You are not logged in.
What are your opinions on the Star Wars missile defense initiative? I almost died of shock when I read that it when its all done and paid for it could cost upwards of 200 billion smackers. It seems like a tragic waste of money to me. Imagine what could be done with that much money to open up the space frontier and all of its economic benefits that could help all of humanity. This whole Star Wars things always reminds me of an over complicated Ruberg device with all of its various lasers, airplanes, and satellites anyway. It seems possible that any country intent on launching a missile attack could outsmart the system by launching volleys of dummy missiles or decoys to overload the system. I don't think we really need to spend all that money on a system that's of uncertain use and may be easily outsmarted anyway.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
I agree with you 100%. A "Star Wars" missile defense system would indeed be a *tragic* waste of money, and the U.S. would still just as vulnerable to a nuke attack from the ground or whatever. I sincerely hope we have a change of administration before this program gets off the ground..if it does, we'll never have a decent space program :angry:
Thank you for bringning up this important point...
B
Offline
Phobos: "What are your opinions on the Star Wars missile defense initiative?"
*It sure seems to be THE pet project of Republicans. It keeps their wealthy corporate friends in the green, doesn't it?
What angers me even more than the fact that this money could go to fund space exploration programs is the fact that many working, blue-collar people can't afford health insurance (if it's not provided by the employer, and in many instances it's not), and that many senior citizens are forced to decide between adequate nutrition (i.e., an adequate supply of monthly groceries) or their outrageously priced prescription medications. For the wealthiest nation in the world, this is truly an outrageous and unforgiveable disgrace. :angry:
The USA Treasury is more than able to maintain an adequate defense/military system AND give **generously** to space advocacy organizations/programs AND provide health insurance benefits/options for the working uninsured AND keep old people comfortable and well fed.
Talk about misplaced priorities!
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
In light of India and Pakistan's willingness to kill each other over Kashmir, I think that defense against nuclear attack is a necessity. But I do not think that the current program will be sufficient to solve the world's needs. Any American missile defense will offend the rest of the nuclear powers because it undermines their strategic deterrent. What I propose instead is an international missile defense effort, composed of the nuclear powers. This would give the nations a defense against nuclear attack, preserve the strategic balance of power, and presssure nations with secret nuclear arsenals (Israel and others) to come out of the shadows.
The National Missile Defense would only give the United States a shot at defending aganst an accidental launch, or at best a first strike by China. A space based defense that was financed and developed by the nuclear nations would be a far better solution. A more pressing need than National Missile Defense is theatre missile defense, such as the THAAD system. If India and Pakistan both had THAAD, they could forget about firing nuclear missiles at each other. It would also eliminate any hope that Saddam Hussein would have of launching more SCUD missile attacks.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
agree with you 100%. A "Star Wars" missile defense system would indeed be a *tragic* waste of money, and the U.S. would still just as vulnerable to a nuke attack from the ground or whatever. I sincerely hope we have a change of administration before this program gets off the ground..if it does, we'll never have a decent space program
I was thinking the same thing. With all of these people willing to smuggle dirty bombs and fly airplanes into buildings, it seems there are more efficient ways for people to blow things up then to launch missiles. What's especially bad is that during its best tests the SDI system had less than a stellar performance rating. We'd probably all end up dead anyway even if this thing was active.
The USA Treasury is more than able to maintain an adequate defense/military system AND give **generously** to space advocacy organizations/programs AND provide health insurance benefits/options for the working uninsured AND keep old people comfortable and well fed.
Talk about misplaced priorities!
It has always amazed me how there seems to be so much money available for the military and so little for everything else. 200 billion dollars is an immense amount just for a single project that probably won't work anyway! Makes me sick just to think of all the ways that money could be used! They had no problem canning that supercollider in Texas that could have opened up a lot of new discoveries, but they'll sure as hell throw away 200 billion dollars on a worthless system that won't advance humanity in any way. If this kind of money was put into civilian R&D for things like medicine and spaceflight we'd probably have a lot of breakthroughs.
Any American missile defense will offend the rest of the nuclear powers because it undermines their strategic deterrent. What I propose instead is an international missile defense effort, composed of the nuclear powers. This would give the nations a defense against nuclear attack, preserve the strategic balance of power, and presssure nations with secret nuclear arsenals (Israel and others) to come out of the shadows.
