HayesStreet before 9/11 -- "Terrorists will never fly airplanes into buildings." I guess it will take a port attack (nuclear or otherwise) for some to understand why allowing fat cat contractors to dictate national security issues ($$$) is a very bad idea. MadMax as soon as the Russians, Chinese, etc. realized we were going forward with MD they immediately began improving their own countermeasures. This probable included a trip to a party supply warehouse to buy mylar balloons - missile defense will never prevent a doomsday scenario if it comes to that. Why aren't there ever any articles describing the amazing successes of the missile defense program? ______________________________________ Holes in the Missile Shield By Richard L. Garwin This fall, perhaps by the time you read this, President George W. Bush is expected to declare that the first phase of the long-awaited national missile defense is operational. The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans to install six interceptor rockets--designed to strike a ballistic missile in midcourse--in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska by mid-October. Ten more will be deployed at Fort Greely and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by the end of 2005. Over the following years the MDA intends to bolster this rudimentary midcourse defense with more interceptors, advanced radars and surveillance satellites. The reason for the deployment is to counter the threat that a rogue state--namely, North Korea or Iran--will attempt to hit the U.S. with nuclear or biological weapons delivered on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But despite the more than $80 billion spent by the U.S. on missile defense since 1985, this system will not provide significant protection for many years, if ever. Scientific American ______________________________________ U.S. Missile Defense Can be Fooled by Decoys, Documents Say WASHINGTON — Documents published by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency over the past two years appear to confirm what experts have charged is a fundamental flaw of the national missile defense system the Bush administration plans to make operational in Alaska this year. Critics say the language appears to confirm a fundamental flaw that they have argued for years would render the system ineffective at defeating even a basic ICBM attack. “It’s the Achilles heel of this system,” said Ted Postol, an MIT arms control expert. “Given the fact that they have only certain sensors they can use, [the problem is] impossible to solve.” “Apparently the big defense contractors — Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed — have not been able to solve this problem, or else the MDA would not be turning now to small businesses for creative ideas,” said Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s former top weapons testing official, now a senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information. NTI ______________________________________
Not sure I understand your point here. France, for example, is not going to give Osama a nuke, but they did give Israel one. China is not going to give Osama a nuke, but they gave Pakistan one. See how that works? Nation state's playing balance of power politics are spreading nuclear technology. Nation state's are unlikely to GIVE Osama a nuke because then they'd be responsible for it, and suffer the consequences. At least for now there isn't a nation state that would give Osama a nuke. There are states whose possession of nukes risks accidents, miscalculation etc. I've already posted the reasons, man. Terrorists have all sorts of problems getting their hands on a nuke, and if they did they still wouldn't have the codes etc. They can't just MAKE the material for a bomb, and what material they CAN get it only good for a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb serves their purposes, it scares the holy living **** out of the target, presumably us, and kills some people. It is MORE LIKELY, therefore, that they choose that option. As I said above, I am for BMD although this particular PART of the program may not be that effective (although it did shoot down 5 of 8 targets so far - granted in tests with strict rules). You're claiming above to shut the whole thing down, which is more than this one part of the system. I don't think that's a good idea, and apparently neither do you since you suggest funding other BMD options besides this one PART of the system. If your argument has mutated and now is that you're FOR BMD, but not this particular option, I've got no problem with that. If you look at the destruction wrought by the Tunguska explosion, it doesn't come near the destruction of a nuclear war, certainly not a global one - or we'd be dead, right? Nice try. With the space based components of BMD its likely that it'll be both I would think. OK, but should we start another thread? It might get confusing for our readers
Its really disappointing when someone completely mischaracterizes your positon. Go back and look, KC, at how many times I've said I'm all for increasing security in ports. Then come back and tell me where I've advocated NOT increasing security in ports. At the same time I can put you in the same position: I guess it will take a city blowing all to hell for you to understand why BMD is a good idea.
