US News
Pentagon's missile-defence test successful
Dec 5, 2008, 21:51 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- US defence budget to fall amid troop pull-out from Iraq
- Missing vial of nerve agent prompts lockdown at US base
- US announces major defence cuts
- Pentagon orders 11.9-billion-dollar modernization of B-52s
- Report: Blackwater created shell companies to win contracts
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
..after spending 10 years getting a reliable system in place, they want to cut the deployment.
After all, who wants to spend 2% of the annual defense budget to protect American population centers, and hundreds of millions of people from thermonuclear destruction?
lets ignore the fact that our biggest threats don't come from missiles, and the fact that the technology to jam this system already exists. if a war of that magnitude happened the world would end from the amount of nukes that are out there. lets face it, your world of bomb whoever does not agree with us is long over. oh no, that means we may actually have to get along with people who are not rich white Christians.
If you can make a short range system work, and the US Navy has, then there is no reason why a long range system cannot be made to work. The real question is what would such a system cost and can it remain effective in the long term.
The answers are pretty clear. Long range systems that are effective will be horribly expensive and will not remain effective over the long term. Explosive projectiles and their delivery systems will always be less costly than the defensive systems required to neutralize them.
This is a bad program and it should be junked immediately.
...after all, with about 6 new ICBM research projects in the world going on as we speak, on top of all the old ones, your thesis holds about as much water as a water bucket on a rifle range.
The world has about six ICBM new projects going on as we speak. Most of them are with folks we would prefer not have them. All the talk from the left has been proven wrong by the tests, but the public is so ignorant they, like you, still cling to an obsolete model of the world. If there is one series of technolgies that is mature, it is ICBM tech. The Russians will sell this tech for nothing, and more folks will try to get it, along withnuke tech.
The missile political football just keeps bouncing:
First we were told it would never work
wrong, as you can plainly see.
Second, we were told it was too expensive (as if THAT ever mattered)
wrong. It is about 2% of the national defense bill annually.
Third, we were told decoys would render it ineffective
wrong. Decoy tech is like anything else, it can, and has been compromised and overcome.
Missile defense has some very interesting advantages:
1)it's cheaper to build interceptors than ICBM's. That being the case, no one can ultimately win against them.
2) it inserts an uncertanty into the aggressor's plans they cannot overcome.
3) it allows pause time to jawbone the enemy into abatement, a very important step to stopping an attack.
4) it, potentially, allows the nation possessing it to consider a partial disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Yes, in the libnazi world, it is better to let new York or Cleveland be incinerated, because someone cannot get to 100% efficency on any program, never mind the best surface to air system anywhere runs about 50% to begin with. In their world, it is all or nothing, and missile defense, which is really the only defense that actually directly protects the citizen and nation from the worst possible threat, is somehow, wrong. Somehow, I think this would make me dead, or very uncomfortable, but that is just me being picky.
It brings us to the same conclusion: liberals kill to many people wishing for peace. Yes, there are other threats, but none of them negate this one, or make it any less valid. Limiting an enemies ability to destroy you has a real advantage, obvious to anyone who is not crazy.
So run along and examine the facts, for a change. After all, who wants to be annialated, eh?
Psycho babble!
isn't a success rate to be proud of.
coming from EssPee, it isn't psycho babble, it's outright bullsh*t from a drug addict.
By no means is it cheaper to build an interceptor than it is to build an ICBM. Modern ICBM's are inherently more efficient because they multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, each of which carries its own warhead. The warheads are what the defensive systems must neutralize, not the ICBM airframe itself. A reliable boost phase defensive system has yet to be developed, let alone deployed. Boost phase interception is a much more complicated problem. Such a system would need to be based in space or be constantly airborne on large aircraft that are not on the drawing boards at this time.
Current systems require an interceptor missile for each and every warhead, which renders them subject to failure during a massive attack. Any descent phase system can be overwhelmed by a sufficiently large attack and the systems for necessary for such an attack will invariably cost less than a decent phase defensive system.
