After months of ambiguity, support, no support, and just outright ignoring the questions Martin has finally and officially said no to missile defense.
Let me be the first to say, Huzzah!
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Who? *blink blink*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Steve Martin is against missile defense.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I wonder if he decided on this when he got baptized.
Added: We love you, Bobble.
[ February 24, 2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why? Isn't a missle defense plan a good idea? Do they not have the money? Or do they figure that having a missle shield would destabilize the nuke ban treaty or something?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Robin Williams called Martin's comments "Shortsighted and regrettable."
Other comedians have not commented at this time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I like my missiles stuffed with rice, dried apricots, and water chestnuts. I find a bread stuffing makes me too sleepy before I can finish the whole missile.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Isn't a missle defense plan a good idea?
There are lots of reasons missile defense is a bad idea. For one, it's very expensive. On top of that, it doesn't currently work. The theory is sound, but there are still all kinds of technical challenges before it's really ready. This will take years. Even once they do actually get the system running, it will never be a defense against a real nuclear exchange. Many countries have nuclear arsenals ranging in the thousands of missiles. The current missile defense system not only can't currently stop that kind of attack, but it never will. It's not designed to. Finally, there's a strong argument that the development of missile defense technology leads to increased nuclear proliferation.
Edit: I misspoke a bit. Only two countries--Russia and the US--have nuclear arsenals of over 1000 missiles. Both are in the 10,000+ range. Most of the other countries with nukes have something in the range of 100-400 missiles. Which is most likely still more than the current missile defense system could handle.
[ February 24, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
(I kid because I love, Bob. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From Canada's perspective, they know we'll use the system to defend them once we get it working, so this is win-win for them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So once we have lasers to shoot down missiles do we have to shoot down ones heading towards Canada?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, but Martin is a major proponent of CruelShoes; which are expensive as heck as well as environmentally unfriendly to feet.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That point is moot, because I'm willing to bet that not only will the system never work, it will also never be tested in anything that even faintly resembles a real situation.
Edit: And I'll go further that saxon75: I don't even think the theory is sound.
[ February 24, 2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nuclear war is pretty much outdated for the first world, anyway.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
And the trump card: who, exactly, is going to attack Canada? Ever? Other than America, I mean.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:And I'll go further that saxon75: I don't even think the theory is sound.
Are you basing that on anything solid, or is it just an opinion?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Why? Isn't a missle defense plan a good idea? Do they not have the money? Or do they figure that having a missle shield would destabilize the nuke ban treaty or something?
Primarily because the program is massively unpopular in Canada. We *do*, by and large, consider ourselves a peaceful nation. We have no nuclear weapons, we spearheaded the treaty against landmines, and we are very much against anything that may instigate an arms race. Further, there are concerns that this may lead to a weaponization of space, something that, unsurprisingly, most Canadians are against.
Originally the deal was that all Canada had to offer was the land for the US to use to mount the actual missile silos. This is, incidentally, when Martin first said he was in support of it. Since then, however, there has been continuing mutterings from the US that we should foot an increasing amount of the bill. Understand that a billion+ dollars US is quite a lot of money to us. This, combined with continued failing of tests and a feeling that the technology isn't viable puts the program in an even poorer light.
That is not to say that we're taking no interest in defense, the budget does call for the largest increase in military spending in decades. We are just not willing to go forward with this particular program.
And yes, you should shoot down missile that are heading for Canada. Why? Because if we ever get attacked it'll probably be something you did Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
(Hey, CyberDan. Check your e-mail. )
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Are you basing that on anything solid, or is it just an opinion?
I'm not basing it on anyone else's published work, if that's what you're asking. But basically my problem is fallout.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My problem's not even fallout. My problem is that modern warfare makes a defensive strategy almost impossible. On another board, I've compared it to trying to ward off an expected mugger by covering yourself with cayenne pepper; it's expensive, and it MIGHT prevent a mugger from biting you, but the mugger has other ways to hurt you -- and might well bite you anyway. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’ve never been a big fan of the missile intercept concept. Just to fast and to chancy. Laser is the way to go.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: And yes, you should shoot down missiles that are heading for Canada. Why? Because if we ever get attacked it'll probably be something you did
Plus it's the neighborly thing to do.
<cynic> And besides, we don't want to let another country get a foothold that close to us. </cynic>
Incidentally, I think it's a stupid plan and a stupid thing for us to be pushing Canada to be involved if y'all don't want to be, and I'm glad he took a stand and said no to us. Someone's got to.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Regardless of whether or not you think the missile defense system is a good idea, this certainly isn't the best way to go about repairing the diplomatic rift between the US and Canada.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Why does "repairing the rift" always mean "doing what the US wants"?
At any rate, most analysts agree that this won't have any real impact. The amendment to NORAD states that we will share information with the US regarding incoming missiles. Which means that we'll quite happily share the necessary information for tracking and targeting a missile that's flying over our country. Which seems to be the way to give the US what it wants without upsetting our population.
There is the argument that giving the US what it wants without getting anything in return is a little short-sighted. Or, I suppose, classic Canadianism which sees us trying to appease anyone. Cellucci seems to see this as a sovereignty issue where he wonders why we'd give up control of our airspace. If there's a missile flying over Canadian soil it's up to Washington as to what's done about it. To a certain degree I see what he's saying, but the fact that he sees that as the critical issue illustrates part of the divide between our two countries.
You could also say it makes Canada more irrelevant. Not because we said "no" but because it took almost two years to come to a decision. The next time a similar situation comes up the prevailing thought may be "do we really want to wait for Canada to make up its mind about this?" Again, this a difference between how our governments work. The Bush administration comes to quick decisions and stands steadfastly behind them and the Martin (and Chretien before him) waffle and discuss things for years before making up their minds, which they do generally stand behind. Both systems have their faults and merits, but they don't necessarily mesh well.
edit: me fail English? That's unpossible.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"this certainly isn't the best way to go about repairing the diplomatic rift between the US and Canada."
[ February 24, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So Canada should spend a billion dollars that it doesn't want to to make the US happy instead, because it would be "repairing the rift?" Not to mention doing something the vast majority of it's populace is against? Can you imagine the screaming if someone suggested we do something using that logic?
