Hmmm, I wonder why? Can anybody think of something else that’s scheduled to happen late in 2004?
While I’ll let others pick apart Sam Stone’s oversimplistic argument (“We should do it because we can!”), I have to ask if anyone knows the conditions of said missile test?
I ask this because I remember that the earlier missile tests failed spectacularly, and that the tests only passed after the deck was heavily stacked in the system’s favor – up to and including sticking a transponder in the target so the interceptor could finally find the damn thing. And needless to say, in a real-world situation, I seriously doubt any “rogue nation” that wants to lob ICBMs at us is going to do us the favor of sticking transponders in their warheads.
So does anyone know if this “successful” test was really worth anything, in terms of advances in interceptor design and control? Or was it nothing more than propaganda material for gullible hawks?
Sam, what you said was:
Now, I have given you a link to an article by Phil Coyle, who as the recent former head of testing at the Pentagon is probably one of the top authorities both on the state of NMD research and testing and future requirements thereof, and who says emphatically that the ABM treaty is not interfering with the research and development program. Rather, the constraints are all technological and budgetary. (Of course, if you don’t want to be constrained by technology and just want to go ahead and deploy anything by the next Presidential election then, yes, the ABM treaty is constraining. But, you seem to be quite emphatic in believing a defense must be credible to be useful.)
I have also linked to an analysis by UCS that goes into gory detail about each possible technology and when they estimate that development of it could first conceivably run up against the constraints of the ABM treaty.
Sam, please just admit it…All the evidence points to the fact that the current administration is making decisions about when to get out of the ABM treaty, when to deplore a system, etc. not on the basis of sound assessments of the technology but rather for political reasons. The Administration simply doesn’t like old-fashioned things like treaties (and, in particular, this one); they believe that America should be free to decide what we want to do essentially unilaterally. And they want to get out of it sooner rather than later because it is a step that, once taken, is hard to reverse and because they want to rush ahead and deploy something even when it won’t work (for much the same reason).
rjung, I believe that the transponder was still used although I think the Pentagon’s claim is that it is used only during part of the test…for the system that launches the intercepter and not for the hit-to-kill vehicle once released from the intercepter. They argue that this is necessary because they haven’t yet built the radar that they would need and this is a substitute. I’m not clear what the thinking is outside the Pentagon on this, but I don’t think it is considered to be one of the most unrealistic aspects of the test. However, more problematic is the fact that things are half-speed…In the real world, apparently the hit-to-kill vehicle would have to deal with a missile at twice the speed. (Or something like that … I’m a little shaky on this and don’t have time to look it up now.)
By the way, whenever one starts to set unrealistic expectations on these people by driving a program on a political rather than technological timetable, there is the danger that people will be under pressure to “cheat”; there apparently was already an example of such cheating in earlier tests (which was a “flyby” and not an intercept) with the contractor for the component that was supposed to discriminate between the target and a decoy (perhaps a decoy more realistic than what they are using now but I’m not sure). They apparently “edited” their time series to show that the device locked onto the warhead when in fact it only briefly locked onto the warhead first but then locked onto the decoy!
Rjung: Oh, that was hilarious. You accuse me of being ‘simplistic’, and yet you describe my position as being “We should do it because we can.”, thereby proving yourself the champion of the simplistic analysis competition. That is not, and never has been my position. I know you love attacking me whenever you can, but you are way, way out to lunch on this one.
Jshore: You have one opinion by Phil Coyle. I can offer you dozens that disagree. Let’s start with these:
Here is a press release from 2001 in which the administration sent out a memo stating that the NMD program would be in violation of the ABM treaty in “months, not years”: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/12/missile.defense.state/
Here is an article about two tests that ACTUALLY WERE cancelled due to possible violations of the ABM treaty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011025/aponline133436_000.htm
Here’s an article from 2001 which says that a new test site that was supposed to go online this April would have been in violation of the ABM treaty: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/july01/missiles_7-12.html
By the way, you didn’t mention that Phil Coyle is affiliated with The Center for Defense Information, which is hardly an unbiased source. It’s a semi-pacifist organization that has opposed virtually every new weapons system the U.S. has tried to deploy, including the B-2, the F-117 ‘Stealth’ fighter, the F-22, the Osprey, the C-17, the Seawolf Submarine, the MX missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile, new aircraft carrier development, and of course Ballistic Missile Defense. In fact, I’m honestly trying to think of a single new major weapons system that they have approved of, and I can’t come up with one. I consider them to be factually accurate, but their analysis always takes the most pessimistic scenarios and either ignores or downplays the positive. This leads to analysis that always comes down hard on new weapons systems, especially if they are very expensive and require long-term develoipment, like the fast attack sub, which they also opposed.