The argument then is that this decent phase system is intended to fend off attacks by the likes of Iran or North Korea. At first blush this seems reasonable because the DPRK has already demonstrated a system capable of delivering a small warhead to Alaska. OTOH, any such attack would be suicidal, but that arises from offensive weapons in US possession, not its defensive systems. In other words, deterrence works.
Any nuclear attack launched by a country like Iran or the DPRK will almost certainly be delivered by shipping container or tramp steamer, not by missile. Why? Because the chances of the US knowing where a missile attack came from approach certainty. A descent phase missile defense system cannot defend the US from a tramp steamer or container ship.
In SP4's favor is the article at the end of this link:
www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/iran/missile-developments.htm
I wouldn't even bother with use of a long range missile for delivey if I were a hostile nation. Getting a long range missile to behave reliably is no small feat. What I'd do instead is hide a small version on board a small freigther or similar and pull the cord when it reaches harbor. Most of the worlds big cities are along a coastline. And let it reach an altitude from where it is more effective before pulling the 2nd cord. Similarly to how it is done from a submarine. Hostile people can be quite inventive as taking down towers with airplanes showed. But - perhaps entirely different approaches to the issue exist. Perhaps even non-violent ones. How about spending all that money on giving the hostile people a better life instead.
Wait....did someone on this thread REALLY SAY that white Christians are the ones to blame? For one, that of ignorant. Second, we came out of the dark ages a long time ago and stopped that mentality (I don't care what you say), these conquests around the world are motivated by greed on our part, not religion. On the other hand, the Al Qaeda doctrine says they will take over the world by 2016 (all open source). Muslims also believe a few things that make them inherently violent. Sure, there are passages in the Koran that promote peace, but since the Koran is not written in any kind of order and constantly contradicts itself, Muslim scholars dealt with this pesky problem by saying that 'if it is said later in the Koran and contradicts something said previously, the later statement is the truth and the first should be ignored'. So, the last thing Muhammad said before he died (supposedly, as it is writtin in the Koran) and one of the LAST things written is that is the Muslim's responsibility to destroy all non-believers and heretics. So, any Muslim whether they admit it or not, believes this. Yes, Christians are the problem.
I put Muhammad's pubic sachel in my mouth. What now?
RE:''Perhaps even non-violent ones. How about spending all that money on giving the hostile people a better life instead.''
Well, we have been doing quite a bit of that already. We have given them money until we are all but destitute. Granted, we gave them most of the money in exchange for oil, but it has been more than enough money to make a garden out of the whole of the Middle East.
Previously: '...we may actually have to get along with people who are not rich white Christians.'
Another poor, bigoted remark that reflects the author's insensitivity to rich white Christians. Grant us the ability to get along with poor white Christians. Actually, we all just need to get along.
Why not develop a smaller multiple-scatter, mini-missiles, defense shield that would take out a barrage of missiles at one firing? On the other hand, this shield could be developed to neutralize (jam) any and all incoming missiles.
LANCE`S comment on the African site is 'I HAVE AID`S'
Either it is a sick joke or the poor sod means it.
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL ?
What a load of chicken shit ! So they think the Pentagon and America is safe do they ? Have they got brains ?
Well, let them cast their idiot minds back a few years when a motley group of rag-heads blew half the bloody Pentagon up armed with just a Stanley knife and killed 125 people.
To top it all, they did the same with the WTC - converted the two towers to a pile of rubble together with nearly 2,603 people and crippled many thousands more. What an achievement for a mere Stanley knife.
The eventual death toll from this rag-head excursion is estimated at over 6,000.
HOW WILL THIS MICKEY MOUSE DEFENSE SYSTEM STOP THAT HAPPENING AGAIN ?
It`s a bloody joke ! ARMCHAIR BONEHEADS !