and an airplaine hijacking is MORE LIKELY and easier than a dirty bomb, so why would they ever want to get a dirty bomb? strict rules, - or in other words, rigged. In its few "successful" tests the decoys were made to be distinguishable from the warhead, and this was programmed into the warhead, and still barely 50% effective? In other words, the exact opposite of what real world conditions would require - as well as the definition of "decoy". This is not disputed by anybody. That thing is a piece of ****, we all know this, and as Cheetah noted; the systems former designers/engineers have all stated taht it takes a $0.25 balloon to defeat the 100 billion dollar missile system. That is not an effective use of money. Well I'm for BMD in principle, and asteroid defense, and for holodecks and Xray vision - in principle. If the govt (or even better, Raytheon, etc) wants to spend a few hundered million studying boost phase intercept than fine. But we have a limited amount of resources in the real world. 10 billion, is a significant sum of money given the substantial deficiencies that exist in national security - which is what it is all about. Tunguska in a populated area would be a massive catastrophe. But anyway, that's just an example from the last century. Go back a few geologic ages, and there is much, much worse.
If we had invested a quarter (or much less) of what we have spent on the various guises of SDI on the security of our ports we would have a much safer country. The reality is we have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that will never work. The strangest thing about all these missile-to-missile defense programs is that we have had a (semi) working ‘shield’ since the early 60s (and still do). In the event of an attack from the Soviets/ Russia the US would launch literally dozens (hundreds?) of Nukes and detonate them over the North Pole creating a 'shield' ~ it was called the Nike X program. The Soviets/ Russians have something similar which makes the artic circle the last place you want to be if all hell breaks loose. Obviously detonating nukes to stop a single missile from NK is not a viable option, but a theater laser fired from a 747 is the best technology to do the job IMHO.
OK, what does that get you? Uh, nothing. You ask 'why is a dirty bomb the most likely scenario?' I give you an answer, and so you glibbly make a nonsensical retort. I hope you don't argue that way in court, or your record must be ridiculously pitiful. Well, there is no indication that, oh....North Korea, for example, has decoys for its No Dong missile, or did I miss where you posted about that? Or that it could deploy decoys, or anything else. And yes, if North Korea launched on us, and we killed half their missiles, that would STILL be a good thing. It would mean that Seattle was toast but LA was saved (or the other way around). That is pretty good. And this is not disputed by anybody but you. In addition, this is only ONE part of the overall program. Gee, how very articulate of you. I would respond, but what is there to say? Form is temporary but class is forever. No, in reality 10 billion is not that much money. To illucidate let us examine how many ports have been blown to bits by terrorists in possession of intact nuclear weapons. Oh wait, there aren't any. Lets examine how the continuation of the BMD program PREVENTS more funding for port security. Oh wait, it doesn't. Every disadvantage you MAKE UP for the BMD program is a mirage. The 'cost' you claim makes us so much more unsafe is simply a FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. 80 billion over 20 years. 4 billion a year. Wow, that is just so crazy. Oh, right. Name an example, and then backtrack. You simply can't deal with the fact that one example has an impact of the extinction of the species, from an increase in situational risk that we can control, and one doesn't. You try to sound real smart by pointing out an obscure asteroid hit in the early part of the last century, but end up looking stupid because there was no damage from the hit that even begins to compare to a nuke over a major metropolitan area. Add to it that, AGAIN, I'll point out these options aren't mutually exclusive, and that the space base components of the program may very well form the basis of an asteroid response, and that there are quantifiable risks that I have qualified (as opposed to your responses on risk which you haven't), and this is a CRUSH CRUSH CRUSH. Go back to your cubicle and try again.
