Do we need a NMD?

[Goobieman]

I'm sorry, but we have far more to fear from other forms of attack, and a successful test, under lab conditions, doesn't do much to prove viability. For the last test the Army did, they used a tracking signal for the final approach stage, so the interceptor was basically honing in on a beacon.

BZZZT. You need to stop getting your information from leftist blogs.

The last test, IFT-10 (11 DEC 2002) used a C-band radar on a US navy ship as a stand-in for the X-band radar that had not yet been ddeployed. The C-band transponder allowed the C-band radar to lock onto the missile, as C-band radars are not designed for this sort of thing. Like in IFT-9 (and all the other tests where a C-band stransponder/radar stood in for the X-band system under constructio), the C-band radar, sensing the transponder) fed info into the Battle Management System (BMS) which then in turn told the EKV where to look for the target and then home in on same.

The IKV never, ever, for one microsecond, at all, in any form, locked on to the C-band transponder.

Let me say that again:

The IKV never, ever, for one microsecond, at all, in any form, locked on to the C-band transponder.

And... the army doesnt test the NMD.

The system does not work in bad weather

And you know this, because?

or under water, and is not designed to protect us against shorter range ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles

.
Given that it is designed to shoot down ICBMKs, how is this a valid criticism?

The system is designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. It won't do any good for shorter range missiles in its current form...a missile smuggled in on a ship, for instance, close to shore.

Given that it is designed to shoot down ICBMKs, how is this a valid criticism?

1) China develops MIRV warheads
2) China keeps its ballistic missiles in a ready to launch state
3) China develops nuclear tipped cruise missiles
4) China launches new SSBMs
5) Russia keeps more nuclear missiles to be able to overcome the NMD

1) The NMD is not designed to defend us from China (though at this point, it could).
2) They already to. In any event, The NMD is not designed to defend us from China (thougg at this point, it could).
3) The NMD is not designed to defend us from China (though at this point, it could)
4) The NMD is not designed to defend us from China (thougg at this point, it could).
5) The NMD is not designed to defend us from the Russians, and at this point, could not.

These systems won't effect the policy of the 'rogue' states, because they aren't stupid enough to spend a fortune on ICBM's that will do nothing to protect them and do nothing to increase their bargaining power.

Please explain why NK, Iran, Pakistan, India and a host of other 3rd wold countries are, right now, working on ICBMs with enough range to hit the US.

The 'rogue' states have targets that are far closer and easier then trying to launch an ICBM against the U.S.

Same question as above.

And guess what? These new star wars systems do nothing to protect our allies over in Europe and the Middle East,

At this point. No reason it cannot be expanded. We have already ofered our allies NMD protection.

 

[Hoot]

I guess this is kind of a mute debate, since the system doesn't even work yet, and many scientists don't believe it ever will.

But let's say we get a bunch of interceptors that do work and we station them in Alaska. For arguments sake, let's say we have 20 interceptors. What's to prevent China from sending one more missile over then the number of interceptors we have? Or what's to prevent China from sending 20 false missiles over until we use our interceptors, and then firing the chem/bio and nuke warheads?

Because Bush broke the promise of the U.S., and pulled out of the ABM treaty, now we face Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and anyone else involved wanting to update and increase their nuclear stockpiles...simply because other nations will fear the viability of a missile defense sheild in the U.S.

And you think this is a solution? It's a trillion dollar give away to defense contractors that will do nothing to protect our borders. We face a far greater likelihood of a dirty bomb smuggled in across the Mexican border.

The continuing pursuit of this technology by the U.S. will only escalate the arms race and make the world a far less safe place to live.

The U.S. should be trying to rid the world of these weapons, not giving other nations a reason to build them.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I voted no. . .instead of spending all that money in building something that's never going to work, why don't we spend money funding research into alternative energy so we don't have to be held hostage by foreign oil

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm sorry, but we have far more to fear from other forms of attack, and a successful test, under lab conditions, doesn't do much to prove viability. For the last test the Army did, they used a tracking signal for the final approach stage, so the interceptor was basically honing in on a beacon.

So can we assume that you lack the miniscule bit of imagination it would take to replace a beacon with a radar/IR/laser tracking system?

The system does not work in bad weather or under water, and is not designed to protect us against shorter range ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles.

Funny thing. Orbiting systems not only don't enjoy bad weather, they have a much wider field of view, too, enhancing their effectiveness.

Oh, and clearly SRBM's are part of a theatre defense program, not a NATIONAL missile defense program. Why are you using objections against the one on the other? Is is that you don't know the difference or that you think no one would notice or that you're just spewing talking points without comprehending the issue?

The system is designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. It won't do any good for shorter range missiles in its current form...a missile smuggled in on a ship, for instance, close to shore.

