ok, glad you edited because the 'and' was confusing the hell out of me. I don't think you're rooting FOR accidental launches and nuclear war. I think you're underestimating the cost/benefits. No reason we can't both beef up port security AND continue a missle defense program. There are economic and other benefits to the program, which cut against your economic arguments. Your claims that the program can't be built or that it will take 50 years are matched with the historical exponential curve of 'what is possible' through technology. 50 years ago there was NO space exploration. Not even a satellite. Now there are regular trips to space, we've been to the moon. 15 years ago there was no internet. Technology historically outstrips the expectation of 'what is possible.' There is a measurable risk of nuclear war that increases as more states become nuclear - and its pretty much acknowledged that the cold war counterproliferation regimes are failing (see Pakistan, India, Israel, North & South Korea, Iran). The devestation of a dirty bomb is minimal while the devestation of a nuclear war could extinguish life on the planet. Total extinction of life on the planet vs money. A world without the threat of nuclear annihilation vs one with it. A world with such a system would in effect remove the incentive for such weapons to exist on a large scale. That's a good thing. According to the IAEA it is unlikely that the amount of radiological material in a dirty bomb would be sufficient to cause large numbers of fatalities or long-term health problems. However, the main impact would be that of any weapon of terror: creating fear, panic and over-reaction by the public and the media. The NCR concurs: 'In most cases, any immediate deaths or serious injuries would likely result from the explosion itself, rather than from radiation exposure. It is unlikely that the radioactive material contained in a dirty bomb would kill anyone. The radioactive material would be dispersed into the air and reduced to relatively low concentrations, resulting in low doses to people exposed. In addition, most people would be expected to run away from the explosion, further reducing potential exposure. A low-level exposure to radioactive contamination could slightly increase the long-term risk of cancer.' Total annihilation or even flattening of a city simply is not comparable to the relatively minor damage caused by a dirty bomb.
Sam seems to be doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sam. I think comparing it to an asteroid strike is the same thing. Not sure how you establish 'greater threat.' Dirty bombs aren't that destructive, so it just isn't on par with an accidental launch or other nuclear exchanges. Also, I'm pretty sure we could fund $500 million for port security if it was prioritized, and I'm not arguing against that. Hell, start with the $66 million we've been giving to Ukrainian NGOs since that seems to be getting people's panties in a wad . Yes, it doesn't work. That is true. Apollo astronauts died on the launch pad. That doesn't mean we didn't go to the moon. People said the world was flat but Columbus sailed to America. It was said that if men were made to fly, we'd have wings - but you can get from NY to London in a few short hours (or you could till continental blew up the Concord). Yeah, and people have been saying defense spending is the epitome of waste for quite awhile. Good thing no one listened. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation on the internet. For that you can thank the good ol' DOD.
Dirty bombs? WHo said anything about dirty bombs? Tough to knock down that sand castle. But that's not what i'm referring to and I don't know how you gathered that. Hayes, take your second to last post. Replace the words "nuclear annihilation/war " with "asteroid annihilation" Pretty much everything you said still applies. Coincidence?
HayesStreet - I agree, protection from a nuke strike is a worthy goal - but the dangers of a nuke strike is not where I have a problem with this program Bush is rushing it- forcing a deployment of a untested system that is missing most of its important parts! The program has had to STOP large parts of its testing in order to try to meet this end of year deployment date that Bush set - you don't think this is a huge mistake and a waste of money? what good is a system that doesn't work and costs billions ? If you want a missle - defense system, fine, then do it right and put the R&D and testing time it takes to get it done Bush is rushing deployment for political gain - not for our nation's safety
Well we face very little threat from a nation that is capable of reaching us with nucleaer missles. We do face a daily threat from terrorist groups which could the ports to infiltrate our cities. You are talking about greater damage from a threat, and not greater liklihood that the threat would come to fruition. Also the money for missle defense could be used better trying to track down the unaccounted for nukes. But flight was possible. It was in the realm of possibility. This isn't even there yet. I'm not saying there shouldn't be scientists working on something along these lines, but it shouldn't be a priority and the way it's going now is all wrong. Once they get to work(if they get it to work) it would take very little adjustment to make all the missle defense project become obsolete. It is ineffective. When Columbus sailed for the New World, globes had already been in existence in Europe since the 1300's. Innovation is great, but that doesn't mean that innovation in a fruitless way is worth investing in for an already debt ridden nation. There are wastes in defense spending. But I don't think defense spending as a whole is a waste. This is one of the huge wastes.