..the arguments of the anti-missile defense opponents fall apart.
Professor ICBM, making the standard bearer's argument, never bothers to add the billions to each ICBM nuclear warhead production, from the uranium to the warhead, testing, maintenence handling, security and all the other costs that go with it, that they actually cost. This is the big lie of any nuclear power scheme, that no one ever takes the true life-cycle costs of this form of energy, just as professor ICBM does above. Nuclear weapons are no different, in that the life-cycle costs are hidden from the equation.
Not today professor.
Interceptors, by comparison, have none of this cost. They are relatively cheap to build, and cost little to maintain. Each year, as interceptor science advances, they become cheaper and, as the testing plainly proves, more effective. Successive advances will make them even more so, with third and fourth generation technologies coming on line soon.
ICBM's by comparison still have a relatively large payload to deal with, making decoy tech still difficult, as opposed to discrimination tech that becomes progrssively easier. Boost phase tracking becomes progressively easier and more sophisitcated and mid-course interception more likely each year, pushing warhead release to an earlier moment, limiting range.
Space-based interceptors would completely turn the equation on it's head, being so much cheaper than the ICBM, that sheer numbers would defeat the enemies weapons. The four layer blanket would be virtually inpenitrable.
The argument that they will, presently, not stop a full out attack falls on it's own face because the system in place was never designed for that to begin with. Then again, unreasonable arguments have been made by liberals on weapons systems for decades, most notably the Patriot system and it's effectiveness at intercepting missile warheads, when it was never designed to do such a thing in the first place and was pressed into this service because liberals refused to build the correct system to begin with.
Finally, the argument made by the libnazi elite is that, you are just as safe being held hostage by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction as opposed to a military who's primary purpose is to protect your life, home and nation, a viable argument until the first instant a warhead lands and it happens to be your home that is incinerated. The only consolation here is that it is likely to land in Washington DC and land on those who continue to perpetrate this folly of MAD while the guys with the interceptors covering them will skate. Now that, to me would be a perfect example of poetic justice. At that moment, the argument will be silenced, to be sure.
It's funny that if you argue against any one piece of the Republican agenda that you suddenly become a liberal of some kind, perhaps even a 'libnazi'. It makes little difference to me whether a defense program is proposed by a Democrat, Libertarian, Republican or even a Socialist. If said system really does serve the interests of the United States then I am FOR it. This one does NOT make good sense.
Given the overall demand for electrical power, the cost for manufacturing pits for warheads will go down, not up, especially for Russians who are actively acquiring nuclear power clients. Guidance system costs for MIRV'd ICBM's are quite a bit less than those needed for an effective anti-missile shield. Take a look at the per missile cost of the Patriot System.
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030503-patriot-orders01.htm
The per missile cost of a long range system will likely be ten to twenty times as much and will NEVER thwart a sustained attack by long range missiles, hence they will only serve to instigate another arms race between the US And Russia. We do not need nor should we want such an arms race. For one thing, it is entirely possible that we would lose such a race this time around. We have made such a mess of our school system and our finances that I would not bet on the United States in such a race. I do not like these facts, but there they are. And, yes, these conditions arise mainly from legislation championed by 'Liberal' Democrats.
The likelihood of a missile attack on the US by Iran or the DPRK is just about zero. It would be much smarter and safer for either country to simply ship the weapon to us and they could do so today with ease. The money slated for a anti-missile shield would be much better spent on the necessary means to screen cargo containers and vessels. The USCG is woefully underfunded when you look at the mission it has been given and the efforts we make to screen and inspect cargo containers is laughable.
We need to be doing other things with our armed forces. We need a larger fleet of smaller ships. We need a larger Air Force equipped with less costly aircraft IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE ENVELOPES. The one size fits all approach that the Air Force is taking today will get us right back into the old 'Century Fighter' mess we were in at the start of the Vietnam War. We need to do more for our ground forces, both the Marines and the Army. If the Iraq War proved anything at all, it has shown that we have not paid nearly enough attention to those needs.