They're a democracy, too. Their government is supposed to do what the people who elected it want, not what our government wants.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Canada shouldn't give the US whatever it wants, but when the US offers shared missile protection, its pretty easy to take it as an insult when the offer is refused. If you don't like the terms, you should at least make a counter offer to show you are acting in good faith.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I agree with Dag.
Canada knows that come what may we'll defend them so why should they shell out a billion bucks when giving up some worthless ice covered tundra will do the trick.
And that goes for the rest of NATO too. Why should they bother defending themselves when they know the US will do it for them. No matter what they say about us and no matter how they obstruct us. We will always be there for them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can someone link where Canada's participation was contingent on their ponying up a billion dollars? Because I haven't seen anything about that except the "mutters" bit.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
EIJay, I know you're quoting me but that's just a figure I tossed out there. Everyone had their own idea as to how much it would cost us, but the fact is nobody knows. The Martin government never did announce what the expected costs were, although most people are reasonably sure that it wouldn't be "free".
But, nfl, that's exactly what happened. We have said that we are unwilling to go forward with BMD. It's not politically possible right now, it may not be economically viable, and it's ideologically against what most (according to polls) Canadians believe.
However, there was the NORAD amendment. And we're increasing the standing and reserve population of our military, putting forward a little more money for border security, putting more money into exercising our marine and arctic sovereignty. All things that help the security of North America. Considering our population won't let our government consider BMD, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of working with the US where we can.
Edit: This is what happens when you post while running an experiment. You completely forget how to spell.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Canada shouldn't give the US whatever it wants, but when the US offers shared missile protection, its pretty easy to take it as an insult when the offer is refused.
What the US offered was not "shared missile protection," since the system in question does not work.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I figured it was a rough number, BtL, and was treating it as such. I can't imagine why we would would ask for much less if we were asking you to help foot the bill.
I would do some googling and try to find out if there are actual numbers out there, but I really don't have time right now. Perhaps when I'm home tonight, just to make Dagonee happy. I'm sure there are at least estimates published somewhere.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It'll work eventually. Don't bet against technology getting better.
With the proper laser or enough ABMs I have no doubt a computer could target 10s of thousands of incoming missiles and destroy them... given the technology.
Of course, what a missile shield won't stop is container or suitcase nukes. Living not terribly far from a port this is what worries me. Yes, there are still enough missiles out there to destroy the world 50 times over. Yes, they're still a problem. A missile shield fixes that type of delivery.
But there's so much freight coming into our country that even with floating "triage" centers stationed outside minimum safe distance, you couldn't inspect every container on every ship.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm doing the same thing right now, EIJay. Depending on who you ask and when you asked the cost was projected to be somewhere between $0 and $60 billion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, and I disagree that it's pretty easy to take it as an insult to refuse our offer to come play our missle defense games. As twinky pointed out, the system doesn't work. Even if it did, I think it's equally easy to see why a relatively (to us) pacifist country wouldn't be interested in participating. As long as they just said the equilivent of "Sorry guys, that's not our cup of tea, have fun!" as opposed to "Why the h*** would we want to do that you warmongering idiots, are you wack?" I think it's a stretch to say this should be harmful to diplomatic relations.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Canada is not pacifist no matter how they like to think of themselves. Forty thousand Canadians died fighting in World War II, 27,000 served in Korea, they fought in the first Persian Gulf War, they are a member of NATO, they were the first country to pledge military support after September 11, and they certainly have a standing military.
The system at present isn't functional, there's no reason to believe that with technological development it won't work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As twinky pointed out, the system doesn't work.
All due respect to twinky, the system is in development.
Dagonee
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
We are a lot more pacifistic than the U.S.A. though and it makes sense for us to not want to participate in this endeavor.
More likely than not any weapons in our airspace will be just flying over anyway.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Be that as it may, there are extremes we will not go to. We will not have or use weapons of mass destruction. We will not use landmines. We will not support the weaponization of space. We will not undertake the development of technology that may spark an arms race. Everyone has their line in the sand, this happens to be ours.
Granted the system is in development. But then, if it doesn't work yet, and you don't need Canada for either money for development or land for deployment (a year ago the proposed cost was a 700 person and 300 million/year contribution to NORAD) why are they asking for us to support it now? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the technology works before asking for us to back it? As clearly our backing isn't needed for the program to go forward? That always seemed odd to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All due respect to twinky, the system is in development."
The system as designed is also scheduled for deployment. Do you think the Bush admin is more likely to miss the schedule to overhaul the faulty design, or meet the schedule by deploying an interceptor that has yet to pass a real test?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You can't be more pacifist than another country, you either are or you're not. Canada fights in wars and has a military that exists not soley for defensive purposes. Canada is not pacifist. Also remember, the missile defense system is not a weapon, but a defense against would be agressors. So unless you think it makes sense not to have protection...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Just to add to the tally.... I believe Canada rushed into both world wars well before the US. The US was significantly more pacifist than canada back then.
Was it the right thing to do to sit out as long as we did? Should we have sat out the entirity of both wars and let other countries fight because it's not our problem? What did we have to gain going to war with the Kaiser? And Hawai'i wasn't even a state in '41. We coulda just gone on with our business.. especially since we didn't have much of a fleet anymore.
btw, what will 800,000 canadian dollars buy in the way of boarder security? Somehow, I'm not impressed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: So unless you think it makes sense not to have protection...
I choose not to own a gun for personal protection. Some people do. That's fine. But I'd rather take my chances of being attacked rather than walk around prepared to shoot someone. On a smaller scale, I think it's the same thing. Yeah, it's defense, but the actions you take in defense are part of who you are, and you need to decide how you wish to define yourself.
Posted by Palimpsest (Member # 6897) on :
I wouldn't say the idea of a missile defense system is solely for the purpose of defense.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The "strapped chicken" tests of missle defense are poor theatre, a multi-billion dollar fraud and basically embarassing America.
The tests proved nothing, and for the DoD to be spending to implement a non-existent system is a colossal waste of funds. No wonder Canada balked.