Well, there ya go. You just squashed you're previous complaint. Make up your mind.

Instead of having a corporate give-away sale to defense contractors, you'd better start worrying about the destabilyzing effects these systems will have on the world.....

Thinking about the destablizing effects making the United States and my family more secure from attack by international thugs with nuclear weapons and rockets.....there aren't any that matter. Go ahead and build it.

1) China develops MIRV warheads

So, you have this in a future tense for what reason? Loral Corp already taught China not only how to do that, but how to point their rockets. Bill Clinton gave them permission to do so.

2) China keeps its ballistic missiles in a ready to launch state.

Again, if they got them, they're going to maintain them. Since they have them now, you're using the incorrect tense again.

3) China develops nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

They have a supersonic cruise missile we call the Sunburn. Since Clinton let the Chinese steal our most advanced W88 nuclear bomb technology, I'm sure they're figuring out how to arm their Sunburns with nuclear fire.

This development has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of future Amercian NMD technology.

This development illustrates exactly why the US needs to press forward with NMD technology.

4) China launches new SSBMs

What's a SSBM? The US Navy gives the designation SSBN to submarines (SS) capable of launcing ICBM's (B) and powered with a nuclear reactor (N). Is that what you mean?

I would expect a nuclear navy is one goal of China. If this is what you mean, this also is not related to our progress in NMD.

5) Russia keeps more nuclear missiles to be able to overcome the NMD.

That's nice. Is that better or worse than when their possession of one nuclear tipped ICBM was able to penetrate our non-existent NMD? Better, of course.

These systems won't effect the policy of the 'rogue' states, because they aren't stupid enough to spend a fortune on ICBM's that will do nothing to protect them and do nothing to increase their bargaining power. The 'rogue' states have targets that are far closer and easier then trying to launch an ICBM against the U.S.

So, North Korea is building a Long Dong II rocket with a 1300 mile range carrying a 1000 lb payload for what reason?

And guess what? These new star wars systems do nothing to protect our allies over in Europe and the Middle East, but will only antagonize the world and further escalate the nuclear arms race, while putting us further into debt for a system that can't even guarantee to protect our own borders.

Ah, the sudden concern for fiscal responsibility. We can pay for the system by tapping the funds spent on welfare. Instead of paying for the damage hurricane Katrina did, we can tell those people they should have bought insurance, and then we'd have a couple hundred billion to spend on defending the country from attack.

Europe can develop its own NMD system. They keep insisting they don't need us, they keep interfering in our business, so let them fend for themselves. It will do THEIR economy wonders...

And Star Wars was a stupid movie, too....LOL!

Star Wars is a classic that introduced dozens of icons into the culture. It was the most influential movie of the '70s.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Because Bush broke the promise of the U.S., and pulled out of the ABM treaty, now we face Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and anyone else involved wanting to update and increase their nuclear stockpiles...simply because other nations will fear the viability of a missile defense sheild in the U.S.

Go READ the ABM Treaty. It permits either party to withdraw after giving six months notice. We withdrew from the defunct treaty in accordance with the procedure included in the agreement. Ergo, we didn't break any promises in that regard.

Also, the other party that signed the treaty was no longer in existence. That being the case, the treaty was already null and void. Ergo, we didn't break any promises to anyone, anyway.

You don't understand the issues, do you?

 

[Goobieman]

I voted no. . .instead of spending all that money in building something that's never going to work....

Its never going to work, because...?

 

[Goobieman]

I guess this is kind of a mute debate, since the system doesn't even work yet, and many scientists don't believe it ever will.

Interesting. In testing, it's 5 for 8, with the three failures being from the surrogate systems, not the systems being tested.

It doesnt work? It will never work?
Based on what?

But let's say we get a bunch of interceptors that do work and we station them in Alaska. For arguments sake, let's say we have 20 interceptors. What's to prevent China from sending one more missile over then the number of interceptors we have? Or what's to prevent China from sending 20 false missiles over until we use our interceptors, and then firing the chem/bio and nuke warheads?

Strawman. The NMD is intended to stop a limited strike from a country with a limited capability -- like NK, not Russia or China. And in any event, however number of nukes we shoot down, its just that fewer that will explode on a target in the US. Stopping 50 and letting 10 get through is better than letting 60 get through.

In its final form, the NMD is designed to stop up to 50 missiles with sophisticated penetration adis; the less sophisticated the aids, the more it will stop. At present, this will stop an attack from anyone except Russia.

Because Bush broke the promise of the U.S., and pulled out of the ABM treaty, now we face Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and anyone else involved wanting to update and increase their nuclear stockpiles...simply because other nations will fear the viability of a missile defense sheild in the U.S.