We do still have some very serious defense needs, but a long range missile defense shield is NOT one of them. We would be better off splitting that part of the defense budget between improving the Aegis and Patriot systems or new systems of a similar nature.
I would also argue that any space-based weapon system we develop should one, be conventional, and two, be an offensive, not a defensive system, aimed primarily at surface attack.
..your arguments fall on their face. If anyone has a huge debt in terms of a nuclear warhead effort, it is Russia. Given their economy, they can hardly afford the cost of facing off with the west and it's large array of allies. If anyone has a nuclear waste nightmare, it is Russia with corroding submarines, square miles of contaminated ground and the cost of making all this good. Recent setbacks in virtually every Russian missile program only confirm what I am saying. Russia's ability to field even two nuclear missile boats, one on each coast at the same time, is seriously in question as we speak.
Missile defense in the west, is primarily defensive, as it should be, and only to protect against the rogue lauch, not a soviet-style cold war attack. Reagan, Bush (both) and even Clinton greenlighted research and development knowing full well a changing world requires a new doctrine in defense. It's cost, as compared to the overall budget, is tiny. The successful defense of even a single city is illustrated by 9/11, or Hurrican Katrina and the havoc it caused, a paltry affair compared to even a Hiroshima size bomb, compared to a modern thermonuclear warhead, hundreds of times more powerful. Consider one of these, detonated on Denver, or Seattle and the amount of effort it would require in terms of a humanitarian disaster. Put even a single major population center inot the equation and the picture boggles the mind. To simply say we should sit back while technology and political events change as rapidly as they are, and hope a 50 year old doctrine will continue to suffice is simply madness, and, yes, it is liberal America making the argument.
Your argument further contradicts itself on the subject of the Patriot system, indicting it for false cost overruns, and then advocating it's modification in light of it's inability to perform a role it was never intended for, a fact seemingly impossible to convey. Rambling onto an objection about aircraft design, with an inconclusive result, after 4 presidents ramrodded programs that have been ongoing for years and now come to successful fruition after all the money is spent on development is typical hind-sightedness. The failed idea that we need more and smaller surface vessels as missile technology makes them more and more vulnerable in hostile waters is ignored, while nations all over the world scramble to get submarine technology, flys in the face of reason. One only has to look at the most modern surface vessels and come to the conclusion that most of their cost is in the pursuit of their own protection and very little is left for any offensive capability, while the nuclear submarine has unlimited unrefueled range, unparalleled stealth and essentially the same offensive capability as any crusier or smaller surface vessel. American Nuclear submarines are virtually undetectable by any foreign power, traverse the oceans of the world unchallenged to any point on the globe, with no logisitcal support required while at sea.
No, we've seen this movie before and it always ends badly. America had presidents who turned away from the facts before, Roosevelt, Truman, Carter and we do not need another round of this.
Peace has a dividend and it is peace.
falls on his face, passing out from drug abuse.
Okay, let's try again, because you are either misreading what I have posted, or you are trying to put words into my mouth. I haven't offered a complaint about Aegis or the Patriot systems. I am all FOR those two systems because they already work and are of very real use to our military. That does not mean that either or both would be hurt by further development. I think it would be a very good idea to spend more money on those two programs.
If we are going to be suffer a nuclear attack by a rogue nation the delivery system of that attack will almost certainly be by truck, train, tramp steamer or brand new container ship, NOT by a missile. A missile attack from anywhere leaves no doubt about who launched the attack and our response would be so terrible that no one, not even the Iranians, are goofy enough to do such a thing.
The worst that might happen is that Iran will move to close the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us with a missile attack if we attempt to force our way in or if we attack Iran. We've already had one close call in the Middle East. Are you sure you want another one? The DPRK threatens us with such an attack if we attack them. Both of those threats can be dealt with by means other than an invasion. In fact, it is probably already too late to implement a military solution in either country.
