Well, what’s wrong with it? Even if it never works, there could easily be other spinoffs from the knowledge gained. Lasers that can attack instead of just targeting. Better targeting computers. New ideas on missiles and ballistics.
You guys DO realize that missile defenses are already deployed, right? And that they have had very successful operational tests.
Israel is heavily defended with the Arrow anti-missile defense, as well as advanced Patriot missiles. Kuwait has advanced Patriot missiles. Turkey is getting Patriots.
These are not the same Patriots that had a so-so record in the first Gulf war. Those early missiles were not originally designed for missile intercept, but had software and other hardware added to them late in their development cycle to add that capability.
The new missiles are designed specifically for taking out ballistic missiles. Israel has had a bunch of Arrow tests - the latest a full combat simulation against the type of SCUD launch they could expect - the Arrow worked perfectly.
One of the threats against the U.S. is the launching of short-range or medium-range missiles from ships offshore. anti-missile missiles around population centers along the coastline could be very effective in preventing or stopping such attacks.
The big difference between these systems and the one Bush proposes deploying is that Arrows and Patriots are stationed near targets, and intercept incoming missiles. More advanced systems would be placed in the North, and intercept missiles coming in a much higher and/or faster trajectory.
It always amazes me that the same people who think that it’s ‘obvious’ that we can build efficient solar cells, electric vehicles, wind power, fusion, and other difficult, unknown technologies also assume that there is NO WAY we can ever intercept missiles, which is really just an engineering problem. That tells me that people are forming their opinions based on ideology, and not on science and engineering.
The other thing about Bush’s plan to deploy the defense - it’s useful whether or not it works, because it will act as a deterrant. A rogue state that would launch a missile or two at the U.S. is going to think twice if it thinks there is even a 50% chance that the missile won’t get through. But even more importantly, a deployed missile defense gives the U.S. a bargaining chip against people who would use nuclear blackmail.
Imagine this scenario: North Korea puts a nuke on their Taepo-Dong missile, which can hit the west coast of the United States. The next day, they show this missile to the world, then announce that they will launch that missile at Seattle if the U.S. does not immediately withdraw all troops from South Korea.
Now, this is almost certainly a bluff, because the North Koreans know that if they did it, we’d wipe them off the map. However, if they can portray themselves as crazy enough, or desperate enough, the bluff might work. Either way, the U.S. is forced into a game of “Guess whether the nutcase will do it or not.” When it comes to nuclear weapons, that’s not a game you want to play, and North Korea knows it. So they are likely to respond to U.S. bluster with even harsher and more insane threats. Bad, bad situation.
But if there is a missile defense system deployed, and its real effectiveness is top secret, the Bush administration has the ability to trump the bluff. Now they can say, “We won’t deal with you, because we can shoot down your pathetic missile. So back off, or we’ll flatten you.” Now it’s the North Koreans that have to play, “Guess whether the U.S. is really confident in their missile defense, or if they are bluffing”. In the meantime, two carriers steam into the Sea of Japan…
This is the difference between STRATEGIC weapons and TACTICAL weapons. Missile defense may or may not be a good tactical defense in the near future, but it’s a fine Strategic weapon.
And eventually, it WILL work. There’s no magic here. Just iimprovements in computing power, sensors, etc. Incremental improvement and development.
By the way, those of you who say it will never work - can I ask what your technical background is that allows you to make such a sweeping statement? Or are you just guessing?
“It always amazes me that the same people who think that it’s ‘obvious’ that we can build efficient solar cells, electric vehicles, wind power, fusion, and other difficult, unknown technologies also assume that there is NO WAY we can ever intercept missiles, which is really just an engineering problem.”
Ah but you see you are talking about fundamentally different problems. The sun and the wind aren’t actively working at thwarting solar cell and wind power research whereas you can bet that countries like North Korea will work to get around any missile defence. And countries that are sophisticated enough to build nuclear weapons and ICBM’s are likely to manage to find a way to trick any ABM’s. So any benefit is likely to be in the short term alone.