I think history has proven that the threat of mutually assured destruction has acted as a powerful deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. After all, we are still here aren't we? The USA, China, USSR, etc, have had plenty of wars in which launching nuclear strikes could have led to victories but it never happened. Now this bullet proof jacket we are putting on ourselves will only lead other countries to build up their nuclear defenses and lead to false hopes that a nuclear war could be won without damage to the attacker. That's very dangerous. I bet if India or Pakistan had developed somekind of SDI system they would already have launched nukes thinking they could defend themselves from their enemies counter-strike.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Mutually assured destruction has worked well over the past half century, but it is so unpredictable that we should not rely on MAD for protection. MAD only works when rational people control the nuclear stockpiles. What would happen if extremists overthrew Gen. Musharraf and took control of Pakistan's weapons? India would be a smoking crater. The problem is that there are many radicals who are willing to gamble with the lives of their own people because their greatest achievement would be "dying for Allah." We need theatre missile defenses to keep the peace between India and Pakistan, and to stop Iraq from threatening the middle east. As an engineer I'm confident that "hitting a bullet with a bullet" will work--the past six or so tests of the National Missile Defense have been complete successes.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Phobos: "It has always amazed me how there seems to be so much money available for the military and so little for everything else."
*Mmmm-hmmmm. Here's a little quote of Voltaire: "Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the front-lines to be destroyed; but when the object is to preserve them, it is no longer so."
--Cindy
MS member since 6/01
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Mutually assured destruction has worked well over the past half century, but it is so unpredictable that we should not rely on MAD for protection. MAD only works when rational people control the nuclear stockpiles. What would happen if extremists overthrew Gen. Musharraf and took control of Pakistan's weapons? India would be a smoking crater. The problem is that there are many radicals who are willing to gamble with the lives of their own people because their greatest achievement would be "dying for Allah." We need theatre missile defenses to keep the peace between India and Pakistan, and to stop Iraq from threatening the middle east. As an engineer I'm confident that "hitting a bullet with a bullet" will work--the past six or so tests of the National Missile Defense have been complete successes.
They've been successes under sterile conditions, but how will those systems fare when an attacking country launches volleys of dummy missiles that make picking out the real missile in time or shooting them all down a problem not to mention other problems with more advanced decoys. Terrorists are probably more likely to resort to things like suitcase bombs and other more easily handled weapons than continental ballistic missiles. I concede you have a point about fanatics overpowering a government's control of its own missiles, but that seems like a relatively remote possibility. Pakistan is probably the only country where a possibility exists for such a scenario, but they seem able to defend themselves from terrorist usurpers. I see no problem with local theater missile defenses like the Patriot system, but I don't think we need to spend 75-200 billion dollars on a questionable system. Anyways, the MAD philosophy so far seems to be working with India and Pakistan since they have yet to launch missiles at each other.
*Mmmm-hmmmm. Here's a little quote of Voltaire: "Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the front-lines to be destroyed; but when the object is to preserve them, it is no longer so."
Money and power. Probably the only reason more nukes haven't been launched is because the people who are willing to send others to die for some petty and personal cause know that if they launch nukes, they themselves will most likely be fried or ostracised internationally. I pretty much agree with Ayn Rand that governments don't have rights to force it citizens to fight and die for whatever cause. If a war is truly worth fighting you'll probably have no problem finding volunteers, and if you don't find enough people willing to defend the country at its most critical time it's probably a sign that country isn't worth fighting for in the first place.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Note the current missile defense system is to protect against a small attack of only a few missiles. It is not meant to function against a full nuclear assault from a country like china or russia. The current missle defenses limit would be blocking a couple of missiles from a country like north Korea. I think that a small missile defense system is a good idea and will work from a technical standpoint, think of the lives it could save. The problem is estranges our nuclear allies. I don't really know where the soltion lies but I wish I did.
Offline
I believe that the current National Missile Defense strategy would provide a defense against China's nuclear capability. As it stands, China only has about a dozen nuclear missiles targeted on the United States. This number is expected to triple within the next fifteen years, but it will still be less than the hundred interceptors that the United States will field.