Coyle’s time in the Pentagon was also marked with controversy, as he was a continual wet blanket who disagreed with the development of many weapons systems including NMD and the V-22 Osprey, if I recall correctly. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but clearly others of equal stature flatly disagree with him. I tried digging up more about Coyle’s opinion, and from what I can tell, his point of view is that since the technology used for these systems could conceivably be used for other things, it doesn’t violate the ABM treaty until it’s actually part of an operational plan. I think that’s a rather unique viewpoint.
Sam,
It feels like the old bait-and-switch again. You claim to be on the side of wanting to only deploy something that is credible and yet you then point out ways we run up against the treaty if we go ahead and rush to deploy (and test things that are not ready for testing yet). Noone is denying that the Administration has dreamed up things they want to do that violate the treaty. Rather, the question is whether these are things that need to be done at this stage of a program whose goal is to deploy only once we have something credible to deploy. The articles I have linked to explain why the things that the Administration wants to do (like building the test site in Alaska) are just bizarre.
And, I don’t believe Coyle was connected with CDI before or while he was at the Pentagon. He was led to affiliate with them because they are fighting against deploying weapons systems just for the sake of it. If Coyle were in any other department than the defense department, you would be considering his “wet blanket”-ness a great asset and would be complaining about all the other bureaucrats that are more than happy to waste the taxpayers’ money.
Coyle, by the way, believes in missile defenses at the level of short-range and theatre defenses for troops which is a much easier problem and one that he points out is much more pressing (given that our troops have in fact been attacked by Scud missiles during the Gulf War). Part of his frustration is that the focus on missile defense is actually taking away money and focus for these other things.
Finally, here’s a quote out of a very recent talk by Coyle ( http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/coyle030802.cfm ) describing testimony by Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency:
Now this is a guy who is trying to sell his program to Congress and the best he can say is that if the North Koreans make things as easy as possible for us and then give us all the info in advance about their launch, then he thinks he might be able to shoot down their missile with what is deployed in 2004.
Yes, we have established that Coyle is not a fan of the administration’s plans for NMD deployment. That has nothing to do with what I said. The fact is, there are people in the administration and in the Pentagon who believe that they could not have undertaken the tests they wanted because of the ABM treaty.
This is the original post by Sam Stone that started this thread.
This opening places the emphasis of the justification for the NMD program on the success, assuming there isn’t a later retreat from that, of a single missile test.
I don’t think that is the correct place for that emphasis. The question is, is this the place where resources will be most effective in defending the US? The world is a lot different place, and the threats aren’t the same as when Saint Ronald first proposed the scheme back in the bad old Cold War days.
Do you suppose it would be possible to see a little justification other than your bare statement that “the threat … is almost certainly going to come … [from] Iran, Iraq, North Korea … ?” This is sort of important because the rest of your argument is founded on that assumption. And, of course, even if the threat is from those countries is it required that the threat be in the form of ICBMs?
And while you’re at it could you tell us how you know that “… none of which [the bad guys’ missiles] would be as sophisticated as the decoy-throwing target that was hit …?”
And, of course, in a later post you say that NMD is needed to shoot down ICBMs because Saddam is insane and will not be deterred by MAD. Here you say that he is sane enough to be detered by NMD. That delicate distinction still escapes me.
I don’t think the question should be posed as NMD is technically feasible therefore there isn’t any reason not to do it which I think your opening post implies. This places the burden on the doubters to come up with reasons against. At least half the burden should be on the supporters to come up with reasons for. The tacit assumption behind your position is that your stated reasons for are valid and sufficient. I thnk they are a long way from that.
My question is, is this really the best use of the money given today’s world situation? As I said, this system was first proposed during the Cold War and was envisaged to meet that threat. How has the program changed to meet the new threats? Or do you still think that ICBMs are the principle threat?
I finally got around to digging up a couple citations on this. Here is the suit filed against TRW and Boeing by the whistleblower: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news01/schwartz-010105.htm and here is a reprint of a Huffington opinion piece from the L.A. Times about the recent GAO report on this: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0315-06.htm
Whoops…sorry…I didn’t realize that the standard for judging whether we need to break the ABM treaty is whether the administration thinks they need to. This, of course, being the same Administration that proposes deploying a non-credible missile defense system by 2004 (basically non-credible by the admission of the head of the missile defense agency). And, such deployment of a non-credible system being something that I believe you yourself said you did not support…Or did I misunderstand you? (Or, do you think it is quite possible that we can convince the North Koreans to be as nice to us as Congressman Taylor asked in his question?)