I agree with saxon75:
quote: There are lots of reasons missile defense is a bad idea. For one, it's very expensive. On top of that, it doesn't currently work. The theory is sound, but there are still all kinds of technical challenges before it's really ready. This will take years. Even once they do actually get the system running, it will never be a defense against a real nuclear exchange. Many countries have nuclear arsenals ranging in the thousands of missiles.[Sax later changed his mind on this--I think only US, Russia, maybe China have 1000s, possibly UK--Morbo] The current missile defense system not only can't currently stop that kind of attack, but it never will. It's not designed to. Finally, there's a strong argument that the development of missile defense technology leads to increased nuclear proliferation
and I agree with Bob the lawyer:
quote: Further, there are concerns that this may lead to a weaponization of space, something that, unsurprisingly, most Canadians are against.
And from my link:
quote: There are other consequences as well. In order to advance the missile defense system, George Bush has announced that the United States will abandon the 1972 ABM treaty with Russia. Facing an opposing missile defense system, the Russian government will be under irresistible pressure to reactivate and expand its offensive missile forces.
Breaking treaties can become a habit.
[ February 24, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
As an aside, I've been reading that number as well, Pix, but I don't understand where it came from. I took a look through the actual budget and it quotes $433 million over 5 years to border security. Dunno.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
From the AP story. (but then, how much can you trust news organizations these days? Every day I get more skeptical...)
quote: It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: With the proper laser or enough ABMs I have no doubt a computer could target 10s of thousands of incoming missiles and destroy them... given the technology.
The Pixiest. Don't be too sure. Even assuming you have enough extremly powerful lasers, particle beams or interceptors, the computer processing needed for targeting and systems integration to shoot down a large amount of incoming weapons, especially if they are MIRVs or with decoys, is massive.
Many computer scientists don't think it's possible for the foreseeable future.
So basically, I think the system could work against a small number of weapons. Possibly. But not without years and many more billions spent in R&D. After all that developement, by the time it's on-line ICBMs will probably be obsolete.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
ElJay, we're not talking about a "gun" here. You're making it sound like they turned down our offer to station soldiers in their country. They turned down missile defense. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Morbo, I'm a computer scientist and I don't see how it would be a problem... given a powerful enough laser. Which we will have eventually.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And everyone I know who carries a gun says they carry it for self-defense. Nobody says they carry one in case they feel like going on a shooting rampage. It's defense.
But that's still not the point... they don't want to do it. They are a sovereign country. It's their choice. How can them making a choice about what kind of defense they want to participate in be construed as insulting to us? They don't want to do it. Fine. They don't have to. End of story. If they get nuked and come crying to us about it, then you can get all high-and-mighty about it if you feel like it. But it's not our responsibility to decide what kind of protection they need.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I'm a computer scientist and I don't see how it would be a problem...
Out of curiosity--and if you don't mind my asking--what sort of software do you work on? The kind of processing involved in tracking even a single fast-moving target is very complicated. This isn't to say that it's impossible; it's just very hard.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Thing is, ElJay, if we would stick to our guns (as it were) and let them get nuked that would work...
But as Americans we won't do that. There is NO WAY we would ever let anything happen to Canada or any other of our allies if we could do something to stop it. It's just not the way we are.
And our allies take advantage of that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Currently I am in IT, Saxon. However both of my degrees are in computer science (Mostly theory and the like) and I have professionally written BIOS and message processing/tracking software.
I can't fathom the reason it would be difficult to target an object moving in a straight line with something moving at the speed of light. Just point to where you see it and it will hit it.
Now targeting with a missile is much tougher.... Never the less technology moves with great strides. Just becuase we can't do it today doesn't mean we won't be able to do it in 5 or 10 years.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My brother is a published computer scientist who has doubts that the software can be written to sucessfully manage the job of hitting 1000s of incoming targets. And he has said others in the CS community share that skepticism. Not all, of course.
I think it would be an amazing piece of software, with no way to test it. Given that we haven't reliably shot down ONE re-entering missle with a transponder to make it easier, the task of shooting down 1000s seems very remote. Not impossible, just a long way off, with many billions of dollars to pave the way.
Since a first-strike scenario is more remote now that the Cold War is over (unless China becomes more of a global threat), and more mundane delivery systems suffice for a small number of warheads and would bypass any SDI system (trucks, ships, briefcases, etc.) I think it's just a massive waste of money.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Quote added for clarity:
quote: But as Americans we won't do that. There is NO WAY we would ever let anything happen to Canada or any other of our allies if we could do something to stop it. It's just not the way we are.
And if our national self-image is of a benevolent country that helps out whenever we can, then we will continue doing so.
Thing is, if we start demanding other people pay us for protecting them when they didn't ask us to in the first place, I think that's called a protection racket and we put people in jail for it on a smaller scale.
If we as a country don't want to be taken advantage of we can clearly state that we will not help other countries who don't contribute to our R&D and deployment of this sort of system. And stick to our guns, as it were.
You can't have it both ways. Either our assistance is freely given without anything asked in return (although if people want to contribute we will certainly graciously accept) or people have to pay for it and as such are free to decline it if they think it's a stupid and worthless program without being accused of harming diplomatic relations.
(Note: my objection, and what all my responses have been based off of, is the statement that this is a diplomatically wrong move for Canada. As far as I know, that statement was merely an opinion by nfl and has not been made by anyone in any position of influence anywhere.)
[ February 24, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Morbo, would you rather wait until NK has ICBMs and THEN start working on it?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Let me give you an idea of what's involved here. First you have to have sensors capable of detecting the incoming missile. Then your software has to be able to keep your sensors pointed at the target. This in itself is not a trivial task. Then you have to determine that the target is actually something that you want to destroy. Again, not a trivial task. Then you have to point your laser at the target. This is not merely nontrivial, this is extremely difficult. It's not just determining which direction to point the laser, it's also all the embedded software to actually manipulate the optics. You have to have exceptional accuracy, and that's just not easy to do. Especially not if you want to do it quickly. Control loops with mechanical, or even electro-optical systems do not close quickly. Then you have to compensate for the atmosphere, which can cause your beam to disperse or refract. None of this is easy. Now do it for potentially thousands of targets all at the same time and moving at extremely high speeds.
Trust me--and I say this as a person who has had firsthand experience with tracking and control systems--this is difficult.
Edit: Just to be clear, so no one thinks I'm overstating my credentials, I have never been a software engineer on a tracking or control project. I have however been a hardware and integration engineer for those types of projects.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ElJay: a protection racket is when you collect money from someone with the implication that if they don't pay you they will have "an accident" by your hands.