I actually think that the motivation behind NMD is China's missile threat. The message NMD sends is clear: if China wants to steal our nuclear technology, we will make their nuclear technology obsolete.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Maybe Mark S can answer a question about NMD which I have wondered about for a few years.
Assume NMD is directed at China and assume China has a few dozen ICBMs with H-bombs on top.
How does NMD prevent China from launching about 6 missiles a few minutes before the main strike and detonating the warheads on the initial sequence in pairs about 500-750 miles apart from one another - the first pair 500 miles or so downrange, the 2nd pair 1200-1500 miles downrange and the final pair another 500 - 1000 miles downrange.
The main strike then passes through the corridor of electro-magnetic static formed from 6 thermonuclear detonations high in the atmosphere. Can the US space based and ground based radar see anything to hit?
Of course, very massive retaliation remains an option - if China nukes a dozen US cities, a 1/2 billion Chinese die within the hour - so I am not really too worried about this scenario. More interested in how NMD "sees" in an environment cluttered with the electro-magnetic residue from nuclear explosion(s).
Another possible reason for NMD - total domination of the anti-satellite theater of operation. The ability to very quickly degrade - annihilate - the space assets of any potential adversary seems to be something the US military would very much want to possess.
Considering that the vast majority of Americans (myself included) would not oppose a pre-emptive strike on any ICBM being fueled and readied for launch in a "rogue nation" - whether via cruise missile or special ops ground forces or otherwise - and considering that such tactics would be 100x cheaper than NMD, I suspect many of the NMD "fringe benefits" of control over the space theater of operation are the "real" reason NMD is being pursued.
Offline
Star Wars is simply the means with which to perpetuate the status quo, i.e- US military supremacy, and by extension, Western Industrialized Supremacy of Earth. The US has mainatained it's super-power status through the it's extension of soft as well as hard power. It has maintained relative stability through the policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). MAD is a cocept that works by imposing a huge cost on any group if they try to directly challenge the US in terms of power. It is "rational" becuase the price of failure is final, and the price for victory is uncertain. MAD is a game of ultimate "for keeps".
Star Wars does not do away with MAD, in fact, it assures it. The only measn to overcome a Star Wars based defensive shield is with massive oversaturation- the only groups capable of that are industrialized nations- all of which bow to US supremacy. Now, these industrialized nations could attack- but that was true before Star Wars- so it is the same game we have been playing (and playing well) for the last 50 years.
The only people who can't break through Star Wars are smaller, less developed countries with limited nuclear capability. They are effectively left-out of the "nuclear club" becuase they have a weapon that has been rendered useless becuase it cannot overcome the defenses. It makes Iraq, Iran, North Korea, et al. impotent to threaten or cajople us in any way- which means we no longer have to consider their interests when we deal with them. it's no accident that the permanent members of the Security Council are the major nuclear powers.
Can a more effecient measn be used to deliver a nuclear weapon to american soil- of course. But that takes quite a bit of technological sophistication and logistcal support to do that- which is just as limiting as having ICBM's to deliver a nuke. Furthermore, the ability of a group to carry out an attack is small, and would do very little (overall) to affect US policy- which is what an attacking Nation would want (senseless destruction is not a hallmark of most nations, especially of this magnatude). The missle defense would primarily protect our military as it does whatever it is ordered to do- it's hard to carry out modern military campaigns if any time you concentrate your men they get vaporized...
Missle defense is good, from a US point of view if for no other reason than it further establishes the status quo (good for us), which means we can still railroad over other people to maintain our way of life since they lack the ability to effectively strike back at us.
Nuclear weapons are like sledge hammers- they are only needed in severe situations (like end of the world kinda stuff)- other means of destruction exsist. All of this measn that the US cannot legitmetly retaliate to a One Strike with massive reprisal- we would be guilty of killing so many innocents (even in reprisal it is wrong) that it would be intolerable.
Much better to shoot down a few missles and then engae in standard conflict resolution, instead of replying with our own nukes.
Think about this response- Some crazy just blew up LA- so in response, we are going to destroy the Crazies entire country- including all the people who are nto involved... it's stupid and unproductive.