I said nobody was denying a threat, but that like myself, people think the threat is isn't very likely. I think they are looking at it from a technical standpoint. I maybe wrong, but I look at it from a human standpoint. Your logic for the reason why SDI can work is that we can invent the future technology. If we talk about what can be done in the future it is just as valid for me to claim that through proper diplomacy and treaties we can get nations to agree on safegaurding their nuclear launch systems. As I said above your judging the liklihood of those attacks based on what's been done so far. No reason we can't overcome those hurdles to gain cooperation from other countries. Up until now the U.S. have been the ones uncooperative as far as limiting nukes, and pulling out of treaties. I think it would be very feasable to get other nations to agree. I arrive at the conclusion that it is of little benefit except to a tiny group of people in that industry, because SDI has been around since Reagan, and it has only been of benefit to those folks. The rest of us have been paying out the wazoo for it, while other programs are unfunded, and our debt rises. I'm not sure why you think it will change from the way it has been going since its inception, and cut into the economic waste argument I'm putting forward. It's not like it is a new idea that we are debating whether in the future it will have a valid economic boon. It is something that has been around, and so far has been a total waste.
I think SDI is a smokescreen to allow the government to spend a ton of money on some other, secret project. The tests they do occasionally are just distraction. I also think that all the ways that you can supposedly defeat SDI that are common knowledge are also mis-information to distract "enemies" from the REAL SDI (which is probably already in place and has been operating since the Reagan administration). Think about it. Has any president since it was introduced opposed it? You'd think that Clinton would oppose to it but research kept on going during his administration. So, what does Clinton know that we don't know? I had a student who worked on a Patriot Missile battery during the Gulf War. I asked him how good they actually were since the military said they were great but others said they sucked. He said that he couldn't tell me but they were much better they I thought they were. Clearly the capabilities of Patriot missiles are not public info. Same with SDI.
Sorry to butt in again on you and Sam's discussion but I have to point out a few things. This is the problem that I've been getting at. We don't know what NK and its missiles are capable of because we don't have the intelligence. It still seems more logical to me to devote signifigant resources towards diplomatic and otherwise engagement with NK and cranking up intel resources than a pie in the sky missile defense that is highly suspect, prohibitively expensive scientifically shown to be easily defeated and sets back diplomatic efforts. Pursuit of missile defense seems to me to be more of a costly distraction than a practical attempt to address the problem of potential nuclear ICBM adversaries. How many cities have been blown up by nuclear missiles? None. Your own logic works against you here in regards to the threat. We've already seen an attack using transportation systems as a means so its seems much more likely that an attack using our shipping systems will occur. As far as the money well there's a saying from DC, "A billion here, a billion there and now we're talking about real money." We're facing record deficits with no end in sight. The Admin is talking about borrowing more than a a trillion to privatize social security. As much as we like to pretend that we can borrow money endlessly without consequence I think we're in for a rude awakening. Just a side note for cold warriors like yourself, our rampant borrowing already represents a major threat on our longterm security because one of our potential nuclear adversaries we are building to missile defense to stop is also one of our largest creditors. THe PRC. Why bother with launching a missile at us when they can cripple our economy by calling in their loans or dumping their dollar reserves. SDI is just throwing money, or more accurately "debt", at a boondoggle when there are much more pressing issues.
Sishir - so it's not a threat because it never happened before? so was the threat of planes hijacked by terrorists slamming into buildings not real before 9/11?? it only becomes a threat after it happens? i'm thinking the impact of missile-based nuclear exchanges between countries is a good risk to protect against...but i'm silly that way.
But prior to 9/11 we had intel and even a public report by Gary Hart that stated terrorists would strike inside the U.S. If Bush had decided to make terrorism the priority that he made missle defense, that would have been based on credible intel. But we have no intel that says N. Korea is preparing to stirke or anyone else. It's not becuase that hasn't happened before that it shouldn't be our number 1 priority. It's because we dont' have any warnings that it is about to happen now or in the near future. That wasn't the case with terrorism, or 9/11.