By your reasoning the Police and the military are both protection rackets.
If Canada doesn't assist us in paying for their defense, they will still get defended. It's not like we will nuke Montreal if they don't pay us. If that WAS the case, then yes, we would be in a protection racket.
(except I think it's called "Tribute" when countries do it)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The Pixiest, perhaps I was unclear: there are two seperate problems--hitting one missle successfully, and hitting N missles with a high probability of success. Both are difficult problems. The 2nd problem, as I understand it, is command and control of large numbers of interceptor devices (of whatever sort), and divvying up the targets amongst them.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The police and the military are not comparable by my reasoning because they were put in place by the voters, at least by extention of elected officials, so they serve at the request of the people they protect. Perhaps not 100% of the people, but a majority.
But I'll grant you that we're not going to go break anyone's legs if they don't pony up. So how about this part of my post:
quote: You can't have it both ways. Either our assistance is freely given without anything asked in return (although if people want to contribute we will certainly graciously accept) or people have to pay for it and as such are free to decline it if they think it's a stupid and worthless program without being accused of harming diplomatic relations.
I believe that still applies.
(I'm leaving for dinner with my mother now, and so will not be responding anymore for several hours, minimum.)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I forgot to add that unless you have thousands of (very expensive) interceptor devices, the system would have to rapidly change targeting of the lasers (or whatever) from target to target. Hundreds of times. In less than an hour, in a classic massive first strike scenario.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Considering that terrorists can easily ship a dirty bomb into the united states via a freight container, I think there are better ways to spend this money.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Morbo:
For a computer, tracking 1000 missiles is the same as tracking 1. guiding 1000 ABMs is the same as guiding one. You spawn a process for each ABM and assign it a missile. Heck, since ABMs are cheaper than ICBMs assign 10 ABMs to each missile to make sure you don't have a software/hardware malfunction and miss. If ABM 323.3's target got destroyed by ABM 323.2, then retarget it and rename it ABM 324.11 (assuming it still has a chance to hit it. if not, pick a different incoming or, falling all else, self destruct)
It's all a matter of math and that's what computers do so well.
If you're using the laser option it's even easier. If you can take a picture of it you can shoot it. Do it iterively. Shoot the one in front first and move back.
Why have all our tests failed? Dunno. I don't have top secret clearance. But I know when I test stuff it takes many many tests to shake all the bugs out.
[ February 24, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Pixiest, I'm sure you're a very competent computer scientist, but you don't know what you're talking about here.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I think you're overly simplifying the problem, Pix.
quote: Heck, since ABMs are cheaper than ICBMs assign 10 ABMs to each missile
So to counter 10,000 warheads, plus dummies, we would need 100,000 ABMs?
I'm skipping out on that tab.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Sax, it's true I don't know the hardware end of it. But the algorithm seems easy.
And we're not talking about ONE laser or ONE computer controlling thousands of ABMs. This would be a distributed solution. If one computer and one laser/ABM is required to do everything needed to take down one incoming missile then we'll have at least one per incoming missile. ABMs are cheaper than ICMBs and a heck of a lot cheaper than cities. Even Canadian cities.
Morbo is painting it as a O(n) problem but it's not. It's an O(1) problem.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Look, even dismissing all of the embedded software, even dismissing the difficulty of even being able to "take a picture of it," distributing the computation is not trivial. Even distributing the information is nontrivial. Have you ever seen a modern military command-and-control network? They're quite complex and take thousands of man-hours and billions of dollars to develop. And that's not even talking about developing the components of the network, the sensors, the weapons, etc.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I believe that a BMD program is both feasible and desirable. However, the costs are MUCH too high and outweigh the benifits by far. As many have said, the money would be better spent on improving port security, and to that I would add beefing up anti-terrorism intelligence (starting with implementing massive Arabic language-training programs) and continuing to confront--militarily if absolutely necessary--the countries that support radical Islamic terrorism.
I wasn't old enough to follow politics in the 80s, but in hindsight I would have supported the SDI; however, that was in a different era and its primary mission was not to actually build a Star Wars missile shield, but to force the Soviet Union to spend lots of money trying to develop one of their own and thus cause it to go broke and collapse.
One more reason that some supporters of the BMD system cite is the technology that would come from it would have other uses, much like the space program. This is a true and valid point, but again, I would argue that if developing new technologies is your primary goal, then focus the same resources on developing more efficient energy sources . In the long run, this country will benefit much more greatly from energy independence than space-based laser technology.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't see what would be so hard about a tracking center sending a message to an ABM silo that said "INC LONG:23.32.43.12031 LAT:14.53.21.93123 VECT:17.83291x-0.01202 LAUNCH" then sending it updates along the way.
(no body look up that long and lat. I pulled it out of the air)
Now I'm not a Rocket Scientist so I don't know the vagueries of rockets, but I AM a computer scientist so I feel qualified to comment on the part that relates to computers.
The problem has to be hardware related becuase the algorithm doesn't seem that hard.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, Pixiest, your description of the laser missile defense process is most definitely O(n), not O(1). The time it takes is proportional to the amount of the input (number of incoming, that is).
It would only be O(1) if at a large number of missiles it stopped taking noticable additional time to shoot down additional missiles.
And anyways, it doesn't much matter if something is O(1) or O(n) in this case, but whether or not we can do the amount of processing involved in the amount of time required. Even if something is just barely over O(1), for instance, if we can only just shoot down the first one, we're screwed when we try to shoot down two.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Obviously it's a distributed solution. I hope i didn't imply that one computer could possibly handle the computions to solve a first strike problem. When I said "system" I meant all the computers in a network trying to solve the problem. However, distributed progamming is still in it's infancy, and this would possibly be the most complex distributed program ever implemented, and as I mentioned, there would be no realistic way to test the system as a whole.
As saxon75 said, just distributing the information is nontrivial, much less distributing the computation.
quote: If you're using the laser option it's even easier. If you can take a picture of it you can shoot it. Do it iterively. Shoot the one in front first and move back.
Taking a picture of something and focusing a beam on a fast moving object long enough to take it out are 2 different things. Again, you're being overly simplistic.
An O(1) problem? Tell me another.