Offline
Breaking through the Star Wars defense system is trivial. Just launch a rocket that has one mass destruction payload, and fifty decoy payloads, all indistinguishable using current technology. I don't see any evidence suggesting that third world countries are incapable of doing this.
Star Wars is a misguided program. Hopefully, of course, it'll never have to be tested. But if it does, don't count on it succeeding.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Actually, I read that using space-based radar, decoys can be distinguished. It's just not thought to be possible using hyperspectral cameras versus the latest camouflaging techniques. Warheads are much heavier than decoys, and that creates effects which can be measured from orbit upon separation from the booster. Only problem: We do not yet have global coverage with space-based radar (or any at all, unless it's classified).
But I'm sure that with another few Republican administrations in the USA, that will change. Just as nuclear power in space got revived by NASA, so too will Space Command get the radar sats it wants.
Offline
I don't believe that NMD is a misguided program at all. Perhaps you never saw the photos of Russian Navy wives hanging laundry off the conning towers of nuclear submarines. They and their families were living out of the submarines, because housing conditions were so bad. There is a very real issue with the security of the world's nuclear arsenals. Sure, terrorists could try to smuggle the parts of nuclear warhead into the USA...but a nation-state wouldn't attempt it because of the catastrophic consequences if the plan is discovered before completion. And nuclear materials are not as easy to carry around as some people seem to think. Terrorists could just as easily hijack some nuclear weapon delivery system. And what would America do if New York becomes a smoking pile of radioactive ash? People would be screaming 'genocide' if we nuked the country of origin. Millions of innocent civilians would obviously die.
That's not even considering the possibility of accidental launch, as nearly happened in 1995, when Russian Strategic Rocket Forces officers loaded a training program into the early warning computers and inadvertently neglected to tell anyone else. Yeltsin had authorized a nuclear strike against America...and the whole world came within 15 minutes of nuclear Holocaust before the mistake was identified.
Offline
Josh said:
Breaking through the Star Wars defense system is trivial. Just launch a rocket that has one mass destruction payload, and fifty decoy payloads, all indistinguishable using current technology. I don't see any evidence suggesting that third world countries are incapable of doing this.
This does not mean we should not develop a missle shield.
By all accounts, we are unable to stop all murders, so does that mean we should not have police to prevent murders?
We can't stop all disease, should we cease funding for those groups who help mitigate the effects or spread of disase?
Why do you feel more confortable with these same inadquecies, but not for missle defense?
Offline
Breaking through the Star Wars defense system is trivial. Just launch a rocket that has one mass destruction payload, and fifty decoy payloads, all indistinguishable using current technology. I don't see any evidence suggesting that third world countries are incapable of doing this.
During the most recent tests of National Missile Defense and hit-to-kill interception, the interceptor has been able to distinguish between the real warhead and decoys. The problem comes in when the missile has multiple warheads, as U.S. and Russian ones did. The solution in this case is either to fire several interceptors (which will be done in any scenario, to increase the chances of blocking the warhead) or intercepting the missile while it is still booting, using either an orbiting laser or an orbiting "Brilliant Pebbles."
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Ground Based Midcourse Interception ("Star Wars") just got a huge boost this week.
First, the system successfully intercepted a simulated ICBM warhead and was able to distinguish it from decoys. Then North Korea announces that it does have a nuclear weapons program (in violation of previous international agreements.)
All doubt in my mind about the necessity for GBMI is gone. North Korean missiles can attack the United States (right now, just Alaska and Hawaii) with nuclear weapons, but we also have the tools to stop them from ever doing it. GBMI isn't a technological "pie-in-the-sky." Although there have been a few failures, there are normal when dealing with a complex project like this. The Bush administration has given the contractors enough support and money so they could work the bugs out. GBMI is the only way to re-stabilize the balance of power in the Korean peninsula.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
If the North goes nuclear, what makes you think that the South won't as well? They could easily develope the capibility in a short time. The balance of power never shifted. The North can't blackmail the South witha nuke because the South has nuclear allies as well, with much bigger arsonals. The existance of GBMI will not deter anyone from attacking.
Offline
How soon will the "boost phase" laser system be deployed?
If I recall, it is a 747 equipped with a giant chemical laser.
