CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Saber Rattling over Missile Defense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Saber Rattling over Missile Defense

post #1 of 17
7/8/08 at 5:17pm
Thread Starter 
I haven't heard too much from anyone in here over this. I'm interested in hearing the take on this situation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4295309.ece

The last thing we need is another Cold War. The first one was so much fun....
Reply
post #2 of 17
7/8/08 at 10:28pm
Isn't the missle defense system a complete failure anyway. Which is why no one has heard of it forever.
Reply
post #3 of 17
7/9/08 at 2:21am
I pretty much missed the last Cold War, so I'm looking forward to another one.
Reply
post #4 of 17
7/9/08 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey View Post
Isn't the missle defense system a complete failure anyway. Which is why no one has heard of it forever.
Actually, no one is hearing about it because it's going rather well. "Another successful test" doesn't make for particularly good copy.
Reply
post #5 of 17
7/9/08 at 10:06pm
I thought they where calling "successful tests" hitting one in 100 dummy missles the last story I read.
Reply
post #6 of 17
7/10/08 at 9:11am
They haven't done a 100-missile salvo test.
Reply
post #7 of 17
7/10/08 at 10:44pm
I thought they had...and it failed.
Reply
post #8 of 17
7/10/08 at 11:32pm
Ok... I'll say it.


Proof or it didn't happen. (googled for almost an hour, couldn't find shit about it failing)
Reply
post #9 of 17
7/10/08 at 11:54pm
I believe it is the case that once an ICBM is orbital, anything deployed from within it will continue at approximately the same speed, regardless of mass. For instance, if a terrorist organization with an ICBM was to stuff ten durable and reflective balloons within the missile, and then release then in orbit, the missile defense shield's targeting computer would be unable to distinguish the balloons from the actual missile, meaning that ten relatively inexpensive balloons would either give the interceptor an 91% chance of missing or would require the launch of ten more interceptors.

Given the ease with which offense can trump defense in intercontinental ballistic warfare, wouldn't it be more cost effective to invest in other areas?
Reply
post #10 of 17
7/11/08 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian View Post
Given the ease with which offense can trump defense in intercontinental ballistic warfare, wouldn't it be more cost effective to invest in other areas?
I was basically making the same argument twenty years ago, but with the twist that a shield doesn't have to be a passive defense, i.e., you can use it to make your offense more effective. Maybe that's what's bugging the other side.
Reply
post #11 of 17
7/11/08 at 9:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian View Post
Given the ease with which offense can trump defense in intercontinental ballistic warfare, wouldn't it be more cost effective to invest in other areas?
LIke more offense? I thought we were trying to reduce the number of nukes and missiles.

The reason MAD worked was because neither side tried or was able to create a defense against so many weapon systems at once. There were ICBMs, bombers, and cruise missiles all coming for your cities, so the best thing to do was not to go that far.

The idea of having a shield gives leaders the insane thought that launching a nuke war is survivable. Even if one's own cities were to survive a few nuclear strikes, the nuclear winter that would come after the destruction of so many cities would doom all.

In other words, very few people get to come to the victory party.

But then again, nukes have been in the hands of relatively sane men. Now with Iranians fumbling in their holsters for a nuke to fire and daring us to shoot them first, you have to wonder what's going to keep the Israelis from shooting first?
Reply
post #12 of 17
7/11/08 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian View Post
I believe it is the case that once an ICBM is orbital, anything deployed from within it will continue at approximately the same speed, regardless of mass. For instance, if a terrorist organization with an ICBM was to stuff ten durable and reflective balloons within the missile, and then release then in orbit, the missile defense shield's targeting computer would be unable to distinguish the balloons from the actual missile, meaning that ten relatively inexpensive balloons would either give the interceptor an 91% chance of missing or would require the launch of ten more interceptors.
That is an interesting technical challenge. However, that technical challenge is not enough to label the program a failure, particularly since so much of the effort is going into getting the missile while it's still climbing out.

Now, whether the whole program is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars is certainly an open question. But strictly from an engineering standpoint, it appears to be going well.
Reply
post #13 of 17
7/12/08 at 11:31pm
Do you honestly think the Iranian's are a threat to US security. Even if they did get the boom they don't have the technology to fire it at the United States...So they are going to what...fire it at Iraq thus pissing off the Muslim world. Try to fire it as Isreal then getting their whole country nuked into the ground.

Be logical here.
Reply
post #14 of 17
7/13/08 at 12:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
LIke more offense? I thought we were trying to reduce the number of nukes and missiles.

The reason MAD worked was because neither side tried or was able to create a defense against so many weapon systems at once. There were ICBMs, bombers, and cruise missiles all coming for your cities, so the best thing to do was not to go that far.

The idea of having a shield gives leaders the insane thought that launching a nuke war is survivable. Even if one's own cities were to survive a few nuclear strikes, the nuclear winter that would come after the destruction of so many cities would doom all.

In other words, very few people get to come to the victory party.

But then again, nukes have been in the hands of relatively sane men. Now with Iranians fumbling in their holsters for a nuke to fire and daring us to shoot them first, you have to wonder what's going to keep the Israelis from shooting first?
I was thinking something more like soft power. Invest the equivalent cost of the missile shield program in educational infrastructure in the Middle East, thereby creating a world-class educational system funded by the American government, one which will teach secular humanist values, and maybe a little bit of shameless pro-American propaganda as well. While it won't prevent terrorism, it will help break the cloud of ignorance which terrorism typically festers in.
Reply
post #15 of 17
7/13/08 at 1:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey View Post
Do you honestly think the Iranian's are a threat to US security. Even if they did get the boom they don't have the technology to fire it at the United States...So they are going to what...fire it at Iraq thus pissing off the Muslim world. Try to fire it as Isreal then getting their whole country nuked into the ground.

Be logical here.
Given all the terrorist organizations Iran funds directly and indirectly which may "accidentally" get access to enough nuclear material for their next suicide bombing, given Iran's open hostility and threats towards our biggest Middle Eastern ally, and given the delicate balance of power in the area that happens to control the flow of the world's most significant source of fuel, I think all other nations might have reason to be concerned with Iran developing the most deadly weapon of mass destruction ever invented.
Reply
post #16 of 17
7/13/08 at 1:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian View Post
I was thinking something more like soft power. Invest the equivalent cost of the missile shield program in educational infrastructure in the Middle East, thereby creating a world-class educational system funded by the American government, one which will teach secular humanist values, and maybe a little bit of shameless pro-American propaganda as well. While it won't prevent terrorism, it will help break the cloud of ignorance which terrorism typically festers in.
Do you think Iran, Syria, Jordan, or even Saudi Arabia would be ok with the US deciding to set up or fund a network of pro-Western, secular schools in their country?
Reply
post #17 of 17
7/15/08 at 7:11am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Saber Rattling over Missile Defense