Sorry, Sam; I had assumed that you were smart enough to realize that I had used a quick summation precisely because didn’t want to get bogged down with the defects in your position, and instead talk about the conditions of the test. I had forgotten about your tendency to use “nitpicking trivial details” as a substitute for debate, and I apologize for not being more thorough.
In any event, given (a) your well-established pro-NMD position in the past, and (b) the wording of your original post, it seemed easy enough to conclude that 1 + 2 = 3 (e.g., “See? Here’s another missile defense test that worked! What do all you anti-NMD folks have to say now, huh?”) If you want to change either of those presumptions, feel free to do so – you seem very well-versed in the Public Backpedal already…
Give it up, rjung. A ‘quick summation’ that says that I think we should build a missile defense simply because we can is worse than simplistic and useless, it’s a complete fabrication of my position.
As for backpedaling, I wasn’t aware that I had. Jshore presented one opinion from a highly biased source, and I responded with multiple citations showing exactly how the ABM treaty was interfering with U.S. tests, including one citation of a test that had ALREADY been cancelled because of potential conflicts. I recognize that there are opposing viewpoints, I just happen to think that Coyle’s is wrong, and the preponderance of military experts agree with me.
Sam,
For someone who professes libertarian leanings, you have a remarkable streak of trusting just what the government feeds you when it comes to defense matters. As I see it, the only difference between defense matters and other matters as far as the government is concerned is that in the defense arena the government can lie to us much more easily because they can always use the excuse of classified information. This is a great way of being able to selectively feed us only the information that they want us to know.
[Another thing with the military is of course the whole nexus that is formed between it and the industries that contract with it (the “military-industrial complex” to use the Eisenhower term). There are clearly government – industry connections in other arenas too but they don’t generally seem to be as strong.]
So, all-in-all I am quite amused that you have chosen to align yourself here with a government feeding you information when that same government is clearly pushing an agenda (rapid deployment of a system not ready for deployment) that even you haven’t been able to bring yourself to support. [Or, at least, you haven’t directly dealt with the apparent contradiction between supporting this Administration’s position and wanting to deploy only a credible defense.]
Libertarians believe that defense is one of the valid uses for government, not that I’m a strict Libertarian in the first place.
And who says that I am just buying the government line? There are plenty of non-government sources of information on missile defense, from Jane’s Defense Quarterly to various think tanks including the Center for Defense Information, which I do believe is a valuable resource and a useful counterpoint to the ‘official’ government line. There are also a number of good, though expensive specialty journals such as ‘Policy Review’ which I used to subscribe to and read from cover to cover.
Despite what rjung might think, my position on this is not based on reading a few press releases or government press conferences. I have been active in debating defense issues since 1980. I was active in supporting the Tomahawk cruise missile, for example, back when people all over North America were marching against it. Even engaged in some public debates over some of these issues back when SDI was first proposed.
As an aside, where are all the cruise missile protestors today? I assume that they would be willing to admit they were wrong after the spectacular successes of cruise missiles in the Gulf war and since. But I suspect that they just dropped the subject at some point and found a new military system to oppose.
Sam Stone, not only patriots, but scientists disagree with the use of that “shield”.
Testing under realistic conditions is essential before deployment. And I doubt the results of the current test.
I do remember that in virtually all the former tests, a beacon was used to “help” the intercepting rocket, and in all the tests, so far, the interceptors new when and were the launch of the hostile missile was done. We are testing under the assumption that we now WHAT the deterrents the enemy will use, IMO we are (if we deploy SDI) protecting from the present tactics and tools from the enemy. The moment a working SDI (and that truly is hypothetical) is put in place, an enemy, will sooner or later (I think sooner if history is a guide) find the weaknesses of that defense. As 9-11 showed, we will underestimate the intelligence of the enemy at our own cost.
Oh, and also confirmation of the new success is needed:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0315-06.htm
Before you claim that that is referring to one of the earliest tests and has no bearing in the current one, consider that the data of that “success” is being used to base the new tests and in the end, the final “product”.
So, did Jane’s or the Center for Defense mention those “little” details?
Yes, Janes is more than familiar with the concept of a ‘controlled test’. It’s called good engineering. You what? When they spin-test new fighter designs, they put recovery chutes on them. The bastards.
Of course, the anti-defense crowd likes to portray such tests as ‘cheating’, as if the government wants to go to the trouble of setting up a multi-hundred million dollar test just to fool a couple of newspaper reporters. ALL tests are rigged, so that certain variables can be controlled. For example, if what you are really testing is the missile’s response to a radar hit, and not its ability to make that hit in the first place, then you might as well put a transponder on the rocket so that you can be guaranteed to be testing what you want to test. This is basic engineering, understood by everyone except reporters for the <i>New York Times</i>.