The ABM treaty contained language allowing any party to back out at any time. When you withdraw from a treaty that you have the right to withdraw from, you arent breaking a promise to anyone.

And you think this is a solution? It's a trillion dollar give away to defense contractors that will do nothing to protect our borders. We face a far greater likelihood of a dirty bomb smuggled in across the Mexican border.

I see you still havent told us why, if ICBMs arent a legitimate or effective way to attack the US, NK and Iran are building missiles with the range to hit the US.

The continuing pursuit of this technology by the U.S. will only escalate the arms race and make the world a far less safe place to live.

So, if we dont build the NMD, NK and India and Iran and Pakistan arent going to build more nukes and missiles that can get them here anyway?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

When you see Seattle go up in a 200kt flash and you find out that GWB could have stopped it by deploying the NMD, you're going to be the FIRST to call for his head.

 

[Stinger]

But the very nature of a missile defense system guarantees that there will be people and nations trying to find a way around it. And they'll most likely succeed...for a fraction of the cost it took us to build it.

Why do you declare they will most likely succeed and how do you think they will do it? How will they be able to test it to see if their missles can?

 

[Hoot]

You don't understand the issues, do you?

With all humility, you're quite right. I don't pretend to even begin to understand all the issues involved.

However, I've spent the morning doing research and drinking my coffee and reading both pro and con about missile defense technology, so allow me ask any of you that are interested one simple question...

Would you continue to support missile defense if the U.S. promises to share this technology with its allies?

Ok...two questions....

Should the U.S. help pay for missile defense overseas to better enable strike capability in the initial rocket burning phase?

I still believe we have far more to fear from other forms of attack then warrants the expenditure of continued (N)MD outlays. If you asked the average American if they supported missile defense, I have no doubt the majority would say yes, however if you included the cost and possible world-wide escalation, and the potential that the system may not work, I believe the majority would feel the money better spent on an improved military.

The idea of a Europe with multiple interceptor sites does not do much to ally my fears of a continued global nuclear race.

However, I'm open to any and all ideas, and some of you may persuade me that I am taking the wrong track on NMD?

Sincerely, Hoot

 

[Stinger]

Suppose you're the leader of a rogue country and are set on attacking the Great Satan, for whatever reason. You have the weaponry and the missiles to transport it, but the Great Satan has a missile defense system. Do you just give up, or do you have a spy take the weapon into America for you? The answer seems pretty clear to me, which leads me to believe that this missile defense system will not prevent any attacks at all.

So why would the rouge state go through all the trouble and expense to build missles in the first place? Lot cheaper to just send spys.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That Defense A does not protect us from Threat B in no way invalidates Defense A.

And, that it might be obsolete someday has never and should never deter you from building a defense system that will protect you today and into the forseeable future. Weapons systems become obsolete all thew time -- its the nature of the beast.

Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

Keeping the lines of communication open and actively persuing diplomatic ways of solving differences negates the need for weapon's defense systems such as these.

 

[Goobieman]

Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

Keeping the lines of communication open and actively persuing diplomatic ways of solving differences negates the need for weapon's defense systems such as these.

If you arent goping to stay on topic, or add something relevant, why bother posting?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman
If you arent goping to stay on topic, or add something relevant, why bother posting?

That's a little strange coming from you since half of my post was using YOUR analogy.

 

[Goobieman]

That's a little strange coming from you since half of my post was using YOUR analogy.

Your post had nothing to do with my analogy.
You;re trying to make a point in a clever way, and you just don't know how.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman
Your post had nothing to do with my analogy.
You;re trying to make a point in a clever way, and you just don't know how.

Your were making the point for a missile defense system. I was making the point against one.

This was your analogy.

Originally posted by Goobieman
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That Defense A does not protect us from Threat B in no way invalidates Defense A.

And, that it might be obsolete someday has never and should never deter you from building a defense system that will protect you today and into the forseeable future. Weapons systems become obsolete all thew time -- its the nature of the beast.

This was mine.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

Keeping the lines of communication open and actively persuing diplomatic ways of solving differences negates the need for weapon's defense systems such as these.

How does the latter have nothing to do with the former?

 

[scottyz]

Its never going to work, because...?

By the time they got it working with a decent success rate there would be even more ways to get around it. I thought our main worry was homemade dirty bombs anyways..?

 

[Goobieman]

Your were making the point for a missile defense system. I was making the point against one.
This was your analogy.
This was mine.
How does the latter have nothing to do with the former?

Sigh.
Lets look at your argument:

Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

"Does" threat B?
Please show me how it necessarily follows that Country C objects to Country A.
Then tell us what this has to do with anything that's going on regarding the NMD.

Keeping the lines of communication open and actively persuing diplomatic ways of solving differences negates the need for weapon's defense systems such as these.