If one of those were to be deployed in Japan / South Korea and launched *IF* North Korea started fueling a large rocket, or if one of three were continually airborne off the coast of North Korea, the potential to attack the United States would be largely nullified - unless a bomb is smuggled in a shipping container.
Still, a mid course intercept system may well remain a valuable back up.
Such systems would not stabilize the peninsula, however, as atomic tipped artillery shells can easily reach Seoul from North Korea. And, if volleys of shorter range missiles were fired at Japan how would we know which one had the nuke?
Finally, I sure hope the US Air Force has the GPS coordinates of North Korean launch facilities readily available. The fueling of a North Korean ballistic missile may now be sufficient cause for sending a few pre-emptive JDAMs or Tomahawks.
Offline
North Korea sees nuclear-armed ICBMs as a way to keep the United States out of any future military campaign to conquer South Korea. They reason that wiping out thousands of people in Alaska and Hawaii will deter the U.S. from protecting South Korea. GBMI takes out North Korea's trump card.
The South will no build nuclear weapons anytime soon. As a democratic nation, they are more likely to adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and respect the wishes of other democratic nations that have signed the treaty.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
North Korea sees nuclear-armed ICBMs as a way to keep the United States out of any future military campaign to conquer South Korea. They reason that wiping out thousands of people in Alaska and Hawaii will deter the U.S. from protecting South Korea. GBMI takes out North Korea's trump card.
Now there's a scary thought. I never considered the possibility of N. Korea using its nuclear arsenal as a diplomacy weapon to keep other nations from running to S. Korea's defense. Since it's obvious nations won't respect paper treaties concerning nuclear weapons programs, a missile defense shield may not be as preposterous as it sounds.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
The threat is not that they would use a missle against us to threaten us away, the People's Republic China has already threatened to detroy our cities and we still support the Republic of China. It would be suicide to strike at us. The only argument I think is valid is that some general makes a launch on their own accord.
If we are really worried about a threat, we could hit their missile bases first, a task we are more than capible of.
Offline
Here's something to consider. The threat that the US faces regarding a potential nuclear attack comes not from advanced countries (with the exception of China, which itself has limited capability), but primarily from small, under-developed nations with extremely limited nuclear capability. From a practical standpoint missile defense can be made to work against such a threat because they simply do not have the capability to overwhelm the system. If it can hit two or three missiles that's probably enough, considering the nations that are likely to try to launch something at us.
Now why would they try to launch at us? It makes no logical sense from our perspective, but then I'd imagine things might look different from Baghdad or Pyongyang. The United States is by far the most powerful nation on Earth, and nuclear weapons are on a whole different plane from conventional weapons. Governments of these countries tend toward a regional view, they aren't as global-minded as America and our allies.
In short, the (dictatorial) governments of smaller nations that have recently achieved nuclear capability (by buying much of the needed material and know-how abroad) may not understand what they are dealing with. It seems plausible that, just maybe, these governments look at nukes in a grossly simplistic manner as merely bigger bombs, lacking an understanding of what their full effects are, their actual destructive capability, and the level of response their use would draw from the major powers.
Considering what the US is preparing to do to Iraq for simply trying to build one, imagine the response if Iraq used a nuke to rid themselves of the American aircraft carriers in the Gulf, for example. And that could be justified as a purely military use! If they took out an American city. . . Then everyone would understand the magnitude of what they're dealing with.
Okay, I'll quite rambling now.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
If the North goes nuclear, what makes you think that the South won't as well?
*Oh great, just what we need: Another India-Pakistan type scenario.
I wonder if the dumbasses of the world will be happy when the planet is reduced to one huge, charred, smoking cinder; you know, when there's no one left to play King Of The Hill or Biggest Block Bully then.
It's really pathetic that so much life, potential, and diversity is WASTED on such levels of hatred. I wonder, if there are other planets with intelligent life "out there," if they have the same level of warfare and hatred as this pretty little blue planet has faced all these millenia. I've always thought, when looking at photos of the Earth, or during video shots of the Earth "passing by" underneath space-walking astronauts during shuttle missions, that you'd never suspect there was such animosity and brutal hatred and atrocities here, just by looking at those serene and placid planetscapes of silver, blue, green, and white.
Extraterrestrials, beware.
::shakes head sadly::
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