Well, that is the only likely intersection of 'terrorist' and 'nuclear.' Still confused? Fair enough. Let's try it out: We are more likely to face the threat of annihilation by an asteroid because the Cold War counterproliferation regimes are failing. There is a measurable risk of asteroid annihilation as more states become nuclear. Now I'm confused. Please explain why that is true?
I don't have any problem with what you say here, Chump. And I'm not calling you a chump, I'm just using your moniker.
So YOU DO have a beef! Its very hard to deal with you when you argue two different things, FB. Please choose a side, dammit. In the form of dirty bombs and that threatens minimum damage. And I am advocating funding for that too. These are NOT mutually exclusive options. Well, no. I even posted an assessment of what the most likely and most destructive nuclear threat is, and its not a dirty bomb, its an accidental nuclear launch. First off, this just is silly. Flight was possible, yes. Now we know that for sure. There was a time when people didn't think it was possible. Or that it was possible to go to the moon. There was a time when people THOUGHT about going to the moon, but no one really believed that technology would enable us to get there. And then when they DID think it was possible, they didn't think it would happen as soon as it did. This is just a losing argument for you and Sam. Yes, it doesn't work now. There is NOTHING in the history of technology that makes this impossible. Even the basic laws of nature as we understand them change over time. But this is not time travel we're talking about. This is neutralizing a moving object from its trajectory. A bullet into a bullet may not work, but that does not mean that the objective is unattainable. In addition, as I have pointed out many times, there are quantifiable (I have already name a few above) economic benefits to this kind of research, even from the R & D that eventually fails to achieve its aim of neutralizing an ICBM - and we have empirically seen that from the SDI programs in the 80s. You say that because it doesn't work now. Using that as a guideline, most every defense innovation would have been cancelled at the outset. The potential gain, which is to remove nuclear warfare as a possibility, to remove total global annihilation from nuclear warfare, is SO HUGE that we cannot abandon it. It puts us on the precipice of a new dawn in the history of humanity, where the power of the atom can be soley for creation instead of destruction. THAT, my wanna be french fried friends, is worth paying for. And there's nuclear blackmail etc etc (I could go on and on) to be avoided.
Slim? Are you smoking crack? You are starting to sound like a missle hugging Republican Gore has a better change of winning a Florida recount, than a rogue nation has of building a ICBM fleet.
You are confusing arguments. I do have a beef with spending on this missle defense program at the current rate. The beef I don't have is with influencing the election in the Ukraine. I say that the accidental launch is possible, but not likely. I say there is a threat, but a very minor one. I also say that the best way to prevent accidental launch is to beef up and improve procedures for launch. They need to make sure that all the weapons are secure. That is cheaper and more effective than missle defense. They can make it work eventually to some degree. But as soon as they do the technology will easily be made obsolete by some slight change in the ICBM's. I'm not saying it can never be done. But it can never be done in a way that can be maintained, that is efficient. It would be far more efficient to improve procedures ragarding accidental launch, foreign policy, etc. As far as the benefit gained from pouring money into this on an economic standpoint, I think it is very limited. Yes certain industries will benefit. Actually only certain companies within those industries will benefit. But all of society is paying large amounts for little benefit.
No, first you said no one was denying the threat, then you denied the threat. Well, I guess we just disagree. I've qualified my point above (see Bulleting of Atomic Scientists). Easier said than done. New nuclear powers are simply not agreeable to letting people come in and tinker with their systems. Empricially speaking, of course. Any that still leaves the zealot scenario etc totally undealt with. Your just viewing that from the perspective of what's been tried so far. No reason those hurdles can't be overcome. Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that its a 'little benefit.' Many industries are affected and gains in technology are fairly large. What exact economic effect it has I can't say for sure, but it does stand to cut against your economic waste argument at worst.