Seems to me that being able to shoot down North Korean ICBMs only strenghtens our diplomatic hand against North Korea regarding their ICBMs.

Do you propose we negotaite with a weaker hand than necessary? Why?

 

[Goobieman]

By the time they got it working with a decent success rate there would be even more ways to get around it. I thought our main worry was homemade dirty bombs anyways..?

Rhe NMD is being deployed right now.
Right now, the sucess rate is 62.5%. Thats "decent".

Clearly, there is also a legitimate ICBM concern, as NK and Iran are both developing ICBMs that can hit us.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Would you continue to support missile defense if the U.S. promises to share this technology with its allies?

No. I support supplying the necessary technology with a trained American crew to operate it. I'm not in favor of technology transfers. But net result is the same.

Should the U.S. help pay for missile defense overseas to better enable strike capability in the initial rocket burning phase?

No. If those countries want our assistance, they can defray the costs. Only if it's necessary for the defense of US targets that we locate our defensive systems off shore would I consider our paying for it proper.

I still believe we have far more to fear from other forms of attack then warrants the expenditure of continued (N)MD outlays. If you asked the average American if they supported missile defense, I have no doubt the majority would say yes, however if you included the cost and possible world-wide escalation, and the potential that the system may not work, I believe the majority would feel the money better spent on an improved military.

Ummm...NMD IS an improved military. You're argument sounds suspciously like someone opposed to flak jackets because a head shot can still kill the soldier.

The idea of a Europe with multiple interceptor sites does not do much to ally my fears of a continued global nuclear race.

It was Pershing II missiles in Germany (thanks, Ron) the caused teh Soviets to start pulling there missiles out of the Warsaw Pact countries, and forced Gorbachev to come to strategic arms reduction talks.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

Keeping the lines of communication open and actively persuing diplomatic ways of solving differences negates the need for weapon's defense systems such as these.

So you're assuming the enemy always wants a peaceful discussion, or that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully.

Must be nice to live in Never-Never Land all the time.

Hitler used talks and "negotiation" to get what he wanted. When that stopped working, he just took it, even though the European leaders were more than willing to talk his ears off if only he'd not start a war.

Hitler wanted Poland. Since the Allies were no longer willing to give Hitler things they didn't own, they refused. So much for talk talk talk.

 

[Goobieman]

Would you continue to support missile defense if the U.S. promises to share this technology with its allies?

We have offered to include them under our unberela. I have no problem with that, and it snot like we havent been protecting them since 1945 anyway.

Should the U.S. help pay for missile defense overseas to better enable strike capability in the initial rocket burning phase?

Boost Phase Intercept is at present an iffy proposition because of certain technical hurdles. Howwever,m the US has shown itself to be pretty good at getting past technical hurdles -- only a fool argues "it can't be done".

And in any event, BPI should be just the initial layer of defense in the NMD.

I still believe we have far more to fear from other forms of attack then warrants the expenditure of continued (N)MD outlays.

You're missing the point here -- regardless what other threats we face, there IS a growing ICBM threat. Argue all you want that we need to defend from those other threats -- the fact is, we ALSO need to defend from ICBMs.

If you asked the average American if they supported missile defense, I have no doubt the majority would say yes, however if you included the cost and possible world-wide escalation, and the potential that the system may not work, I believe the majority would feel the money better spent on an improved military.

Of course you do.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Sigh.
Lets look at your argument:

Country A does threat B.
Country C objects to threat B.
Therefore, Country C objects to Country A.

"Does" threat B?
Please show me how it necessarily follows that Country C objects to Country A.
Then tell us what this has to do with anything that's going on regarding the NMD.

Country C objects to an action that it feels is threatening by Country A. Like putting US troops on Saudi Soil. If US troops are removed from Saudi soil, Country C has no reason to perceive a threat from Country A. Therefore, there is no need to fear a missile attack from Country C.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
So you're assuming the enemy always wants a peaceful discussion, or that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully.

Must be nice to live in Never-Never Land all the time.

Hitler used talks and "negotiation" to get what he wanted. When that stopped working, he just took it, even though the European leaders were more than willing to talk his ears off if only he'd not start a war.

Hitler wanted Poland. Since the Allies were no longer willing to give Hitler things they didn't own, they refused. So much for talk talk talk.

People with your attitude are the cause of all the problems in the world. There is no difference between you and Hitler. There is no difference between you and UBL. There is no difference between you and the people that chop off heads. You all have the same mind set. You all want war.

 

[scottyz]

Rhe NMD is being deployed right now.
Right now, the sucess rate is 62.5%. Thats "decent".

Without a homing signal? link?

 

[Goobieman]

Without a homing signal? link?

The "homing signal" was addressed elsewhere in this thread.