FB -- we don't have a warning that we have nuclear missiles pointed at every one of our major cities which a human error or machine error or some combination of the two, could lead to the decimation of the planet??? i was pretty well aware of that possibility long before i was aware of terrorism. and it seems to me, the stakes might be a tad bit higher on that one, because it not only ensures our security, but the security of the entire world. let's put this to bed...is anyone seriously arguing against the notion that it would be a great idea to be able to shoot missiles out of the sky with such consistency that it would make ICBM's obsolete?? i'm not asking if you think we can...or how much it would cost...but just the notion. i'm guessing all of you arguing against it were against the buildup of these weapons...are you now arguing it wouldn't be a good thing to attempt to make them obsolete or far less impactful (is that a word??) let's take that leg away from the argument...because certainly no one wants to stand behind the notion that it's not a good idea. then we can get to the argument of cost and feasibility...fair??
Your question is fair and when I said nobody was denying the threat of nuclear missles, that is what I meant. But I do believe there is a far better way for making them obsolete. That is through diplomacy, deterrent, cooperation, verifiable treaties etc.
You deploy quite a propensity to be unable to recognize your own arguments used against you. Hayesstreet: A dirty bomb is more likely and easier, therefore we need not worry about anything else SF: A hijacking is more likely and easier, therefore we need not worry about anything else HS: you fool! Good to know, Hayesstreet, that your intelligence service has given you a proper basis on which to foreclose this possibility! Since you have no indication of it - it must indicate that NK nor anybody else, would never, under any circumstances, think of this low tech, cheap, simple countermeasure, described here by persons more knowledgable than you or I: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma00garwin But you know, they probably don't need to take this countermeasure yet - because we can't even get our freaking rocket off the freaking ground. Not if we killed half the decoys, but then since your intel indicates they don't have any, and never will.... Hey, by the way, you should inform the missile testers of this, then there is no need to rig the tests so that they can get around the decoys! Their success rate would go way up! Well, for the missiles that actually got off the ground, that is.... Did I offend your delicate ears by describing the program as a piece of ****? Or is this just mock offense, so that you can avoid taking an indefensible position. The current program is a failure, and the tests have been rigged. You know this, I know this, but you would lose face to admit this. You know this, and I know this, so I guess you won't. In reality, it is the single largest annual appropriation in the defense budget for any weapon system. In reality, it prevents port security, it prevents special forces funding, it prevents armored humvees, it prevents education funding, it prevents it prevents everything. Shockingly enough, our government cannot spend unlimited resources every year, and operates over a budget. Spending money on one thing means necessarily - now or later - spending less on something else in a world of finite resources. This is the first page of any economics text Hayes - please tell me what we have received so far though, from this trivial 100 billion we have spent. Oh yes, a program that doesn't work, but has been deployed. Are you denying that asteroids can cause mass extinctions? A big enough one doesn't even need to hit a major metroplitan area to wipe out all life on earth. This is fairly elementary. Anyway, are we actually doing what I proposed? Because if we are going to have an argument on asteroid defense let's start from the beginning so I can rehash all of your arguments about missile defense more completely and effectively. You know, what is quite hilarious here is your reliance on "situational control", which is precisely why your "we can put a man on the moon, we can hit a missile with a missile " argument blows up on the launching pad.
________________________________ The current guise of 'missile defense' has never and will never work.
I don't want to interrupt some of the detailed mano-e-mano action in this thread, but can we agree on a few points? (1) ICBM's from rogue nations or mistaken firings or whatever are still very much worth worrying about. (2) The oversight on the current ABM program looks pretty shabby. The contractors should at least be held accountable for such enormous expenditures from me, you, our parents, and our children. (3) No anti-missile defense will be 100% preventative (nothing is). I think these all lead us to make sure we're exploring many, many vectors for protecting ourselves, all at the same time. Diplomacy, aero-laser jets, ABM, vigorous BBS posting, whatever. $80B in one basket doesn't sound that smart, given what we've seen so far and given the incredible doubts of many scientists about the feasibility.