The Iranians do not really need to make a warhead small enough and reliable enough to fit onto the end of a missile. Were I in charge of the Iranian program I would be focused on building 15-20kt fission bombs and naval mines. The same strictures are applicable to the North Koreans. They cannot win a nuclear slugfest with us and both of them know it. They want nuclear weapons to deter us from invading them with our conventional forces because they would not be able to win against us in that kind of fight, either.
OTOH, an anti-missile shield is ALREADY spurring an arms race between us and Russia. So while you are planning your anti-missile system, you need to take into account of all the affects it will have on everyone, not just the rogue states. Stirring up the Russians and making them mad when they have a source of income that is about three times greater than ours is just plain old every day stupid.
As for our fleet ballistic missile submarines, so far so good, but they are getting old, SP4. Have you heard anything about a program to replace them? I sure haven't and it takes a long time to design and build replacements for those bad boys.
How old is the B-52 now? Do we have a replacement system for it? No, and guess what, even if you put the B-2 and B-1 together, neither of those systems can fulfill the role of good ol' BUFF.
We are retiring all of the F-117's and all of our F-15's. The FA-18 is already getting long in the tooth.
We have a long list of defense needs and all of them are more important than this long range anti-missile system.
Who on earth do you think is going to bombard the US with nuclear missiles ?
You are mentally unstable - there is nobody out there to do it, and even Russia in the height of the cold war would not have done it. You load of paranoid crackpots.
Just because the Japs sent over a few explosive balloons in WW2 and blew a few trees up, does not mean that the great frightened cry-baby America is under threat.
You people do not know what war is on a civil scale.
Just use your 'brains' if you have any and think about 9/11.
A few wogs with pen knives killed 3,000 people and wounded 10,000 more, plus converting your lovely twin towers to rubble, blowing a damned great hole in the untouchable Pentagon and another bloody big hole in some poor farmers field.
If you are so scared of being hurt, then pay attention to your home security NOT some fictitious non-existent attack from outside.
You let so much human shit into your country (as you did the 9/11 gang) without any security barrier that a small number of rag-heads are able to blow your precious structures to hell together with 1,000`s of innocent American`s. This will continue, just book a place in the local cemetery.
WAKE UP YOU ARSEHOLES AND LOOK AT YOUR OWN COUNTRY. THAT IS WHERE THE THREAT WILL COME FROM, NOT FROM SOME STAR-TREK CRAZY FANTASY.
Once again, your arguments fall on the facts:
Missile defense threatens no one but the person's weapon that would incinerate us. True, it does not defend against a covert delivery of a nuclear weapon, but it was never intended to, so saying it does not is irrelavent as THAT requires another response.
It does not impact any of the other programs or systems you mention, because it's cost is so minimal. America has many programs, and this one is not so great as it requires another one to be cut. That being the case, B2's, F117's and F15's having nothing to do with the subject.
The fact remains that ICBM's are expensive, finicky, complex systems, their warheads are expensive, complex and finicky to build test, and maintain, a frequently ignored fact, etc., and Interceptors are, by comparision, realatively easy to make, deploy, test and are getting progressively easier every year. Nonetheless, once a nation gets ICBM's, an undefended nation becomes threatened by the instantanious and unstoppable result of their use, the exact moment they become operational. A defended nation gives pause to the user..and developer... of such weapons, injecting uncertanty into their plans, while not being necessarily threatened by the defenders use, knowing the defender is a democracy and not a totalitarian despot. Successful ABM's can actually be a proliferation deterrent.
Missile defense is speeding along far faster than anyone can develop test and deploy technology to defeat it, making it a better bet than developing more nuclear responses to our adversaries nuclear weapons. One only has to realize America has developed ABM tech faster than Russia has developed it's latest ICBM, Korea's too, both still failing to perform but who's programs are actually older. This may change, but for now it is fact.
