Frontline is fine, it’s Duffer himself that’s incomplete.
Your cite says they are starting to deploy it. We know they are starting to deploy it. They announced the schedule for doing that a few years ago. Those in the know commented that the schedule was very curious in that it seemed to have nothing to do with the system being ready and everything to do with the timing of the Presidential elections.
And, by the way, back in the early 70s we deployed an anti-ballistic missile system at one of our nuclear launch sites as the anti-ballistic missile treaty allowed. It was quitely shut down less than a year later. From here:
What evidence is that? Show us the evidence. Show us realistic operational tests where it has worked. As a hint, here is a nice interactive graphic showing all the artificialities and limitations in the tests so far. Here you can download a much more detailed analysis of the deployment.
The willful ignorance you display is mind-boggling sometimes. Intelligent people can have differing opinions about whether a national missile defense system can ever be made to work. (I, and many others, personally think it is unlikely to ever be workable in any very useful sense because it will likely always be easier and cheaper for the offense to come up with countermeasures than it will be for the defense to counter these countermeasures.) But, I don’t think any intelligent person researching this issue can come to the conclusion that the current system being deployed will afford any useful measure of protection and it is costing billions of dollars that could be better spent on more realistic threats (being that an ICBM is the least likely way…and certainly the most suicidal way…for an enemy to deliver a nuclear weapon).
By the way, the justification being given for an NMD system is often that it will give the President “freedom of action” and prevent him from being blackmailed. However, I shutter to think that a President might actually act on the idea that this system will have any realistic chance of shooting down an enemy missile. In that sense, such a system could easily be more dangerous than having none at all!
By the way, here is a reprint of a Washington Post article from back in March showing that even the Pentagon officials are being pretty cagey on the subject of whether it would work:
Eh. Like I said in another thread on the matter, I won’t howl in anguish if NMD is cancelled. I live in Michigan, rather out of range of the NK systems. I don’t particularily care for the West Coast or Hawaii. Shrug
What gets me the most is peoples wild opposition to what, 8 or 9 billion per year? Fuck, the R&D alone is probably worth that (for future systems), much less to get some sort of NMD out of the deal. And I would guess that the deployed systems will also be used for testing, as numbers are available.
The global situation regarding goofy countries with ICBMs is going to be getting worse, not better. Iran already has systems that can reach Israel, now they want systems that can reach Europe or even N. America. Musharraf won’t be in charge of Pakistan forever, and there are some mad nutters waiting to take over. I certainly am not comfortbale relying on MAD as a valid principle when dealing with Islamists or the Jonger.
So, I take it from your post that you now admit the point (or at least don’t contest it) that there is no good evidence that the system being deployed will work (and good evidence to believe it won’t since it has only worked sometimes in tests that were highly simplified and unrealistic)…And that its deployment at this time is more of a political stunt than anything else?
As for whether it makes sense to continue R&D, that is a different question (and one for which there has been general bipartisan support in the Congress, I believe). Given that we don’t have an unlimited amount of money and that $8 or 9 billion a year could go a long way toward defending against more realistic threats, I don’t really see a very good cost-benefit argument for funding it at this level although I could perhaps see arguments for funding it at some level.
But, of course, what we were discussing is whether there is evidence that the system being deployed now could in its current form provide any sort of realistic defense against North Korean missiles. And, I hope that we are all in agreement that the answer to that question is NO.
Not at all. I contest that it will work to some degree. Even a lousy defense is better then the defense we have now. But I live in the Midwest; The big coastal cities act as our ‘NMD’, sort of. NYC and LA will get hit before Royal Oak, so if the citizens of said cities are so apeshit against NMD, then screw 'em. Fortunately for all though, it is not your or my decision to make. The money is appropriated and the deployment is in progress.
I just find it odd that people believe that ‘MAD’ is going to work with an Islamist regime or with that ivory tower of rational thought, Kim Jong Il. If Jongorama comes down with a terminal illness, you think he will care about MAD before he pops one off (assuming they have one)? You think if some hopped-up-on-Allah regime takes over in Iran, they are going to worry much before hitting some unbelievers? I’ll place my faith in (potentially) bad technology over some nutcases’ sense of self-preservation any day.
How so? If it can’t stop a plausible attack, then all it does is provide Americans with a false sense of security. 9/11 showed us that a false sense of security is not a good defense in the real world.
When it comes to rushing an experimental system like this into the field, we should heed the (paraphrased) wisdom of Orson Welles:
We will deploy no NMD before its time
Well, wouldn’t it be better if we took that money and spent it instead on having a much better defense against a more serious possibility than an ICBM, like a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the country on a container ship or being launched using a little short range missile from a boat just offshore? [Or perhaps an even a better idea: Spending more money on Nunn-Lugar type programs to make God-damn sure that no terrorists can get their hands on Russia’s nuclear weapons.] There’s no shortage of realistic threats…So, it seems sort of silly to concentrate on what are currently the least likely ones and spend lots of money on protections from these threats that are highly unlikely to work.
And, as I pointed out, the worst part is we have no basis on which to predict how it might work (although, given the many artificialities of the tests so far and the fact that it has still failed half the time [ore more?], some of us think there is in fact a pretty good basis). So, what use is it in any sort of crisis situation involving North Korea? Do you want the President to be making a decision on how to respond to North Korea on the basis of some hope that if his response provokes North Korea to shoot their missile, we might be able to shoot it down?!? God help us if He does because I think I’ll take divine intervention over the NMD system that is being deployed in its current state.