Having said that I am not opposed to more research on ABM’s. I just doubt that they will be of more than marginal help in countering the ICBM’s of countries like North Korea. They may play some useful role in bluffing but all North Korea would have to is to counter-bluff that it has developed decoy technology to counter any ABM system. So any pshychological advantage will be minor.
Sure, they are fundamentally different problems - we DON"T KNOW how to achieve breakeven in fusion. We don’t even know if it’s possible. We DON’T KNOW how to make highly efficient photovoltaic cells. And we know the maximum limit is determined by solar flux, and that’s not enough to power an iindustrial economy. We DON’T KNOW how to make safe, inexpensive hydrogen fuel cells.
We DO know how to shoot down missiles. We’ve done it. We’ve shot them down with lasers, with bullets, and with other missiles.
Sure, other countries can attempt countermeasures. But we can counter those. And also, the counter-measure argument held a lot more weight when the enemy was the Soviet Union, which had the resources to develop such things. A country like North Korea or Iraq or Iran has a hard time just getting a missile to work reliably at all, and the last time North Korea tested its Taepo-Dong with a 3rd stage it failed. The chance of them being able to defeat U.S. high technology with their own high-tech countermeasures is remote at best.
And no, North Korea can’t just bluff that it has decoy technology, because they aren’t going to know everything about our weapons, and because we have a very good idea of their technological capability.
We wouldn’t have spent hundred of billions of dollars on a system that didn’t work. Instead we could have spent those billions on making sure our entire population has access to good healthcare and good , cheap public education. We could build a space elevator, or a moon base or go to Mars or mine the asteroids. Or, if you’re so inclined, we could finance a tax cut.
Then, after the theoretical nuclear attack, the theoretical enemy, who had taken leave of their senses, is just as bombed into oblivan as they would be if we did have the useless ABM system, and our population is healthier, better educated, and more on Mars than the useless ABM-having population is. Then we would be able to breed more prodigiously than the enemy.
Of course, that would require an abandonment of the so-called monogamuos sexual relationship, at least as far as the man is concerned.
“We DON’T KNOW how to make highly efficient photovoltaic cells”
“We DO know how to shoot down missiles”
Um you are changin the goal-posts here. After all we do know how to make photovoltaic cells just not “highly efficient” cells. But we don’t know how to make “highly efficient” anti-missile systems either.
More generally the point is that in the first you are talking about a static technological problem whereas in the second a dynamic, “arms race” technological problem. They are completely different so your point about inconsistency doesn’t apply. It’s perfectly consistent to support investment in the former while being skeptical of the latter.
“Sure, other countries can attempt countermeasures. But we can counter those.”
Well everything I have read suggests that developoing decoys is a lot cheaper and easier than developing the anti-missile system. So any benefit is likely to be short-lived but still very expensive. The question is whether it’s worth it.
As for North Korean technology if they are sophisticated enough to develop missiles capable of hitting the US in the first place they have already proved themselves sophisticated enough to develop counter-measures like decoys which are not that high-tech.
:“And no, North Korea can’t just bluff that it has decoy technology, because they aren’t going to know everything about our weapons, and because we have a very good idea of their technological capability.”
Well “bluff” was probably not the right choice of word since they will have probably have some kind of technology to back their threats. The US may have general knowlege of their technological capability but has no way of knowing the specific tricks they use to counter ABM systems especially since some of these tricks are low-tech. So the US can talk about its top-secret technology but the North Koreans can talk about its top secret counter-technology. You are back to square 1 and the question is whether it’s worth the huge expenditure to get there.
Shooting down ballistic missles is nothing new, as Sam Stone pointed out. The PAC-3 Patriot, Standard IV, Israeli Barak system, are all ‘point defense’ systems for missle defense. The new system that is being deployed simply extends the range of coverage. Coverage that would do wonders to nuetralize North Korean threats.