America has cut thousands of nukes from it's stockpiles, a fact frequently ignored. Without missile defense, the meassage of weakness is overwelming. With the current leadership coming on, it is unlikely the political will exists to upgrade our Nuclear ICBM force. Even GW Bush was unable to go forward with his intentions i.e. the Common Warhead Program, given the congressional climate to such moves, an interesting commentary i.e. the people arguing for retaliation as the primary deterrent are not really maintaining THAT deterrent.
Retaliation as a doctrine fails when one side loses human rationality, respect for life, etc., and then the person who would not fear anniallation of their population, would have no fear of a nation who is defensless. Saddam was a good example of this, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people to make a point and quell whatever distrubance existed and his attacking his neighbors and firing on Israel to secure his own position and polarize arab opinion is a stark reminder of the rationale that drives todays world as opposed to the complex, but orderly world of the cold war. Applying those outdated paradigms to todays world is folly.
911 showed us that the obvious is not going to do the country in, but rather some simple, well-planned attack that would completely stretch the ordinary citizen's imagination, not counting the so-called experts in the field. I agree that homeland security is one of the most vital areas to be concerned about. Reagan was so obsessed with the Russians, and that didn't rear it's ugly head with attacks on the U.S.
you if SP4 is in favor of the project there must be something wrong with it. No matter what he speaks about, the 'facts' are questionable, jaded by some right wing nut job or completely off the charts stupid. He lives in the 90's with the Clintons, and supported a President who's only accomplishments was that he did not blow the whole thing up---yet.
If SP4 is on the page, I will leave the page for the rest of you. Remember 'Stupid is as Stupid does!'
...the arguments against falls on it's face, in light of the facts.
You are right on, and as far as the current administration......they do still have time to cause a major catastrophe before they leave - so heaven help us to get through the next few weeks!
..in light of the fact that Dodd and Barney were the perpetrators of the Fannie Mae mess (read below) and that they worked every day on the prinicple that bad loans were good for America, (how'd that work out by the way?)we now have a whole host of people who will now proceed with:
Bailing out what are the premier greenhouse gas producers: the auto companies, with YOUR tax dollars. I cannot imagine Palin greenlighting this, but then again, she has more experience than the person who is President - Elect...
Sending even more troops into wars the dems said they were against...apparently only if a republican is in charge...
Hiring back the same folks who turned NAFTA into law, 13 years ago, and fantasizing about re-negotiating them, as if the participants are as stupid as the American public is
Promising huge spending increases after running on a fiscal restraint platform i.e. 300 biullion dollar farm bill (unfunded) and endless bank bailouts that have produced zip. - honestly,and to think all the Republicans did was schmooze Halliburton.
This was preventable.Sep 21st, 2008 - 01:59:13
John McCain predicted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crises, pushed 2005 legislation to prevent trouble:
The 'FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005' would have headed this off but it was killed in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by Chris Dodd who recieved the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
President Bush sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie in 2003.
The Democratic response to Bush in 2003:
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
Commenting on this site.
RE:''Missile defense threatens no one but the person's weapon that would incinerate us.''
Wrong. It threatens the current balance of power by throwing off everyone's strategic calculations, including ours. Why do you think the Russians are upset over such a system?
RE:''True, it does not defend against a covert delivery of a nuclear weapon, but it was never intended to, so saying it does not is irrelavent as THAT requires another response.''
Now you are making a truly silly argument. If the most likely delivery system is untouchable by an anti-missile system, why are we spending huge sums of money on such a system?
Re:''It does not impact any of the other programs or systems you mention, because it's cost is so minimal. America has many programs, and this one is not so great as it requires another one to be cut. That being the case, B2's, F117's and F15's having nothing to do with the subject.''
Have you had a look at our state of finance here of late, SP4? We are talking about serious sums of money here, percentages of this or that be damned. Add up the cost of the weapons systems we have deployed that are not going to last for much longer and you are looking at some very serious costs. We need every penny we can spare for our defense and that means we need to immediately put an end to programs of little or no real use.
