Missile defense system - whatcha think?

[stonerdave]

Yeah, I caught that 60 min story a while backon this. A physics prof at MIT claimed given today's technology, hitting an ICBM with another missile is absurd, even an ICBM lacking a warhead with decoys. He compared it to the SCUD missiles Saddam used in desert storm, asserting the army had a much, much less successful rate of interecepting them that what they claimed. More like 0%.

Also, the defense contractor of the missile defense system is under investigation for fixing tests and experiments to show their system works, even though they knew all along it didn't. I don't know if the Internet article says this but its all I could remember.

What a waste...

 

[Imported]

I've heard that there was some laser system developed, but not sure on specific details on it. I remember seeing it on the news or maybe it was in Popular Science.

 

[KDOG]

Whoa Whoa there people....

I am in favor of the IDEA but it just doesnt' seem like it would work...but I do think one should be developed lets not leave ourselves vulnerable in that area...

As far as the Patriot Missile system used in the Gulf War goes, in fairness, it was designed to shoot down aircraft, not missiles. The problem was that the onboard radar couldn't see the warhead and locked onto the rocket body instead, usually after the 2 had separated.

Besides, as someone else said, to hell with what the other countries think, take care of number 1....

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it's a great way to insure campaign contributions. The Republithieves pump out billions in defense contracts, and these companies fill the theives coffers. It's a win win situation except for the tax payers and the rest of the world. Keep people frightened and you can milk them.

 

[GD695372]

Anything to increase the national debt is fine with me. j/k
I liked Star Wars personally, although I don't think it was possible at that point. Sounds good.

 

[nippyjun]

I'm for it!

 

[ElFenix]

Muerto - the kill vehicle has no warhead. its a lump of aluminum and magnesium and plastic flying at mach 15 toward a lump of aluminum and uranium going at mach 20. theres no explosion (which would have to be miles ahead of the incoming warhead with the closing speeds we're talking about).

Xerox Man -

<< The interesting part about a well-executed defense system, is that it renders ballistic missile development, for the most part, obsolete. If a system exists than take down incoming ICBMs, then why bother developing ICBMs to shoot? >>



a system already exists that renders ICBMs useless and obsolete. its also paradoxical, its the ICBM itself. once more than one state has secure second strike capability its pointless for any state to have ICBMs, because they will never be used. even a &quot;rogue&quot; state wouldn't. why? whats the point of ruling over a state with an iron fist when everyone is dead? so the missle defense is pointless that way.

terrorists are different, having different objectives than third-world (and second-world) dictators. they could deliver a nuke to the US, but would never do it on the top of a missle. they'd sneak it in, drive up in a shrimp boat or something and nuke manhattan. so the missle defense is pointless that way, as well.

then there is the fact that its a technological impossiblity. even if we could hit a warhead with a kill vehicle, its too easy to dupe the system with some heated mylar balloons. it would only take one missle to get a warhead and a bunch of dummy balloons to new york. the only solution to the dummy problem by a small state with only a few missles is to build lots of interceptors, which would piss of the russians big time since it eliminates their secure second strike. so yet another reason not to build it. the world is a much safer place under the MAD theory than with this stupid missle defense system.

 

[Aquaman]

It deosn't really affect me (Canada has no Missles) but the system better be a heck of a lot better than the 'Patriot' missle system (ie. not as effective in Desert Storm as reported).

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Pennstate]

Although I know the interceptor missles will have a sophisticated guidance system. But does it take into account of the heavy wind in the Jet stream? I know it's moving much faster than jet stream wind but even a tiny difference could mean hundreds or even thoudsands of feet off target. Also, it's projected to cost $60 Billion dollars to build. However, given past estimates, it will probably be twice as much. ANd it's not guaranteed to work. Also, what's going to prevent other countries from shooting down the guidance satalites with powerful lasers before a nuke launch?

 

[sandorski]

StarWars is corporate welfare. The US would be better served developing a radiation detection system that could identify terrorist nuclear devices.

 

[ElFenix]

the tracking is done from the kill vehicle, so theres no satellites to shoot down. also, who has powerful lasers? do you mean satellite lasers? the US hasn't been able to build one yet. ground based would be unworkable, since the atmosphere would absorb almost all the energy.


how would a radiation detection system work at all? are you going to put geiger counters around the whole US? and what happens when the terrorists put a thick layer of lead around the bomb, so no radiation leaks? yeah, thats a good use for a sh!tload of geiger counters. we'd be better off sending rice to north korea with the money.

 

[JellyBaby]

I forsee a system that protects a limited portion of the US...namely Washington D.C....where all the bureaucrats hide out. I'd prefer a more preventative approach: stop interefering in world affairs/stop pissing off every other nation/stop giving the Bin Ladens scum reason to bother with us.

But it's probably gonna be made anyhow. Too much $$$ involved (notice most democrats are for a version of it...and that scares me more than russia's response).

 

[Vikaden]

Check this out -------> Missle Defense

 

[Stark]

vikaden,

could you please summarize the paper into one or two sentences? All I got was &quot;there are nuclear missles&quot; and quickly tuned out.

 

[sandorski]

Elf: I ain't no rocket sciencist) ). What I'm saying is, they'd be better off developing a system(perhaps satellite based)that would be sensitive enough to detect radioactive materials(specifically materials used in nuclear weapon devices). The reasons have already been stated, namely that terrorists will not use ICBMs, so a missile defence system is a false sense of security. Besides, if a missile defence system had a 100% efficiency, anyone who wanted to deliver a nuclear weapons device to the US would be forced to use other means. At first this may seem to be good, but tons of stuff is smuggled into the US daily, making a detection system vital.