Also, one thing that 9/11 should have taught us all is that terrorists seem to prefer the simple over the technologically-advanced approach.
I must admit that on the morning of September 11th, when we knew that 4 planes had been taken over simultaneously, the idea that floated into my head was that they must have hacked into the computer guidance systems or something and taken over control of the plane that way…It just seemed so unlikely to me that they could hijack 4 planes simultaneously by “conventional” means. Little did I realize that, rather than needing such technological wizardry, all they needed were some inoccuous-looking items like box-cutters that could double as weapons.
Well, that seems to be just part of a trend cough Iraq cought of the current US administration. 
jshore, the UCS as a cite? I can’t think of anyone more against a defense system. I’m all for good detailed objective information proving something wrong. However, using the UCS for that is about the same as citing PETA to show the health effects of eating meat. They certainly will not point out any benefits of the thing they are against.
On another topic: For everyone using the cost of the system as a justification for not having one, what price would you put on Los Angeles or New York? Is Los Angeles worth 10 billion per year or 20 billion? If cost is a complaint, then costs must be assigned for these cities.
The worst argument I’ve ever heard against a defense system is “it won’t stop all of the missles.” To me that’s a bad argument because a system that stops one missle is better than no system at all. I’m not putting that statement against anyone here, I just remember hearing a member of Congress use it.
Now jshore, you know Brutus can’t do that. The test results have all been kept secret since those hit and miss experiments back in 2002. There’s no way anyone outside the military, and possibly congress, can evaluate the efficacy of the system because there’s no longer any factual basis available from which regular people can develop informed opinions.
For all any of us know, the Missile Defense Command may have perfected 1920’s style death rays, and mounted them in the nose cones of their interceptors. The linked article states:
The system is perfect, so obviously, they must’ve gotten something to work. Either that, or they’re scamming just like they did back in the 80’s.
What with the forward radars not being operational yet (I linked to that factoid 3 or 4 posts ago), it’s pretty hard to see how the system could be perfected, so I’ll go with the deployment news being a scam.
You need to reread your own link. The destroyers are the forward radars. Regardless, look at a map. For a missile heading towards the US, a radar in the Sea of Japan would give us the earliest warning (and enable a boost-phase kill, as the Navy will be spanking out the SM2 Blk IVs; Layered defense and all that.)
Brutus, Brutus, Brutus, let me explain this again. I’ll talk real slow. I initially supported the deployment of a NMD system. I still support spending R+D money on a NMD. If we had a good system, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to support it. But we don’t. They put a fucking transponder in the target, the sensors didn’t even work in most of the tests, they ran six identical tests rather than vaguely plausible tests, and even then, they only hit two out of six targets. The Patriot missile testing in the late 80’s had more realistic tests than this and fit five of five targets and failed miserably in deployment.
This system will not work. Obviously you don’t see much potential in any NMD system 'cause you think your ass is safe, and believe me, your concern for your countrymen is truly touching, but I feel that terrorism and attacks from WMD is an important issue.
The fact that we are wasting money on an actual deployment which is completely worthless is criminal considering that Russia doesn’t have the funds to secure their assembled nuclear weapons and we’d rather spend the cash on some illusion of security rather than actually securing these potential loose nukes. Terrorists could much more easily sneak a weapon into the country and set it off than launch an ICBM, but rather than spending money on radiation detectors at ports, we have a politically popular ICBM defense that won’t work. We could spend the money on intelligence services to track down clandestine nuclear programs, but people like you, people that take the message of your political party hook, line, and sinker without even giving a second of critical thought will have an invisible security blanket a la the emporer’s new clothes.
I just wish people would research, think, and challenge more, and maybe we’d make fewer politically expedient but stupid decisions like this.
Sure they are. The relevant information as to the operational status of the system is contained in the first two paragraphs:
See how the mission is a new one that won’t start for a couple of weeks? That means that they haven’t started doing it yet, and it’s never been done before. So, regardless of what the generals say at a press conference, NMD is to some extent still just a rocket in a hole. It’ll remain that until they get the kinks worked out.
Squashing together development and deployment like this doesn’t make us safer.
On the subject of working the kinks out, recall that the Navy Area Theatre Defense program[www.acq.osd.mil/usd/new_speeches/goalsaiaa.doc+navy+cancelled+%22theatre+defense%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]was](http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:VUpZW7aj2c4J:[url) cancelled by the pentagon back in 2002. Cost overruns were cited, and there were rumors that the trouble behind them was an inability to get enough accuracy out of sea-based radars.
AFAIK, those problems have not been worked out since, and if the military has completed a massive new land-based radar in Japan, they’re keeping pretty mum about it. So it seems to the outside eye, that our ABM system still has significant problems to be worked out before it can truthfully be called operational.
fixed link:
Navy Area Theatre Defense program was cancelled in 2002
•••
Right on.
HEY! All you missile defense system debaters!
I raised the possibility of this being a rocket fuel explosion at North Korea’s principle missile developement/ staging (sp?) centre.
If there was an enormous explosion at the missile developement centre, then most or all of North Korea’s top missile experts are dead.
Without Soviet help, there never would have been a North Korean ICBM program, & there is no Soviet Union around to help re-build.
The issue may well be moot.
That’s about the biggest “may” I’ve ever seen.