So wait - with the current national security climate - it is unlikely for a terrorist to ever obtain a nuclear weapon (from a source like, say Pakistan, which of course, trained Al Qaeda, harbors all sorts of militant islamic groups, or Iran) "because the Cold War counterproliferation regimes are failing. " So unlikely that a far greater threat is that of an accidental missile launch (from the few countries that posseess IBCMs), or a global nuclear war? Why is that? Launching a nuclear attack on an american city is the Super Bowl ring for most anti-western terrorist groups. While suitcase bombs (if they exist) are not as easy to come by "because the Cold War counterproliferation regimes are failing."as they are in the movies - I'm much more scared of that than of North Korea building the technology to do so and actually doing it - as are most/all national security/counter terror people other than those on the payroll of Lockheed or whoever is bilking the governmet on this boondoggle. (oh, but wait till those unanticipated technological benefits come through - someday we might be able to build rockets?) Let's really try it out: Why we should build asteroid defense by HayesStreet I think you're underestimating the cost/benefits. No reason we can't both beef up port security AND continue an asteroid defense program. There are economic and other benefits to the program, which cut against your economic arguments. Your claims that the program can't be built or that it will take 50 years are matched with the historical exponential curve of 'what is possible' through technology. 50 years ago there was NO space exploration. Not even a satellite. [ED: yeah but 47 years ago there was - and we couldn't have shot the rocket that carried it up with today's technology] Now there are regular trips to space, we've been to the moon. 15 years ago there was no internet. Technology historically outstrips the expectation of 'what is possible.' There is a measurable risk of giant asteroid that increases in probability over time - and its pretty much acknowledged that giant asteroid strikes have, in documented instances destroyed all megafauna on the planet in the past. The devestation of a dirty bomb is minimal while the devestation of an asteroid could extinguish life on the planet. Total extinction of life on the planet vs money. A world without the threat of giant space asteroids vs one with it. A world with such a system would in effect remove the possibility of such asteroids existing [ok - little license on my part - but a world with antimissile systems wouldn't remove the incentive for them to exist - it would insert an incentive to design around them - See line, Maginot]. That's a good thing. According to the IAEA it is unlikely that the amount of radiological material in a dirty bomb would be sufficient to cause large numbers of fatalities or long-term health problems. However, the main impact would be that of any weapon of terror: creating fear, panic and over-reaction by the public and the media. The NCR concurs: 'In most cases, any immediate deaths or serious injuries would likely result from the explosion itself, rather than from radiation exposure. It is unlikely that the radioactive material contained in a dirty bomb would kill anyone. The radioactive material would be dispersed into the air and reduced to relatively low concentrations, resulting in low doses to people exposed. In addition, most people would be expected to run away from the explosion, further reducing potential exposure. A low-level exposure to radioactive contamination could slightly increase the long-term risk of cancer.' Total annihilation or even flattening of a city by an asteroid simply is not comparable to the relatively minor damage caused by a dirty bomb.
What fascinating reading. I'm looking at stuff from posters I frequently agree with, having a poke at each other about two really serious potential threats to this country, and quite possibly the world, and looking past each other as obtusely as a Republican viewing George W. Bush as a fiscal conservative. Hitting a ballistic missile with another ballistic missile has been proven, so far, to be impossible, unless the tests are rigged. Even those regularly fail. And the targets used don't include any deception methods that would likely be in use by the "bad actor." A laser, mounted on a high flying aircraft, once developed (and they are seriously getting busy as beavers on it), can hit multiple targets, one after the other, at the speed of light. It has been noted that they would have to been "in theatre," in other words, relatively close to the "bad actor," to be effective. So what? I would be more than comfortable having airborne anti-missile lasers orbiting off the coasts of Iran and North Korea above an Aegis battle fleet, which could protect said aircraft very handily, and also be able to launch a devastating strike almost immediately against the aggressor. And it would be far less expensive, as well as an excellent projection of our power, than some nebulous fantasy cooked up by some giant campaign contributors that are sucking up money in the billions and billions, and making immense profits doing so. I would also work on improving the Navy's ship deployed anti-missile capabilities. Spend funds on an anti-missile program that could be deployed from the ground to hit incoming targets, but do it in a measured, cost effective way that may actually get results someday. And I'm not sure, Sam, if you are serious about an asteroid strike, or not, but the threat is real, and we currently can't do a damn thing about it. That would make for another thread, and is an interest of mine, along with being one of the strongest reasons for a more robust space program. You guys... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Keep D&D Civil!!
All kidding aside, I think it is conceptually much easier to build a system that can blast a quarter mile diameter hunk of Rock out of the sky on a months or weeks notice (maybe with nuclear missiles - but what if the asteroid has missile defense! ) than it is to hit a tiny warhead hurtling through the sky on a few minutes notice - provided of course you hit the right warhead and not a decoy or dummy, and get each and every MIRV if there are any.