[ February 24, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Even if it was O(log N) it would still be a bear.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dag, your "in development" crack doesn't diminish the validity of my point. nfl said that we were offered "missile defence." We were not. You do not have a working (or, as far as I'm concerned, workable) system. And as Tom pointed out, the system is set to be deployed in its current non-working state.
nfl, you keep bringing up this notion of defence. "Whyever would those silly Canadians not want to be defended?" First, let me reiterate: it doesn't work. This would be like me offering to carpool with you if my car didn't have, say, wheels. Or offering you a bulletproof vest made of low-density polyethylene film (like, for instance, Saran wrap). Second, because of the now-defunct ABM treaty, developing an ABM system is unquestionably an aggressive act, not a defensive act, because it is politically provocative.
Pix, even if you could intercept a missile, you still have not resolved the problem of nuclear fallout. Nobody has, and nobody really has a clue what would happen if a nuclear warhead were detonated in the atmosphere.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
No, I'm not arguing hardware, I'm arguing software. On 100% of the projects I've worked on, software has been upwards of 80% of the work. Tracking, for example. Yeah, the sensor has to actually collect the data, things like intensity and position for infrared, or pulses for radar. But the software has to figure out what it's looking at, whether that's the thing it should be looking at, whether it needs to look again, if it's the right thing to look at, where it thinks the target is going next. That's all software and it's all complicated.
The thing that you're missing in terms of distributing the computation is that a working ABM system is not merely a bunch of autonomous systems that happen to talk to each other. Each unit, consisting of sensors, processors, and weapons, has to be coordinated with all the rest. Something has to decide which unit is going to engage which target; it's not sufficient to just let each unit decide its own targets. Something has to manage the handoff of data from unit to unit, to route the data through the network. Something has to decide which type of unit is going to engage the target (given that you have to use different methods for engaging targets in different phases of flight). That's all software. None of it is trivial.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and lets talk about your incredibly simplistic notions of what's involved in shooting down an attacking missile.
For one thing, the incoming missile may have multiple warheads, which we can't tell about, much less when they'll separate. Say we allocate a couple of countermissiles to it. Even assuming those missiles could hit that target (which despite the billions of dollars we've spent, and including strapping a homing beacon for them onto the missile, so far they can't), if that missile splits into ten warheads we're screwed.
Or then there's that these aren't purely ballistic courses missiles are following, even discounting wind and air resistance (non trivial, ask any artillery officer). These missiles are also actively trying to evade. We don't know where they're going to be in the future, so getting a missile to hit them or a laser to track them is extremely difficult. It needs to be done in real time and it must be predictive, or else it will miss, a lot. For that to happen, the guidance of our counter missiles pretty much needs to be on board.
And of course, its not like there's a single vantage point we can see all the missiles (or even one, over the course of its course), the space involved is immense. Coordinating the various spotting platforms and making sure we're even targeting based on good data is very problem prone, just due to lag times in the connecting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
twinky -- that's one thing you don't actually have to worry about, the fallout. Nuclear missiles are very delicate devices, and triggering the reaction requires the outside explosive shell operate perfectly. A counter-missile attempt, assuming it significantly damages the incoming missile, poses no threat of nuclear reaction. This isn't something that can be really worked around, its a consequence of how small the amount of nuclear material is onboard and the laws of physics.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I have a stupid question.
Is the missle defense system a good precursor to a planetary defense system against asteroids? If this technology is something we can build on for defense against asteroids, would you be more willing to pay more money for it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
How's about chemical and biological weapons?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
There would still be some amount of radioactive material released, though, wouldn't there? I mean, the reaction mass in a warhead is radioactive before it reacts, even if it is small. Presumably if the missile were destroyed in an explosive manner, the radioactive material would be spread over some area below the explosion, or possible picked up in the wind and blown somewhere.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, a missile defense system will be useless for asteroid defense, and there's little overlap, really.
They're looking at different places, over different time frames, for very different things. Shooting a laser at an asteroid won't stop it. Exploding a missile near it won't stop it. The trick with an asteroid defense system is figuring out how to stop asteroids, which the missile defense system doesn't address at all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It would be very small. Be more worried about dying from the flu.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Thanks fugu.
I've always wondered about that and always felt it was too stupid of a question to ask in public. Thank goodness for internet anonymity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As for chemical and biological weapons, I don't see why someone has those in an intercontinental missile. There are much better ways of distributing those, and the reasons for the nuclear ballistic missile don't exist for them (a nuclear hit stops your opponent from responding, at least from the target area but a chemical or biological hit would just result in your opponent launching their nuclear missiles at you).
I hope people are wasting their intercontinental missiles on biological and chemical capabilities, instead of delivering them in other ways and putting nukes in the missiles.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I stand corrected, then, though I still oppose the development of ABM systems.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
BOH, that's one of the things that falls into the category of "additional benefits" of developing the technology for a spaced-based laser system. I would still argue that if new technology is your goal, energy independence deserves much more of our attention than asteroid defense.
Now its my turn for a question: How many countries posess ICBMs with MIRV capabilities? Is the technology to develop such weapons easily obtainable (I'm thinking about the "rouge state" scenario)?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*tracks Beren's friends down and tells them*
I don't think it was a stupid question.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
twink: you don't detonate the nuke, you shoot the delivery system. A lot has to go right for a nuclear bomb to reach criticality. In any event, if destroying the delivery system happens to set it off, better it happen over the pole or the ocean or even a small town than over montreal, chicago or dallas.
And yes, nukes are designed to go off above their targets rather than on the ground to maximize damage so they will go off in the atmosphere no matter what.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
According to this site, four countries (US, Russia, France, UK) are known to have nuclear missiles with MIRV payloads. Maybe 5, since it didn't have China's info.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, fugu explained that, but the system still just doesn't work.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: I don't think it was a stupid question.
Neither do I. And while I agree somewhat with fugu's answer, I think there are some areas in which building a Star Wars type system would help with asteroid defense. For example, there would be similar technologies in mounting weapons in space, which could feasibly be used for asteroid defense. Anytime you do things in space, you're expanding your knowledge of how it things work in that environment. But it still isn't worth it.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
All I have to say is.
Missles = Bad
Defense = Good (but it will never be good enough)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, your "in development" crack doesn't diminish the validity of my point. nfl said that we were offered "missile defence." We were not. You do not have a working (or, as far as I'm concerned, workable) system. And as Tom pointed out, the system is set to be deployed in its current non-working state.