RE:''The fact remains that ICBM's are expensive, finicky, complex systems, their warheads are expensive, complex and finicky to build test, and maintain, a frequently ignored fact, etc.,...''
ICBM's were, past tense, were costly to develop. They are cheap enough now that even the DPRK can afford to develop a credible system. The differences come from two directions. Advances in materials sciences, particularly in the field of propellants, and in design. All the hard work has been done by us and the Russians. Those designs and knowledge of the material sciences have leaked out all over the place.
RE:''...and Interceptors are, by comparision, realatively easy to make, deploy, test and are getting progressively easier every year.''
This most recent test cost us $120,000,000 or so and the ICBM never presented the intercepting system with more than one target. As far as I can tell, we have yet to conduct a full-up test that would qualify the system against a single MIRV'd ICBM. We started serious work on these kinds of systems when Reagen was President. Time flies, SP4, think about how long that has been. The technology needed to produce ICBM's is much older and better understood than the tech needed for ABM systems is.
RE:''Nonetheless, once a nation gets ICBM's, an undefended nation becomes threatened by the instantanious and unstoppable result of their use, the exact moment they become operational.''
Obviously a gross misapprehension on the part of anyone who is not familiar with the last seventy years of history, or anyone who has decided to ignore their memories of the last seven decades or a deliberate evasion on the part of those enthralled by an idee fixe.
RE:''A defended nation gives pause to the user..and developer... of such weapons, injecting uncertanty into their plans, while not being necessarily threatened by the defenders use, knowing the defender is a democracy and not a totalitarian despot. Successful ABM's can actually be a proliferation deterrent.''
Oh, what a load of nonsense. Neither Iran nor the DPRK for one instant fear that the US will start a conflict with either of them by using our nuclear forces. They and several other countries are striving to acquire nuclear weapons because they know that they cannot withstand an assault by our CONVENTIONAL forces. They are acquiring nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the United States of America. We are making the same mistakes Athens made when it formed the Delian League.
Re:''Missile defense is speeding along far faster than anyone can develop test and deploy technology to defeat it, making it a better bet than developing more nuclear responses to our adversaries nuclear weapons. One only has to realize America has developed ABM tech faster than Russia has developed it's latest ICBM, Korea's too, both still failing to perform but who's programs are actually older. This may change, but for now it is fact.''
Ooglia! The anti-missile system does the exact opposite. It provides incentives to countries without ICBM's to try to build large numbers of them and those who already have such systems to construct more of what they already have. The Russians did not start upgrading their offensive systems until AFTER we abrogated the ABM treaty we signed with them.
The Bush Administration claims that the DPRK and Iran are the reason for that abrogation, but the Russians do not believe him and neither do I. The argument makes no sense whatsoever.
RE:''America has cut thousands of nukes from it's stockpiles, a fact frequently ignored. Without missile defense, the meassage of weakness is overwelming. With the current leadership coming on, it is unlikely the political will exists to upgrade our Nuclear ICBM force. Even GW Bush was unable to go forward with his intentions i.e. the Common Warhead Program, given the congressional climate to such moves, an interesting commentary i.e. the people arguing for retaliation as the primary deterrent are not really maintaining THAT deterrent.''
Yes, we are letting our guard down. On this much you and I agree, but I have been pointing out this fact from the very beginning of our discussion.
RE:''Retaliation as a doctrine ... Applying those outdated paradigms to todays world is folly.''
I would say that so long as you are talking about the likes of Osama Bin Laden you are correct, but Bin Laden does not own or operate ICBM's and is unlikely to ever acquire them. If he manages to use a WMD on us, it will be delivered by some very mundane method. The device will be shipped into the US in pieces or delivered aboard what appears to be an airliner or some other such ploy.
