# Faith-Based Missile Defense! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2001, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662 "2001-09-10T13:56:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/1 "2001-09-10T13:56:15Z")
Let’s let those who think the Pentagon’s missile defense system will work fork over the money to pay for it. Better yet, let’s get a 24/7 prayer vigil going in order to protect us from missiles fired by rogue nations. I think that would have a better chance of actually working than the Pentagon’s project. I heard some religious personage has already volunteered to get the prayer vigil going. ---
**Author:** ![BigNutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BigNutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigNutz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/2 "2001-09-10T15:08:42Z")
Granted the missle defense will not work, we’d be better off just waiting for those rouge nations to try and attack us. We could just nuke them then. prayer would be useless, I mean look at the Jews, they’re supposedly God’s people, and look where prayer got them for over 3000 years. Nothing. Believing God will help us out, one of the most sin infested countries, is just a load of bs ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/3 "2001-09-10T15:22:59Z")
I don’t see any reason why, with enough engineering, it can’t work. I don’t think the threat of rogue states shooting ICBMs at the USA is so clear and present that I would have made it a priority, but I certainly don’t think it’s beyond our technology to achieve. What makes you think it’s so impossible? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/4 "2001-09-10T15:30:20Z")
What Chaim said. I think it’s silly, and a waste of money. But it certainly seems to be _technologically_ feasable. Why wouldn’t it be? ---
**Author:** ![Syzygy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Syzygy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syzygy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/5 "2001-09-10T15:55:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by BigNutz:_ > **Granted the missle defense will not work, we’d be better off just waiting for those rouge nations to try and attack us. We could just nuke them then. prayer would be useless, I mean look at the Jews, they’re supposedly God’s people, and look where prayer got them for over 3000 years. Nothing. Believing God will help us out, one of the most sin infested countries, is just a load of bs** Has anyone else noticed a lack of informed opinions in GD lately? Take it to IMHO or the Pit, newbie. As for the OP, I’m gonna jump on the bandwagon, and say that it’s too expensive and unnecessary, but that it could work. Preparing for WWIII was the military’s business for decades; why couldn’t they handle it again? ---
**Author:** ![Acco40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@Acco40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acco40)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/6 "2001-09-10T16:08:24Z")
If you throw enough money at it, of course it’ll work. The question is whether it is the best way to protect us from nuclear attack (without pissing off China). We are much more susceptible to attack from _within_ via terrorism… that’s where the money should be going. I don’t see anything being “faith-based” to be applicable here. ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/7 "2001-09-10T16:34:34Z")
A lot of the skeptics seem to think that because we haven’t figured out how to make the system work by now, we never will, which is absolutely ludicrous. After all, didn’t Thomas Edison try hundreds of light bulb designs before finding one that worked? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/8 "2001-09-10T16:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > If you throw enough money at it, of course it’ll work. Throwing money at it sure worked for perpetual motion! ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/9 "2001-09-10T16:45:02Z")
Well, yeah, but you gotta throw money at it perpetually! 😉 As to the OP, > [@](#): > > Let’s let those who think the Pentagon’s missile defense system will work fork over the money to pay for it. Offer that deal for everything the federal government does. You will have _no_ problems whatsoever getting the Republicans to agree. Be careful what you wish for. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/10 "2001-09-10T17:42:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > **A lot of the skeptics seem to think that because we haven’t figured out how to make the system work by now, we never will, which is absolutely ludicrous.** Knocked down any straw men lately? AFAIK, most critics of the missile defense system dislike it because they (a) don’t think it’s an effective way to combat terrorism (as others have pointed out, NMD won’t stop terrorists smuggling in a bomb in the back of a U-Haul truck), and (b) point out that the current prototypes need a _lot_ of work to be effective (I seriously doubt any “rogue nations” lobbing bombs at us will put tracking transponders in their warheads, do you?). Nobody says that a working NMD can’t be developed **eventually** – we just don’t think it’s a good use of money _now._ ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/11 "2001-09-10T18:13:09Z")
Er, **R.J.** , it’s not a strawman if it’s an argument _from the OP_. Until we find out what **Mr. Duality** had in mind to discuss, all we have to go on is his OP. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/12 "2001-09-10T20:18:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > \*\*A lot of the skeptics seem to think that because we haven’t figured out how to make the system work by now, we never will, which is absolutely ludicrous. After all, didn’t Thomas Edison try hundreds of light bulb designs before finding one that worked? \*\* The USA never agreed to spend $60,000,000,000+ on a lightbulb prior to the existence of a working model. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/13 "2001-09-10T21:41:38Z")
What **rjung** said. The problem isn’t that Bush wants to fund research on a missile defense. Every Administration since Reagan has done the same. The problem is that he is acting like he is planning on deploying one. We aren’t anywhere close to an effective missile shield but the military has proven they are not above fielding a system that doesn’t work ( the Patriot Missile ). ## This looks to me like just another Republican wealth redistribution scheme. Just my 2sense ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/14 "2001-09-10T21:46:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > \*\*I don’t see any reason why, with enough engineering, it can’t work. > > I don’t think the threat of rogue states shooting ICBMs at the USA is so clear and present that I would have made it a priority, but I certainly don’t think it’s beyond our technology to achieve. > > What makes you think it’s so impossible? \*\* It take it you are not an engineer? I am, and I disagree. But I guess that depends on how you define ‘work’ doesn’t it? There are certainly plenty of problems that we can’t solve no matter how much engineering we put into them, so it’s naive to say that it **can** be made to work until you have done it or proved that making it work doesn’t depend on solving an intractible problem. Non scientists often look at all the marvelous things that science has created and come to the conclusion that they can do anything they want. But