"Of these, the first is the least likely. It would be extremely difficult for terrorists to acquire an intact weapon from one of the eight nuclear weapon states. The security of these weapons, especially those in Russia and Pakistan, is a valid concern. But to detonate an intact, stolen Russian nuke, a terrorist would have to get past security safeguards built into the weapon, such as authorization codes. And Pakistani nuclear weapons (believed to number up to 50) are reportedly stored separately from the weapons' cores. Besides the difficulties associated with obtaining a ready-made, good-to-go nuke, there would be other barriers--such as transporting and preparing to deliver it undetected. This is perhaps the lowest probability, highest consequence scenario of nuclear terrorism." Considering I'm the only one qualifying my opinion here, there you have it. You're taking more than poetic license. And between the two of us, you're the only one that has to change my word and USE poetic license to make his case. As I indicated when I first responded to this joke, the scenarios I list out are more probable than those you list out. Significantly more probable than an asteroid hitting the earth anytime soon because of the particular events happening currently. The failure of the Cold War counterproliferation regimes doesn't mean anyone can buy a nuke, it means nation states can. While there is a risk of a nation state giving a terrorist a nuke, that state is also deterred by the Cold War remenant, MAD. The religious zealot as leader could play itself out either way, granted, with them either giving a nuke to a terrorist or launching themselves, but the preponderance of risk is with the horizontal spread from nation state to nation state. This risks accidental launch, miscalculation, last gasp martyrdom/regime failure, and nuclear blackmail. Whereas there is no INCREASE in risk of an asteroid hitting the earth because of current circumstances that make it more likely than before. Finally, as I've said all along, we can both guard the ports and develop this program. They aren't mutually exclusive. Your only reason NOT to develop the program is money, and that's just not convincing.
C'mon, Deckard. Keep your chin up, pal! I think Chump hit on this when he heartily disagreed with this timetable set in place, but not with the concept of BMD. This overall system is supposed to be composed of several components, including those that you describe, so its a bit misleading to pretend this is the whole system. Further we should keep in mind that the ballastic missles it might initially come up against like the humorously name No Dong, does not have any of these juking or deception capabilities everyone seems so enamoured with. From the science side I can understand the bullet/bullet difficulties so I more defending ballistic missile defense in general than this specific part of the program. (edit: although I don't think I ever said that, so if that makes a difference...)
I haven't been able to read all of the posts so I apologize if this has been said already. In theory I have nothing against SDI but as Sam points out well we don't have unlimited resources, unless someone actually believes that we can continue borrowing with no consequence. It is well within our technological means to develop a system that can prevent hostile missile launches. That is excellent intellegence and infiltration of potential nuclear antagonists. The airborne laser will do you no good if you don't know within a minute or so of where and when a missile is being launched and right now our intelligence on North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and many other countries nuclear programs is woefully inadequate. With better intel we can pinpoint specific threats and deal with them conventionally, like say when a missile is being fueled and positioned for launch. Further better intelligence will allow us to keep a better eye on what's going on with other nuclear powers to prevent having a false alarm turn into a nuclear exchange. If we can infiltrate potentially hostile countries we could sabotage their missile programs long before they're anywhere near launching. We're not their yet considering how we've been surprised a few times by NK so it seems to me it makes much more sense to devote resources into developing better and more robust intelligence than to spend on trying to do something that hasn't proved feasible in more than 40 years of research. Remember it still took almost a decade to get to the Moon and we can see it and it wasn't actively deploying countermeasures against us. So the goals of developing are far more difficult to achieve than the Moon landing, Manhatten project, Human Genome project or anything else because their is an active opposition against us and in this contests its alot easier and cheaper to play to offense.
Well, I'll take Seymour Hersh (that, I believe is where the "reportedly" comes from) on Pakistan's weapons at face value, but glad to know that it's a low probability. This is the same outdated coldwar "nation-state" based paradigm that allowed us to be sleeping on 9-11 and is why we are in a pile of crap in Iraq while Bin Laden is making tapes. But anyway, please give me some bit of evidence that your probabilities are more probable than mine And while you're at it, please provide one shred of evidence that the ground based system that we are currently implementing is the best way to achieve this task? You'll have a tough road considering that many of its designers think (strongly) otherwise First, the total number of warheads has decreased since the height of the cold war so by that definition, has it really increased? Second, if we get hit by a massive comet every 100 years due to movements of the Kuiper belt, each passing year without one means we're living on borrowed time since Tunguska! Here they come! Or, we could build one that works, or asteroid defense. Why don't we try something else Hayes. Let's switch sides. You argue against asteroid defense and I'll argue for it.