Ok, not cheating, but thanks for clarifying that the results are misleading, while you call it good engineering I call it Alfa testing, not even close to Beta testing (software lingo here) were the whole shebang is tested and even more bugs are found (YES, they will be (former computer program tester here)) and I am not implying that they are unsolvable, but that they will take a long time to get rid off.
I think your last remark shows that some “little” details are best to be left ignored (specially the Arianna report) I remember that mainstream media (not just the NYT) reported that the tests were successful (implying all systems are go, but that is not good engineering, as you have demonstrated) but the “unimportant” details were not on the headlines or reported later in the back pages. Sadly, I see that public opinion is many times swayed by the headlines and then the politicians just cherry picks the good (but incomplete) news, to follow up with a hurried solution with a mostly political end.
Also, you keep ignoring other critics that are not anti-defense (you seem to ignore that calling SDI critics anti-defense is getting into insulting territory Sam) like the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Oh, yes… The Union of Concerned Scientists is a model of objectivity.
Go ahead - name a single major weapon system they have ever compaigned for.
In case you didn’t know, the UCS is an left-wing lobby group that has opposed every strategic weapons system in my memory. They are not an objective, impartial source. They are also routinely spectacularly wrong. That’s what happens when you let lawyers use your credentials to add weight to what are in essence partisan positions.
And don’t get me wrong - the fact that the test is controlled doesn’t mean that it hasn’t proven out a major part of the requirement - in fact, the reason such tests are controlled is so they can test a single system that they want to get good data back on. Think of a wind tunnel test, the ultimate in a ‘controlled’ test. Sure, it’s not real life, but you can certainly prove out many aspects of a design in the tunnel, which is why they are used in the first place.
If they were ready to spend several hundred million dollars on this test, it’s because they had done all they could on the ground to test the systems they wanted to test. And the military has announced that the tests were a spectacular success. For now, I’ll take them at their word, regardless of what the esteemed military analyst and “Hollywood Squares” panelist Arianna Huffington has to say.
Sam. You are now just attacking the messenger and not the message, frankly I am disappointed Sam, what you just said (about lobby groups lawyers and reporters) can be counteracted in spades by what the other side is doing with more money and resources to our fiscal policy and were money should be spent in defense, and I can not let you get away with your snide remarks that people who oppose BDM are anti-defense. Remember, debating in the SDMB requires more than cheap shots.
Sam, you’re complaining about the interests of Coyne and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and yet you’re willing to let the most interested party of all slide because they told you so?
Putting aside for a moment the problem of ad-hominem attacks taking the place of real debate, this is simply nonsensical. If you object that strenuously to the inclusion of the opinions of biased sources, you’ll need to amend that statement at the very least.
Let me rephrase - I’m not a blind believer in everything claimed in a government press release. I’ll be following up on this issue in the media and specialty journals as more information becomes available. Right now, we have a government press release claiming success for a mostly classified test.
But you can set your watch by the denunciations that ALWAYS come out after these tests from the likes of the CDI and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thus, they are pretty much meaningless. Just like you can set your watch by the critical response that one political party will have in response to a proposal from another. These are all unbiased sources, and should be listened to very skeptically. You may think that I’m just blowing them off because I don’t want to hear the message, but trust me - I understand those sources very well, and I’m right to treat what they have to say very skeptically. I’ve been reading their press releases and watching them get even the most simplistic facts wrong for 20 years.
This applies more to the Union of Concerned Scientists than to the CDI. The Center For Defense Information is an actual research organization that has done good work on occasion. I do take what they have to say seriously, but it always has to be read through an ideologically neutral filter. The Union of Concerned Scientists, on the other hand, is nothing but a political mouthpiece for various left-wing and pacifist causes. Their opinion of a missile test carries about as much weight with me as does the Moral Majority’s opinion on the federal budget. i.e., zero.
So what we have now is a government press release, which has not been rebutted by an impartial, knowledgeable source. <i>For now</i> I will accept it as a reasonable statement of what happened, until more information is available.
I think this is all a side issue anyway, because I only brought that test up in the first place as a rebuttal for those people who think missile defense is *impossible, and I suspect that there aren’t any people who believe that in this discussion. Other, more moderate opinions (i.e. that it’s too expensive, or has strategic flaws, or will lead to other problems) have not been rebutted by this test, and are valid areas of debate.
Of course, in that last message I meant to say, “These are all BIASED sources.”