperative for possible launchers to get their missiles off before our possible counterstrike to increase the % chance of getting them thorugh

Can you re-phrase this? When I read it, it seems like you're saying that when someone decides to nuke us, they'll try even harder to get their missiles off without us knowing. Not to be flip, but "well, DUH" is all I can say in response to that.

2. the US would act more brazenly, confident in their faulty shield.

That is a supposition. You don't know that.

5. Nothing would change - our allies would just become (targets)

Bush is proposing that the allies get on board, share funding and development, and thus share protection. Yeah, they'll be targets, but safe targets.

I think the main mistake you're making here is saying "let's take money from this program here I don't like and spend it on something I do like". That is simply not realistic, because those congressman with vested interests in protecting military spending are going to do exactly that. Sad but probably true.


[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited May 11, 2001).]

 

Lets be proactive in missile defense. We will up recruitment in the CIA operations division, the we send out agents to disable/destroy all of our enemies missiles. If they don't have nuclear weapons, they surely cannot launch them at us.

------------------
You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.

 

First off BK, not 70 million, 70 billion. Not a 'ba', a bomb.

I haven't read too many respectable authorities on the matter that actually think this thing will work. I happen to like the idea, so I say we ignore them. Think about it guys, isn't the whole notion of some super duper impenatrable shield a duzie of a dream? Heck, we all grew up watching the SuperFriends.

I am torn on a couple of the issues, the notion that this will violate the missile treaty, for one. I do like how the administrations have tried to address that by trying to bring Russia on board. Broadening the sphere of influence to protect allies also takes away from the arrogance of the whole proposition.

As a side note, since the US' perceived arrogance is pretty much the only thing that would get us shot at in the first place, let's pay up our UN dues.

Anyway, if the Rumsfield report is correct... then the Missile Defense program will work against the current threats... 'rogue states' w/ little money for r&d. My biggest complaint about this whole thing is if the thing is going to be built (and it most certainly is going to be) then at least don't do it half-assed. Also make the thing as flexible as possible. Certainly don't make a bs shield that further aggravates relations w/ non-allies and push them to pull the curtains back.

Actually it's human nature. You wouldn't drive as fast w/o a seatbelt on, even though accidents exceeding 50-60 mph are usually fatal.

I've never been too sold on this thing, but I think I'm more against it now than when I first started posting. Most authorities on the matter think it's bunk. The people that realllly want it are either Pentagon cronies or people from missile contract states. This whole thing actually reminds me of being a developer and trying to bs my boss into letting me play w/ the new super duper toys... not b/c it would help the business at all... it would help my resume and just be really damn fun.

If it smells like ****, looks like ****, it's probably ****.

------------------
women love me, fish fear me.

 

BK: The only problem for the Superfriends is the Legion of Doom. Can the UN or NATO handle them?

------------------
I don't get mad. I get stabby.

 

Jeff, did the Legion of Doom ever actually win a battle? I mean, I'll grant you that they always came close, but the SuperFriends (or SuperFOOLS as Lex Luthor so cleverly dubbed them) always ended up winning.

 

True. True. But, that Bizarro Superman just wierds me out!

------------------
I don't get mad. I get stabby.

 

I think that the idea that NMD will cause and arms race is not entirely accurate. If there is some sort of a global arms race after NMD gets implemented, it will not be just because of the NMD, it will be because of many multitude of other failures.

Do you think that NMD was what caused China to set up hundreds of missiles across the strait of Taiwan? Or the question should be do you think that if NMD was never gonna be implemented that China would not set up hundreds of missiles aimed at Taiwan? Do you think that if NMD was never a factor that North Korea would not have fired a missile over Japan? Or that Pakistan and India would not have developed their nuclear program and have fired shells across their borders? There are arms races going on all over the place. Whether or not NMD exists, there will be countries around the world that will get more and more weapons (with some pointed at the US). What NMD will do in this case, I think, will just give the journalists, think tanks and other such experts an easy 'reason' for it all.

As for the plausibility of NMD working, I just came from reading couple of articles from the Federation of American Scientist's site (formerly Fed. of Atomic Scientists). Would suggest anyone curious about this issue, especially on the technical side to take a look there.


------------------

 

Achebe, I'd be a lot more rock-solid in my support for the missile defense if I thought there was any way we could get it built without a ton of Pentagon-style waste (i.e., $6 screws).

The cost is not what bothers me, it's knowing that a TON of the cost is caused by wastefulness, shoddy business practices, and swindlers.

You were on the right track in the start of your post-- let's just get the friggin' Superfriends on the job and stop worrying about it.

 

There was an interesting article on this in the most recent US News & World Report. Here are some interesting quotes:

"...while the Defense Department has spent at least $100 billion since the 1960s trying to build weapons that can shoot down ICBMs travelling at 15,000 miles per hour, it remains a distant goal."

The proposed Bush system would cost $109-142 Billion through 2015 (much lower than I thought). However, accounting for inflation, the proposed system would cost far less than the total research done since 1960's. If that $100B has gone nowhere, what makes anyone think another $100B will both solve the problems AND allow for deployment of: 250 ground-based missile intercepters, a navy system to shoot down missiles shortly after launch, space-based lasers, space-based interceptors, missile-tracking satellites, AND aircraft equipped with lasers. My guess? $100B doesn't even solve the research issues, let alone development and deployment.

"The Pentagon's own top weapons evaluator at the time, Phil Coyle, argued that the system's weaknesses against countermeasures and multiple targets could produce failure in the real world."