I don't even know if there are any kind of scientific Laws or theories that could possibly result in such a device, but the US would be safer with such a system then an anti-missile system.

 

[ElFenix]

that would probably require an ultra sensitive device to be orbital, it would probably be set off by an MRI machine or something. of course, they'll have every MRI machine in the world mapped really quick. but that still doesn't solve the problem that you could simply shield the device using some cheap lead. it'd be damn near impossible to detect a nuclear device being shipped into the US if it were sheilded. because of that, we should probably up our counter-terrorism abilities, which would also protect against regular bombs and hostage situations.

 

[thelanx]

If no one has nuclear missle defense, countries would be afraid to use nuclear weapons, but terrorists might. If everyone has nuclear missile defense, nuclear missles won't do anything, unless they are sneaked in which was already mentioned. I remember the US and Russia signed a treaty not to developed NMDs to try to discourage the use nuclear weapons because then the nuclear missles will blow everything up. Other countries like North Korea are not part of this treaty, so these countries could developed NMDs and use nuclear weapons against the US and Russia while the US and Russia do not have NMDs. That is what the US is afraid of so they started developing NMDs.

 

[ElFenix]

if the north koreans were able to build a missile defense i'd be shocked, so it doesn't really matter. the chinese might be able to. they'd still have to shoot down a few thousand incoming, plus dummy balloons could easily be retrofitted, so that would simply overwhelm a missile defense system. the treaty isn't necessary as long as a defense system isn't workable.

 

[glenn1]

&quot;the world is a much safer place under the MAD theory than with this stupid missle defense system.&quot;

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that's beside the point. I don't care if 'the world is a safer place,' as much as i am that the United States be a safer place. We shouldn't build something because it might piss off the Russians? WTF kind of reasoning is that? Since when did what the Russians think, or anyone else for that matter, matter more than our national security interests or policies?

I don't disagree with you that NMD is not necessarily something that should be pursued full speed ahead, but those two reasons for opposing it aren't supportable, IMHO. The reasons for reservations on my part involve the technical challenge of such a system possilbly not being overcomeable at this time.

 

[BrianS]

As an xRussian I would like to say few words

1. To glenn1 you are an idiot.

2. Both US and Russia signed various agreements on nuclear weapons.
In particular agreement that Bush would like to target covers sattelite
missle / pulse lasers deployment.

This agreement limited arms races. The truth as far as I know, both US and
Russia have sattelites that are in violation of this accord. What agreement
did was to limmit the deployment scale.

[*]Pulse laser sattelites use nuclear reactors ( great. )
[*]Russia worked on shredder solution, when special sattelite simply explodes leaving orbit with billions of little parts, like steel balls that would shredd any &quot;enemy&quot;/own sats. ( great, what if something goes wrong? )
[*] Despite people thinking of infinite space, not that many positions for satts exists.
Especially on geo orbits. Let's fill'em all with military satts.
[*] Since it does not take much fuel for missle once it reached ballistic orbit, ICBMs can do number of spins before they hit target. In other words rocket fired at the direction of iceland after few spinns arrownd the globe can end up in China. In other words you never know what would be exact destination of the missle.
[*] Detection of missle launch has been problematic as well.
[*] US could not even hit dumb modified skudz ( design 1960s ), with two extra fuel tanks added. That thing was better than a perfect target: very large, heavy, known direction, almost known destination. I don't even think Russia have any of these anymore.
[*] Whole thing to me sounds like few contractors would like to make lots of cash, have guaranteed income for 10 - 15 years.

Brian

 

[glenn1]

Brian, i did not say what i did because i dislike Russians, or for any other base motives. I think it is a matter of basic principle, that each nation has the basic right to defend its national defense interests. That would include the life and property of its citizens, and the integrity of its territories. This is a basic and intrinsic right for a nation, and one of the primary reasons for a nation-state to exist in the first place.

Why do you call me an idiot for saying the U.S. has that right, without regards to what Russia (or any other nation) thinks? Likewise, I don't think Russia's defense policies should be dictated by the U.S. (or any other country) thinks either, so where's the problem?

If such weapons were restricted by a proper and legal treaty between the countries, Russian concerns would have merit. However, since you are likely speaking of the ABM Treaty, this point fails. The treaty in question was made with a nation that no longer exists (the U.S.S.R.), so by defintion, IMHO, the treaty no longer exists either. Russia would be free, if they so wished, to pursue a NMD program if they wished as well.

If you still feel i'm an idiot, that's fine, you won't be the first... but at least i'm a consistent idiot

 

[gUEv]

&quot;nuke them, nuke those goddamn commie bastards&quot;
-George Washington

...wait a second..

 

[JasonG]

It's just a complete waste of money.

I can't understand how supposedly intelligent people (Goerge W. excluded) can advocate the development of such a system.

As people have said, a terrorist could smuggle a &quot;backpack&quot; type nuclear weapon into the states far easier than sending a missile and there is no way to guard against that with a missile defense system.

Let's spend those countless billions which are going into so many greedy pockets on better things. Everyone is saying the military needs more money for better pay, spare parts, etc.

Why don't we spend this &quot;star wars&quot; money on these things instead of waste them on developing a system which just is not feasible.

Obviously it would be nice to feel nice and safe behind our &quot;shield of protection&quot; but it just isn't going to happen.

Unfortunately, people seem to let emotions get in the way of common sense and waste billions of dollars in the process. But I guess that is no surprise in this country.

Jason

 

[Moonbeam]

JasonG, Don't be silly. It's a complete waste of your money which will go to line the pockets of those who contribute to the Republican party.

 

[JasonG]

Moonbeam- Isn't that basically what I said?