It is stunning to think that some people think that defending against loony North Korea’s missles isn’t worth a few billion.
No I’m not. I specifically said, “Efficient solar cells”. But let me make it more general - the same people who think it’s obvious that if we just spend enough money we can come up with a renewable energy program to replace our current dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels. That problem is orders of magnitude bigger than building a missile interceptor.
And no, it’s not trivial to release decoys. North Korea can barely get a missile across the Atlantic. Launching effective decoys is a problem akin to building a MIRV warhead, and it took both the Soviets and the U.S. a long, long time to develop MIRV capability.
Not only that, but you have to do a lot of missile testing of these kinds of integrated systems, and the U.S. would know all about that and it would have some warning.
If you’re talking about just blowing off a chaff cannister or something on descent, that is SO 80’s technology. Modern missile targeting systems have intelligence to pick out the most massive item in a cloud of decoys, and they even have adaptive aiming so even if they lose sight of the missile they can calculate where it would have been on its ballistic path and hit it anyway.
And besides, the U.S. loves technological competition. That’s what killed the Soviet Union. If you seriously think North Korea has the ability to outwit the U.S. in technology, you haven’t been paying attention to history.
—Cite please.—
Will the current budget proposal do, or would you like the Reagan era too? Maybe you can explain how vastly increasing the size of government is a good way to reduce the size of government?
—It always amazes me that the same people who think that it’s ‘obvious’ that we can build efficient solar cells, electric vehicles, wind power, fusion, and other difficult, unknown technologies also assume that there is NO WAY we can ever intercept missiles, which is really just an engineering problem.—
Your ability to ascribe beliefs to people that they never stated them is truly an inspiring contribution to GD. To restate again: its not a matter of if. It’s a matter of cost/benefit, and other things mattering too. This is a big ticket item with a low return, without the capability to do much more than bluff, at present. The question is whether it’s worth entering into arms races with countries that can easily defeat intercept systems (once you get into multiple signature capability, there’s almost no way to tell which is the real nuke- you just have to guess) just to spook NK.
—Missile defense may or may not be a good tactical defense in the near future, but it’s a fine Strategic weapon.—
Hey, then feel free to deploy some empty cardboard boxes with “missle defense!” printed on them. Just don’t pour billions into deploying project until you can present some results.
—Sure, other countries can attempt countermeasures. But we can counter those.—
How? Which countermeasures? Again: the offense is way way ahead of the defense. This isn’t just shooting down a bullet. It’s shooting down a bullet that splits into ten bullets, all with the same signature, but only one of which contains a warhead.
Again, I don’t doubt that we can find a way to do it. But missles are far from the only or the most important threat, even among nuclear threats. I’d rather take out rouge states now than worry about trying to bluff madmen with our pet projects.
If you can’t solve the how to hit a bullet with a bullet problem - use a thermonuclear interceptor.
Might there be opposition to blowing five megaton warheads up in the atmosphere? Maybe, from nattering nabobs of negativism, but not good upstanding Americans with lead aprons and shielding in their homes.
Bah! Defending against an ICBM is not just a matter of extending coverage. It is a fundamentally harder problem. Despite the Bush administrations very conscious attempts to blur all missile defense together, they are quite separate issues. (One also is willing to accept a lower threshhold of success for such point and theater defenses.) In fact, Phil Coyle, former director of testing at the Pentagon under Clinton is against NMD at least partly because he doesn’t want to see it drain and waste money that could go to point and theatre defenses that he supports.
[And, by the way, let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. The Patriots looked pretty good in tests too until they got out into the field. I’m willing to believe that this time these defenses may actually perform much better…But, I am not willing to assume it works operationally before it is shown to do so.]