If you say that Iran or the DPRK might well give these madmen a weapon to deliver such a weapon by such means, I agree with you that it is a VERY worrisome possibility, but as you loudly point out, an ABM system is not designed to defend from such an attack and so it cannot defend us from such an attack and is therefore useless against the most likely form of such an attack.
Any missile attack launched upon the the United States by missile would be responded to in something like twenty minutes. There would be no Iran left. There would be no DPRK left. They would be gone. The leaders of those countries know this. They are not stupid enough to do such a thing.
If you would have peace, prepare for war and the absolute best way to fight a war is to take the initiative and maintain it. That means that our best defense is an overwhelming offense. Hiding behind walls or shields is a fool's errand.
In truth, our absolute best defense against Iran and Russia is to STOP BUYING THEIR OIL. This would be a far safer and ultimately far less costly defense program than any weapon system we could hope to build. Right now, Russia and Iran alike are ENTIRELY dependent on us and our allies buying their crude and natural gas.
I am unable to imagine a more stupid policy than the one we have now. We buy their oil so that they have the cash to develop weapons systems and then we spend billions developing defenses against them. This is so much more mad than MAD is that it is laughable. The Russians and the Iranians are playing at being Bugs Bunny while we act like Elmer Fudd. Just how much more stupid can you get?
Calvin is definitely right about one thing. Our foreign policy does not reflect enough of what we stand for as a nation (hypocritical). Even though, we must continue to dedicate research into the protection of our country. Unfortunately, our enemies are working overtime. Because a more major, serious event has not occurred, does not mean it will not happen.
Harmony in the world would be great, but we must understand that a stronger nation has a fair balance between its offensive and defensive capabilities. A stronger nation has just moral values and a genuine concern for the welfare of its citizens. It strives for a greater good.
It still boils down to good homeland security. 911 wasn't accomplished by a missile!
Calvins points are well considered, given the paradoxes at work, but ICBM's and IRBM's,have the advantages of instant use with no warning, reach targets in minutes, and their result is total. That is their advantage. They are political weapons.
Nuclear warheads wreak a havoc no nation can manage their way out of. The only consolation is that America can deliever a retaliatory blow, hardly consoling to the millions dead and dying. In the case of a leader who does not care, for religious purposes, embracing a philosophy of death, the deterrent no longer exists. Again, they do not protect against terrorist attacks, but they are not intended to in the first place, so that argument does not matter here. That requires another solution, but does not negate the ICBM threat.
ABM is, by comparison, moderately priced. It makes the equation impossible to solve. A token system defends against the rogue state and/or rogue launch, but leaves the old MAD doctrine in place. In a state where virtually all our weapons protect by deterrent, this is the only system that actually defends the populace against annialation. No other weapon in the American military can make that claim. Year after year, they will become cheaper and easier to deploy, the equation will swing to defense, a fact already in play by virtue of a government unwilling to keep up it's nuclear deterrent, as evidenced.
The link below leads to an article with a content that is difficult to gauge, given the reliability of news outlets in general. However, the time spent reading it is time well spent.
rbth.ru/articles/2008/11/30/301108_army.html
..if true. Since WWII the Russian doctrine was to have 'buffer states' act as proxies to any attack. With the fall of the old Soviet, they then had to rely on their own conscript army. Now, they realize it is virtually ineffective in the day and age we are in, so they are doing western-style reforms. Hard to swallow in the wake of pressure they've been exerting on their neighbors a.k.a Ossieta, and the Ukraine, but money talks.
Russia's problem is the 11 time zones they need to defend and the middle kingdom they are next to (China). Given their problems, they have every incentive to securitize the western side with agreements and the west more than willing to do so. No one would benefit more from a security-driven policy than Russia, given their geography. It's the mongoloid authoritarians who keep stymying this, who keep their jobs doing it.
These new iniatives to Venezuela and Cuba speak volumes to their real intentions, and bite the one hand who can most effectively help them.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story