If nfl said you were offered missile defense tomorrow, then you might have a point. He said you were offered missile defense, timeframe unspecified.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Missile "defence" courtesy of a system that is about to be deployed in a non-working state.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Forgive me if I fail to take TomDavidson's word for that. No one has linked anything I've seen that even implies that.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I would also like to add that you should never trust a news article that can't spell "defense" properly. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, 1)The system is in the process of being deployed 2)It has failed several widely-publicized tests. There has yet to be a sucessful test, AFAIK. If you disagree, why don't you post a link that supports that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because neither of the two things you posted prove Tom's contention that a non-working system will be deployed. It's in the process of being assembled and developed.
[ February 24, 2005, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here.. Initial deployment to take place this year, with 20 interceptors to be stationed in Alaska.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This was the geekiest argument I've been in months. Thanks, everyone!
For the lurkers, http://www.answers.com/topic/computational-complexity-theory explains O(n), which the Pixiest, fugu and I mentioned. Note that the first strike problem has a severe time constraint as well as vast amounts of memory needed to solve.
I think that the problem is not O(1) (reasonably solvable) or O(log N) but O(N) or worse (harder).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Order N for a few tens of thousands of incoming should be pretty solvable, given money to chuck at distributed computing. Order N^2 is beginning to get into trouble. But really, it's not enough to show that the problem is this, that, or the next order, you also have to take into account what N is likely to be. This ain't no computer theory class.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: And yes, nukes are designed to go off above their targets rather than on the ground to maximize damage so they will go off in the atmosphere no matter what.
How awful .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Last Wednesday, the United States suffered its third failure in eight test attempts to shoot down a long-range dummy warhead in space over the Pacific Ocean, and scientific critics of the multibillion-dollar program have charged it is not yet mature enough to begin deployment. But Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have stressed the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology have sharply increased the need for such a defense against attack from "rogue states" such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, especially in the wake of devastating attacks on America using hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001.
Fugu's link calls this an "initial deployment," not final. Twinky's link appears to be older than fugu's.
Bernard Brodie, the pioneer strategist of nuclear war, was among the first to consider the complexities of war-fighting strategy in the nuclear age. Looking into World War II strategic bombing campaigns for lessons, Brodie glimpsed an iron law of nuclear war: A good defense is not good enough.
British defenses against German V-1 rocket attacks had been remarkably successful. Close to 2,300 rockets were reported to have targeted the city of London in a period of 81 days. At their peak, British air defenses shot down 97 of 101 approaching V-1 rockets, a truly impressive number. But, Brodie noted, "If those four had been atomic bombs, London survivors would not have considered the record good." In the nuclear age, defenses need to have zero margin of error.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here is some more recent news. The Bush Administration hasn't given the final, formal go-ahead yet (i.e., no ribbons have been cut or anything), but interceptors are already on the ground and ready to go.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
To put things straight, I've seen it spelled both "Defense" and "Defence". I don'tt hink either is wrong. Both are acceptable in my book! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, as of may 13 2004 the system was intended to be deployed in september:
So this is most definitely a system the Bush administration is pushing into deployment, despite it showing no signs of being capable of shooting down an incoming missile in its current state.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
According to this, there has been at least one successful trial:
quote:"In its one success, the system proved only that, with advance notice and careful planning, we could protect Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands from a solo missile attack from California. . . . The issue of deployment... is moot until the nation has a system that works reliably and repeatedly in tests. The Pentagon is not there yet."
Commercial Appeal July 10, 2001 "But First, Get it Right."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aegis based interceptor missiles have passed 5 of their last 6 tests. It shows promise.
That being said though, Ballistic missiles travel at what? 25,000 miles an hour? it's some insanely fast rate, whereas SCUDS, which the test missile was based after travel a fraction of that. That's like shooting a patriot missile at a ballistic missile and crossing your fingers. The system needs work, but it shows promise.
Still, I think lasers, which mounted on 747s, have already proven to be successful, and will be more so in the future.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I and others misspoke--there have been some successfull trials, although they have been widely criticized as being unrealistic, some would even say rigged.
Ballistic missles travel at 24,000 kilometers per hour or faster in their boost phase.
quote:All ballistic missiles have three stages of flight.
The boost phase begins at launch and lasts until the rocket engines stop firing and pushing the missile away from Earth. Depending on the missile, this stage lasts three to five minutes. During much of this time, the missile is traveling relatively slowly although toward the end of this stage an ICBM can reach speeds of more than 24,000 kilometers per hour. The missile stays in one piece during this stage.
The midcourse phase begins after the propulsion system finishes firing and the missile is on a ballistic course toward its target. This is the longest stage of a missile’s flight, lasting up to 20 minutes for ICBMs. During the early part of the midcourse stage, the missile is still ascending toward its apogee, while during the latter part it is descending toward Earth. It is during this stage that the missile’s warhead, as well as any decoys, separate from the delivery vehicle.
The terminal phase begins when the missile’s warhead re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere, and it continues until impact or detonation. This stage takes less than a minute for a strategic warhead, which can be traveling at speeds greater than 3,200 kilometers per hour
As far as the 747-borne lasers, they have significant drawbacks and are even more technically ambitious than the midcourse interceptors that make up the heart of the current plan:
quote: The ABL has yet to be flight-tested. About a year ago, full-rate production of the ABL was scheduled for 2008. The plan was to build seven aircraft, each estimated to cost roughly $500 million. At that time, the first shoot-down of a tactical missile was scheduled for 2003. Recently, the ABL program office announced that the first shoot-down of a tactical missile had been delayed to late 2004 because of many problems with the basic technology of high-power chemical lasers—about a one-year slip since last year and about a three-year slip since 1998. Accordingly, full-rate production probably cannot be started before 2010, and the cost will likely exceed $1 billion per aircraft.
Assuming all this can be done, it is important to note that the ABL presents significant operational challenges. The ABL will need to fly relatively close to enemy territory in order to have enough power to shoot down enemy missiles, and during a time of crisis it will need to be near the target area continuously. A 747 loaded with high-power laser equipment will make a large and inviting target to the enemy and will require protection in the air and on the ground. Finally, relatively simple countermeasures such as reflective surfaces on enemy missiles could negate the ABL’s capabilities.
from the same link, written by Philip Coyle, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, formerly assistant secretary of defense and the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation from 1994 to 2001.