Then it talks about other potential alternatives and their weaknesses. I still think that when you fire two missiles in opposite directions at 15,000 mph, there's absolutely no way they are going to collide.


When you add in the fact that its easier to redesign a single nuclear missile than it is to redesign the shield, you could have another Stealth Bomber situation on our hand. Spend billions on something and then the other countries spend a few years to counter the technology and all of it is for naught.

For example, build a missile that changes speeds constantly (and randomly) and recalibrates its target direction in flight. It's impossible for the shield-missile to accurately come up with an impact point and thus the missiles simply won't collide. $200 billion wasted.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

Good point. Let's cut ALL government spending, since the government is so inefficient.

 

Good point. Let's cut ALL government spending, since the government is so inefficient.

Would you care to share how you jumped from discussing the viability of missile defense technology to the value of government spending?

These are administration estimates. Are we not allowed to question them when just about every outside source with knowledge of the situation say they aren't realistic? Should we just say "Bush knows best" and leave it at that?


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

 

Response: No, it's saying that creating decoys is inherently easier than planning to avoid them. So far, nobody is even sure *how* one goes about detecting decoys. No one has *any* clue.

OK, but I don't understand the willingness to scrap the project because we don't think we'll ever be able to solve (an admittedly large) part of the problem. I hate to keep leaning on analogies here, but I didn't skip college just because UT required me to pass calculus.

Decoys are going to be a problem, and right now we don't know how we'd solve it. But I think the extrapolation of that into the argument that "We can't solve decoys and even if we do, they'll come up with better decoys" is a little obstinate. I mean, this is part of why we want to spend the money-- to figure out how to beat decoys.

You (and evidently a lot of people who know better than me) don't think the problem can be solved. I can cite you chapter and verse of the arguments against putting a man in space or building an atom bomb. Reasonable, well-constructed arguments against the possibility of scientific breakthrough can be and have been created for any number of breakthroughs we take for granted.

In other words, you might be able to convince me on this one-- but you'll never do it but folding your arms and saying "It's impossible!"

Response: The point is that a missile defense can be implemented in 10 years. That allows you to begin implementation with better technology before the rogue state is even close to development. Perhaps we will eventually develop one that functions. We certainly can't now. At least wait.

I'm still not getting you here. You have to develop something before you can implement it. We're in the very expensive development stage now. If we stop developing and researching, we can't implement in ten years-- because as you point out, the missile defense doesn't WORK now! We have to keep working on it so that as soon as possible, it can be deployed.

Look, the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extremely crude-- but they worked. If version 1.0 of the missile shield looks like it was put together by a team of drunken monkeys, fine-- as long as it works when it counts.

If we construct a shield, (China) construct(s) more nukes. ANother arms race, whoo!

Unfortunate, but unless China wakes up and realizes that Western democracy does not have the same bent towards global conquest that international Communism does, probably unavoidable.

Look, if they decide to throw more baseballs than we can catch in our basket, we'll build a bigger basket.

In the long run, I prefer a scenario in which we build a shield and they up their nuke production than one in which we sit on the sidelines and they up their production anyway.

Nukes have kept the peace for the past 50 years -they make conventional warfare much more dangerous between superpowers.

And the shield makes it even more dangerous, because now one side can (ostensibly) expect to emerge relatively unscathed from a nuclear exchange.

Response: Alright, this is a possibility. I don't really read much conservative literature.

I know, and I'm trying to think of a way to trick you into it so you can be converted.

Response: The US's first effort in a nuclear war would be to disarm the opponent. This is more possible if they don't launch all of theirs at once. With a shield, they probably would.

Much better. I understand. But I also think that the strategy in a nuclear exchange between superpowers was probably always, "Get em as many times as you can before they get you."

Response: They're all definitively opposed to it. They don't like the idea, and never will.

Correction: they will not like it until the first time Iraq decides that it's sick of the no-fly zones and tries to nuke London.

They realize very well that such a shield would be *not possible.*

Now, come on. It might not be possible, but we don't know for certain that it isn't. They don't think it's possible and in my opinion they hope it isn't possible-- because they share the same geopolitical political view towards deterrence you do. And in addition, the idea of the United States having the kind of power that comes with a missile defense shield scares them.

In Europe, it's considered an idiotic money-suck

In Europe, everything a Republican president ever proposes is automatically considered idiotic. I don't put a lot of stock in what Europeans think about our governance.

Haven, are you going to law school? If so, can I write you a letter of recommendation? This has been fun.

 

For some reason, this sentence really made me laugh... I think it was the vision of hundreds of rainbow-colored hot-air balloons floating over New York while ICBMs rained down on America. All the while, in the background, you could faintly hear a song...

Would you like to flyyyyyy, in my beautiful balloooooooooon?"



Anyway, I definitely see the opposing side on this one-- I think shanna summed up that position perfectly. I guess ultimately it's a leap of faith.

 

as a new University of Utah student: yee-hoo! 200 billion on cold fusion!!! I knew that **** would work!

 

I think the question here is that alot of people are opposed to spending several hundred billion dollars on something that is still a bit of a pipe dream.

Imagine if our government wanted to spend $200B on researching cold-fusion or the alchemy of turning lead into gold. Most people would probably freak out and say we were wasting our hard earned tax dollars -- however, if either could be achieved, it would change the world.

Similarly here, people are opposed to spending so much money on something that has a remote -- or in the opinions of many, impossible -- likelihood of working.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.