A few billion?!?! It will be more than a “few” to get any sort of defense (even one that doesn’t really work very well in practice) operational. It is stunning to believe when people who want to pinch pennies, even on some homeland security issues, are so happy to throw away money when it comes to defense against ICBMs.
Absolutely. For the midcourse defense (the only one that is really beyond the very earliest stages), we are talking things like mylar balloons here folks! Just put one around the warhead and release lots of ones them without warheads. Then let the defense guess which has the warhead or have to shoot them all. [See the countermeasures paper at www.ucsusa.org ]
Yeah…except we are the ones who are playing defense and have to know more of the details about what they are sending at us.
Sam, last time we had this argument, you were willing to agree that we shouldn’t deploy something that doesn’t have a credible chance of working. Now you are trying to make arguments that we can just bluff?!? Well, if I were in your position on this issue, I suppose I would be backing off of the “it has to work” idea since Bush is clearly set to deploy something that won’t!
Gee whiz, I would have though that technology had advanced since the late 60’s. :rolleyes:
Sam Stone you are right on. Here is a quote from Darwin:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
AFAIK, the Scud (and derivatives) are considerably easier targets than an ICBM RV. Basically, they’re both considerably slower moving and much larger. Has the Arrow been tested against something RV-like ?
Here’s what the Brookings Institution thinks about it.
And here’s CBS News
It’s interesting that they say the Arrow grew out of technology from Reagan’s SDI program. If that’s the case, and if these missiles intercept a chemical, radiological, or biological bomb, then Reagan’s program will have saved an awful lot of lives.
Well, this sort of view makes it a little hard to explain why it is many scientists, like the committee formed by the American Physical Society back in the 1980s, who have been most critical of NMD. [APS has convened another committee that should issue a report soon to discuss the possibility of boost-phase defense which is the most promising possibility…the one that people like Richard Garwin think could conceivably be technological feasible eventually…although it is much less far along than the mid-course work and thus even less close to being ready for deployment. It also has the disadvantage of having to be reasonably close to the missile launch site, a constraint that is less severe for a place near an ocean like say North Korea than for some other adversaries.]
By the way, it is interesting because when I went with other scientists under the auspices of UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] and talked with aides to our congresspeople and senators about NMD a year or so ago, many of my colleagues made a similar point about ignorance that you make with your quote but to argue the opposite way: I.e., some people who don’t know enough seem to come up with the simplistic notion that “science can do anything” without understanding the constraints that actually exist on scientific and technological solutions.
I think it actually can cut both ways…Clearly some creationist types are clueless about the power of science to understand things such as the Big Bang, the evolution of species, etc. On the other hand, some technophiles and true believers can be clueless about the limitations.
By the way, so we don’t have to repeat ourselve too much, folks participating in this thread ought to take a look at this previous thread from about 1 year ago on this whole subject of national missile defense.
I don’t get your point. Your rolling eyes must conceal some deeper meaning.
Long range interception of ICBMs with nuclear interceptors was, and remains, possible. Blowing up a small nuclear bomb near the incoming nuclear weapon would - I’m guessing with little formal science training - damage critical flight systems on the incoming missile. I honestly don’t know why the solution seems to rely on a pin point interception of the missile high overhead - when a pretty close interception would work just as well.
I’m generally opposed to blowing up nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, or anywhere else. Just in case anyone was wondering. But, I might make an exception in the case of an inbound nuclear missile headed for California.
By the way, this strategy of hiding our lack of progress behind increasing secrecy is the strategy taken by the Bush Administration who is now classifying many aspects of NMD tests that weren’t being classified before. Whether this is being taken to keep our enemies more in the dark or to keep critics of the program like UCS more in the dark is a debatable point, however. I, for one, think it is probably more the latter.
If at first you don’t succeed…
I missunderstood what you meant, then. Sarcasm withdrawn.
While I too would accept a smaller airburst in lieu of a ciy being destroyed (even a Californian one), it seems that ‘direct kill’ weapons are now feasible. May as well perfect them.