So we spend 1 billion per aircraft and the enemy can negate it with some aluminum foil? Not good. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lyrhawn, the Aegis boost-phase interceptors seem to me to be a billion dollar boondoogle. [edit:I've seen other pages just now that say the Aegis missiles are not boost-phase inteceptors, I'm not sure now . ] Here's an American Physical Society (APS, the nation's professional society for physicists) report on "Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense"
quote: Simply put, it is physically impossible to intercept fast ICBMs in their boost phase, because the boost phase is too short, the interceptor basing locations are ineffective, and decision-making would need to be nearly instantaneous. The [APS] Study Group investigated all of the boost-phase programs in development or in consideration for development, including land-, sea-, air-based interceptors, space-based interceptors, and the Airborne Laser. One by one, they each fail.
Land-based and sea-based interceptors need to be too close to the enemy--for North Korea, actually based inside North Korea itself. Space-based interceptors would require a "fleet of a thousand or more orbiting satellites just to intercept a single missile." Airborne Laser would not be able to "disable solid-propellant ICBMs at ranges useful for defending the United States."
Despite these conclusions, the Missile Defense Agency will spend nearly $1 billion in 2004 on boost-phase missile defense, and the October 2004 deployment announced by President Bush includes "up to 20 sea-based interceptors employed on existing Aegis ships to intercept ballistic missiles in the first few minutes after they are launched, during the boost and ascent phases of flight."
This link sums up reasons why defense is so much harder than offense involving long range missles:
quote: 2) Many operational and technical factors make the job of the defense more difficult than that of the attacker. First, the defense must commit to a specific technology and architecture before the attacker does. This permits the attacker to tailor its countermeasures to the specific defense system. Second, the job of the defense is technically much more complex and difficult than that of the offense. This is especially true for defenses using hit-to-kill interceptors, for which there is little margin for error. Third, the defense must work the first time it is used. Fourth, the requirements on defense effectiveness are very high for a system intended to defend against nuclear and biological weapons—much higher than the requirements on offense effectiveness.
These inherent offensive advantages would enable an attacker to compensate for US technical superiority.
Excerpts From "Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned US National Missile Defense System" the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_04/docap00.asp
[ February 25, 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(What with Morbo here, and all, I don't even need to post a thing. Go Morbo!)
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Okay, let me be the Devil's advocate here, since I am against the idea of a nuclear missile defense system.
What is being developed is not a defense against the nuclear missiles we typically think of: the MIRV-tipped or cruise missiles that are possessed in astronomical numbers by the US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France and Israel.
What the defense is against are the rather primitive missile threats of nuclear toddlers like Pakistan, India, North Korea and possibly Iran. These are countries with nuclear capabilities but delivery systems little better than UPS. They have small stockpiles of potential warheads, fewer launching areas and know-how that might rival your neighborhood amateur rocketry enthusiast.
Most of the potential carrier rockets will be along the lines of a high-end SCUD missile. Some with longer range
will finish later....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still think it has some promise for at least partial success. No missile shield in the world short of a magical energy particle shield from Star Trek would save us if Russia launched all its nukes at us. But North Korea has less than twenty. They they launched them all at us, and our twenty largest cities, wouldn't you consider it a wise investment if the missile shield shot down three of them? or even one? That's still hundreds of millions of people. I'd say it's a worthy investment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They they launched them all at us, and our twenty largest cities, wouldn't you consider it a wise investment if the missile shield shot down three of them? or even one?
If North Korea had twenty nukes, and we had a functional missile shield of the sort being currently deployed (only, like I said, functional), they would be far more likely to fire five missles at four cities than try to hit twenty cities. For that matter, they would be better off only launching four missiles with five separate warheads.
Either of the latter two scenarios would still result in the total destruction of all four cities targeted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, even under the scenario you described 16 cities were saved by the mere existence of the shield.
[ February 25, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's only if you assume the enemy is playing a zero-sum game and intending to kill as many people as possible.
But that's unlikely.
The kind of enemies this missile shield is intended to thwart are not going to have the capability to wipe out the population of America. They will go for a handful of big targets, population centers and government buildings: the bluest spots in the Blue States.
They will not want to destroy 20 cities. They will want to destroy 5.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If we just took the money we were spending on the current deployment (not even saying on the research) of the anti-missile defense system, we could likely buy most of NK's and Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Plus, the current program has, in tests, an exactly zero percent success rate against anything more than remotely resembling a real attack, with little reason to believe the differences (vast speed differences, vast differences in countermeasures, vast differences in missile behavior) will somehow magically not matter.
Why we're deploying, at the cost of billions of dollars, a system which only very occasionally works in situations not even vaguely approaching its intended use is beyond me.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
The defense system could work against the potential threats we and our allies face.
Buying off the Iranians and the North Koreans, however, is unlikely and, if it worked, would be very short term.
However, more likely, is the fact that both countries have governments nearing the verge of collapse.
The Iranian government is seeing cracks in its rule, from basically turning out parlaiment and negating one set of elections. They are finding themselves surrounded by a more hostile neighborhood and may find fewer allies in Europe in the future (fair-weather friends and all that).
In North Korea, there will probably be a military coup in the next three to four years as it becomes painfully apparent that Kim hasn't had his hands on the sanity reigns for some time. Right now, the best fed people in his country are his armed forces, and those rations are running thin.
Both governments can use the current nuclear scare to their benefits, proclaiming that they are vital defenses against the infidels (rallying their supporters and making those wavering in support more afraid of the outside world). What it really does is give them a huge bargaining chip.
One only has to look at the news to see how big of a chip that is on the world stage. This is brinksmanship, terribly dangerous brinksmanship, and the missile defense shield is an outgrowth of it.
But it is dollars wasted as neither of these two entities will probably last the decade in power. We would be better served by putting into place money to help develop the two nations after they have had a self-initiated change of government.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't say buying them off, as in giving them money not to make nukes, but leaving them the capabilities. I'm saying buying them off, as in buying the capabilities they need to make nukes. NK has indicated in the past its willingness to take reactors producing less weapons grade material, and give up what weapons grade material was produced, for instance. Iran would likely deal on those terms as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yes, some theoretical defense system could work against such threats. However, we possess an actual defense system moving towards deployment which shows no particular indication of being able to. It has succeeded in no test which follows possible real world circumstances to even a moderate degree.