this is not the case, the more science you know, the more you become aware of limits. For instance, if solving the problem meant that you had to make a missile capable of moving at mach 100 in the atmosphere, then you have an intractible problem. Or if you could knock out missiles, but only by hitting them hard enough to trigger their warheads, that would be a cure as bad as the disease. NMD, depending on how you define success, is on the hairy edge between what is possible though enormous effort and what is simply not possible. If you define missile defense as: \*Be able to destroy a 1 foot in diameter, 6 foot long tapered cylinder spinning on it’s axis in near space or high earth atmosphere as it is falling back to earth, given 20 minutes notice and approximate knowledge of its location prior to launch of the interceptor. \* Then we have a good shot of solving the problem. I call this **Weak** missile defense, because it misses the point of what missile defense should do. On the other hand, if you define missile defense as: _Be able to destroy virtually all missiles targeted at the continental US up to some total number of threats (say 100)_. Then it’s clear that all proposed formulations of NMD will fail to live up to that goal. In fact, any time the success of missile defense is defined as _safety from threat_ then it isn’t an engineering problem anymore, it’s an arms race problem. _Safety_ requires us to always be ahead of the other guy. And this we cannot do because the other guy has a much much simpler problem to solve. Defeating NMD by adding countermeasures to missiles is a both cheaper and easer than modifying NMD to counter to countermeasures. In an arms race where one side perpetually has an easier problem to solve, they will **always** win unless the other side has enormously more resources to devote to the problem. Also, in order to counter the countermeasures we have to know what they are. Thus safety becomes as much an intelligence problem as engineering problem. For instance, merely by painting the warhead matte black you dramatically change what it looks like to a visible light sensor. This costs them a few dollars, could be done in almost total secrecy, and yet it would probably defeat the current sensor package being tested. By merely inflating a 10ft diamter mylar balloon around the warhead once it above the atmosphere, we make the missle easier to see, but HARDER TO HIT. If the missile occupies only 10% of the volume of the balloon, then you have a 90% chance of generating a miss. A bit like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Now, in most cases we DO have enormously more resources than the other guy, but if their counter is 1000x cheaper, then we would have to have 1000x more resouces. And we don’t have a single threat, but many potential ones. To address ALL of their possible countermeasures just isn’t doable. We can probably manage weak NMD. But why bother? Weak NMD is more of a sieve than a shield. It doesn’t allow us to change our policy and operate from strength because with weak NMD we can’t trust the sieve to do the job. Strong NMD isn’t possible unless we somehow prevent our opponants from ever improving their missiles. Which means, of course, that it isn’t possible. _caveat: Strong NMD is probably possile using particle beam weapons rather than missiles as interceptors. But we have no idea how to make beams of the necessary strength, so I’m ignoring that as a practical consideration_ Now, if we restrict NMD to **battlefield** defense, this is at once a much simpler problem and more useful. Having the assurance that Iraq coundn’t nuke our troops in the field would be invaluable and much simpler than protecting the USA because in a battlefield defense, you don’t knock out the warhead, you knock out the launch vehicle. No decoys, huge heat signature to lock onto, and solid ground radar support (assuming you own the skies), and no need to tell harmless targets from threats. You just knock down everything going up that isn’t your own. It’s a shame they aren’t working on that instead of national NMD. ---
**Author:** ![urban1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d07c76/32.png) [@urban1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urban1)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/15 "2001-09-11T01:45:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > \*\*A lot of the skeptics seem to think that because we haven’t figured out how to make the system work by now, we never will, which is absolutely ludicrous. After all, didn’t Thomas Edison try hundreds of light bulb designs before finding one that worked? \*\* Bulb design was never a problem. Edison spent all of that time trying to find a filament which would last. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/16 "2001-09-11T02:07:19Z")
From what I’ve heard, the missile defense program won’t protect against a certain type of missile, not used by the third world, which spirals differently than a first world ICBM. And what about if they send _gasp_ more than one missile at us at a time. (This is an honest question) Will the defense system be able to stop more than one at a time? If we get past that, how is the missile defense going to protect against a nuclear bomb in the back of a Ryder Truck? I think our money would be better invested in nuclear disarmament treaties. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/17 "2001-09-11T02:08:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > **not used by the third world** That should read "not used by the first world. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/18 "2001-09-11T02:46:49Z")
**2sense** , IIRC, the patriot missile system wasn’t designed as a missile defense system. It was designed to shoot down aircraft, but it was STILL able to hit targets it wasn’t designed to hit (Scuds in Desert Storm). Make of that as you will. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/19 "2001-09-11T03:06:13Z")
To reiterate what I have said on the other NMD thread here, if people can bring in tonnes of drugs into the US, why can’t a belligerent government bring in a nuclear weapon or two or three and denotate them without the need for sorting out missile technology. In fact, some German journalists are reported as having run this scenario (based on a novel by the Frenchman who wrote City of Joy) by Qaddafi in the 1980s. He was apparently quite struck with the idea, and said that if it ever happened, the journalists would know who to blame (ie themselves). The US should be concentrating on its border defences, not on spending billions of dollars on anti-missile technology. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662/20 "2001-09-11T03:52:38Z")
By the time of the Gulf war the Patriot was modified specifically to serve as a defense against short range ballistic missiles. [It](http://www.raytheon.com/es/esproducts/dsspat/dsspat.htm) [failed](http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html) [miserably](http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html) for many reasons. They’ve spent some more money on it since then, so maybe it works like a charm. NMD would be an easier sell if they’d just release some hard data to show that they’ve gotten the kinks out of the simpler theatre defense system. Has anyone seen such data, or are we to assume that Rumsfeld et.al. won’t produce it for “reasons of national security” 😉 ? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-based-missile-defense/80662.md?page=2)