As for NK and a coup, NK has had a commonly known to be insane leader for decades and decades, so that they currently have one doesn't seem to indicate a coming coup. As for why those rations are wearing thin, that might have something to do with a certain other nation (that is, us).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks ssywak. I went a little OCD on missile defense last night.
quote: No missile shield in the world short of a magical energy particle shield from Star Trek would save us if Russia launched all its nukes at us. But North Korea has less than twenty. They they launched them all at us, and our twenty largest cities, wouldn't you consider it a wise investment if the missile shield shot down three of them? or even one? That's still hundreds of millions of people. I'd say it's a worthy investment.
Lyrhawn. It's true that a massive first strike from Russia is undefendable, even though the Pixiest disagrees.
When I did my research last night, this is taken as a given, and National Missile Defense (NMD) is instead geared towards defending against
a single weapon fired by a terrorist group
a small salvo from a rogue nation. Iran or N Korea are the likely suspects
a mistaken or accidental attack from Russia
an attack by China
But the system as implemented has problems against all but the single missile, against which it would have a decent chance if no countermeasures were used. However, a terrorist group is unlike to acquire both ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, unless a government is using them as a proxy, so a WMD attack from a terrorist group would be more likely to use a non-missile delivery system. Won't countermeasures be used though, after NMD goes online? They are considerably simpler than nuclear or ballistic missile technology:
quote:1) The planned NMD system could be defeated by technically simple countermeasures. Such countermeasures would be available to any emerging missile state that deploys a long-range ballistic missile.There are numerous tactics that an attacker could use to counter the planned NMD system. None of these countermeasures is new; indeed, most of these ideas are as old as ballistic missiles themselves.
All countries that have deployed long-range ballistic missiles (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) have developed, produced, and in some cases deployed, countermeasures for their missiles. There is no reason to believe that emerging missile states would behave differently, especially when US missile defense development is front-page news.
[/b]Many highly effective countermeasures require a lower level of technology than that required to build a long-range ballistic missile (or nuclear weapon).[/b] The United States must anticipate that any potentially hostile country developing or acquiring ballistic missiles would have a parallel program to develop or acquire countermeasures to make those missiles effective in the face of US missile defenses. Countermeasure programs could be concealed from US intelligence much more easily than missile programs, and the United States should not assume that a lack of intelligence evidence is evidence that countermeasure programs do not exist. [cut text]And because these countermeasures use readily available materials and straightforward technologies, any emerging missile state could readily construct and employ them.
quote: 8) Past US missile defense tests against missiles using "countermeasures" did not demonstrate that defenses could defeat such countermeasures. The United States has conducted several missile defense flight tests of exoatmospheric hit-to-kill interceptors that included decoys or other countermeasures and that have been described as demonstrating that the defense could defeat the countermeasures. However, in every case in which the defense was able to distinguish the mock warhead from the decoys, it was only because it knew in advance what the distinguishing characteristics of the different objects would be. These tests reveal nothing about whether the defense could distinguish the warhead in a real attack, in which an attacker could disguise the warhead and deploy decoys that did not have distinguishing characteristics.
same link. No realistic tests using countermeasures have been conducted.
I like the idea of a missile shield, believe me. I just don't think the massive costs are justified by the minimal return of security, as supported by item 9) in the link.
[ February 25, 2005, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Somehow I think tracking a missile isn't as big a deal as people have made it out to be.
Then again, all you have to do is make your missile reflective like a mirror and no laser is going to do much damage.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, yeah, getting a picture of an object we have its position of at any given time calculated to within a few meters is sure somewhere near equivalent of tracking an extremely fast moving object changing velocities and using countermeasures, not to mention hitting that object as to knock it out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think tracking it is the big deal either, NORAD can track ballistic missile blooms all over the world when and if they happen. The issue is creating a missile system capable of tracking then correcting the course of a missile in flight and projecting the course of the missile its trying to hit and get them to meet.
From what I've read of lasers, reflective surfaces wouldn't really do a lot, because they still absorb heat, which is all the laser is doing, heating the body of the missile.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That's a surprisingly detailed photo, Glen. But that was taken with satellite tracking software, I would think supplied with the known orbital elements of Mir. Not the same as tracking a missile on an unknown orbit that can also accelerate randomly to evade tracking, anti-missiles or beam weapons.[edit:I hadn't seen Russell's post, which said the same thing as this paragraph]
Also, that's optical, the missile defense systems use a combination of ground and sea-based radar, infrared detectors on the exoatmospheric kill vehicles (EKVs) and 2 satellite systems,(Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS), low orbit, and Space-Based Infrared System-high (SBIRS-high).
The ground and sea-based radars are still being developed, for the most part. The 2 satellite systems have experienced significant time and budget overuns. SBIRS-high was supposed to have had components launched by 2003, but didn't. STSS is scheduled to have 2 satellites launched in 2007.
quote:To be believable, the GMD program must demonstrate that when a decoy actually resembles the target re-entry vehicle in some way, the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) can still tell the difference. To do this, at the very least the GMD program needs the combined capabilities of high-quality X-band radars, heat-sensing missile discriminating satellites, and interceptors with target discrimination capabilities as well. Problems continue in all three areas, meaning that if a “capability-based system” is deployed in 2004, it will have essentially no real capability.
[ February 26, 2005, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Morbo, your Google-fu is strong. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The point being that the photo was taken with an off the shelf Meade 12" telescope using software some guy wrote.
The big guys shouldn't have much problem tracking a ballistic missile (which is in freefall after all. MIRV's might be a different story).
And if a mirror reflects 98% of the radiation that hits it, it makes it damn hard to heat up. Been there done that. Got the little blind spot in my eye to prove it.
Still, pointing out any info about whether such a system is "doable" is irrelevant in my mind. Of course it's doable if you spend enough. But arms races are expensive and worthless, especially if you're the leader. That's why terrorism is such a big deal, it imasculates the superpowers.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
]![[Cool]](cool.gif)