seems like a bad idea to me

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The biggest problem I have with this concept is that I don't know who told the bad guys they have to deliver their WMDs by rocket. Rockets are very difficult delivery systems to use.

I totally agree with you there. It seems that the guys we are worrying about are not going to use ICBMs. In fact, I have often heard biological weapons referred to as the "poor mans nukes". I worry more about biological stuff. It is too easy to bring in.

[caseyusa 0]

Quote

I think the Patriot hit rate was about 10% and then a few of the hit missles actually landed in populated areas. I say you wait till the system gets about 95% hit rates then finalize it.

Ummm...errr....well. Those 10%, if that is the number, of hits meant a hell of a lot more to the people who were gonna be blown up, eh?

With safety, I don't mind a few extra % in my favor.

---
** Blue Skies, Yellow Mustard. **
It's like a farmer, out-standing in his field.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I think the Patriot hit rate was about 10% and then a few of the hit missles actually landed in populated areas. I say you wait till the system gets about 95% hit rates then finalize it.

Ummm...errr....well. Those 10%, if that is the number, of hits meant a hell of a lot more to the people who were gonna be blown up, eh?

With safety, I don't mind a few extra % in my favor.

For the most part it was just different people that were blown up, not fewer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

The big problem with a missle defense system and the reason that we had a treaty with the USSR (which Bush withdrew from) is that it encourages missle proliferation.

Think about it. You have a small arsenal of missles, we have a defense system that will shoot them all down. However, if you sent 5 times as many missles you will be able to get through with what you wanted to in the first place. No problem, just build a lot more missiles.

China is currently believed to have about 800 nuclear warheads. If we build a missle defense system they will just build more in order to have the ability to overwhelm it. Guess what, their nuclear neighbors (pakistan, india, n. korea) will then feel threatened and have to build more also.

There is no such thing as a fool proof defense system. Anything we build could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and will therefore spark another Reagenesque arms race. And more missles in existence increases the likelihood of rogue nations getting access to them.

[Deuce 1]

Nothing is 100% effective. Bill, I'm sure you'll prove me wrong even in that assertion.

We will deploy this Mark 1, Mod 0, defensive weapon system.

We will continue to improve it's effectiveness in field conditions, which is much more realistic than any laboratory test, which you point out have been made more easy by the weapon's manufacturer.

As N. Korea and China develop and improve their ballistic delivery vehicles, we will develop our ballistic defenses.

We are moving back into the nuclear holocaust threat world I grew up in. The only difference is it seems we aren't going to be in a Mutually Assured Destruction standoff, but one where China, and N. Korea get a swing, and we deflect all or part of it, and then turn their nation and their people and culture into glass.

I don't know that an arbitrary number between 70 and 99% for effectiveness is going to change anything.

And I expect as these new nuclear nations attempt to exert their new hegemony they will get around out defensive shield by deploying them in submarines.

Duck and cover.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

The big problem with a missle defense system and the reason that we had a treaty with the USSR (which Bush withdrew from) is that it encourages missle proliferation.

Think about it. You have a small arsenal of missles, we have a defense system that will shoot them all down. However, if you sent 5 times as many missles you will be able to get through with what you wanted to in the first place. No problem, just build a lot more missiles.

China is currently believed to have about 800 nuclear warheads. If we build a missle defense system they will just build more in order to have the ability to overwhelm it. Guess what, their nuclear neighbors (pakistan, india, n. korea) will then feel threatened and have to build more also.

There is no such thing as a fool proof defense system. Anything we build could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and will therefore spark another Reagenesque arms race. And more missles in existence increases the likelihood of rogue nations getting access to them.

The medieval barons felt secure in their castles until their foes came at them with cannons. The French knights felt invulnerable in their armor until the battles of Crecy and Agincourt, where English arrows killed them by the thousand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,070]

>You are crazy... Having a shield does not make one "MORE LIKELY
>TO SHOOT" one.

Using a cypres makes people less likely to be paranoid about their altitude. We have far more cypres firings nowadays than we had no-pulls twelve years ago.

>A country with a few missiles is not going to waste 30% of its arsenal
> trying to hit the US.

I agree there, but they will waste 5% of their arsenal. North Korea is busy building more as we speak.

>They are going to make DAMN sure they hit
> thier target. Attempting to lob a nuke at the US is just as bad as
> actually doing it.

History is full of examples of countries rattling their sabres and firing shots across the bow to show their level of commitement. If we claim we can shoot down any incoming missile, an incoming missile becomes the final shot across the bow. Sure, we may retaliate, but now that we have a shield, other countries may be more willing to ping at that shield, thinking we will not retaliate for an event that happens 40 miles in space with no pictures, injuries or even solid evidence that they launched the missile.

[billvon 3,070]

>Nothing is 100% effective.

Agreed; I do not think it needs to be 100% effective. Pick a number and make it that effective. 40% is probably too low (i.e. a given single incoming missile has a 60% chance of making it to its target.) 99% is probably too high (as in too hard to get.) Pick a number, test to that, then accept the system, as they do for every single other weapon out there.

>The only difference is it seems we aren't going to be in a Mutually
>Assured Destruction standoff . . .

I agree; one of the reasons MAD will no longer deter people is that we have a missile shield that can stop their weapons. A launched nuclear weapon will go from the automatic start of World War III to an attempt to test a missile shield; that's incredibly destabilizing.

[bhammond 0]

An example - North Korea rattles its sabre some more. We tell them "you must disarm." They say no. We threaten sanctions; they offer to cut their arsenal from 12 to 6. We tell them that's unacceptable.

Things get heated. The US sends troops to South Korea. N Korea tells the US that any aggression will be met by an overwhelming response against the continental US.

I agree a possible scenario....

Now consider the case if there is a faulty (but claimed effective) missile shield. N Korea may consider their first missile a warning shot

This is where you go wrong .. very wrong
the koreans have two scenarios that they must consider

1. Missile is tracked and destroyed, in tracking it is determined that it is targeted for continental US city,
US has immediate response of massive retaliatory launch, vaporizing a possible second launch from the N. Koreans, North Korea ceases to exist.

2. Missile is tracked but gets through and takes out a US city. US immediately launches a massive retaliatory response. North Korea ceases to exist...

with those two possible scenarios I dont think anyone would consider launching a missile a "shot across the bow" more like "suicide by cop"

[flyinryan 0]

Yup, we are pretty much doomed (only half kidding). So we might as well enjoy our lives now as much as we can. I agree with rgropper though...we are talking about HUMAN lives here. Turning a country into a "glass parking lot" will be killing MILLIONS of people: mostly non-combatants. There does seem to be a small penis complex going around these days. Lots of puffing of the chest and hoo-hah bull shit. ALL human lives are precious, even if they are from a differnt country and have different color skin.

BASE 853

[kiltboy 0]

I think I saw that argument on the History Channel.

The other argument was that even if a group got hold of a missile and launched then there would be a return address for retribution.

If say a rogue missile was launched then a shield could (maybe) stop that one. If, however a missile shield would lead to more missile proliferation (as i think it will) that would make the above scenario more likely.

I hope the warning shot (Billvon?) idea never happens. I doubt anyone would take that kindly.

David

[billvon 3,070]

>1. Missile is tracked and destroyed, in tracking it is determined that
> it is targeted for continental US city,

Okay, what about scenario 3?

Missile is tracked and destroyed; possible target was anything from the Pacific Ocean to LA. N Korea claims it was a simple missile test and they must launch east (which could be true from an orbital dynamics standpoint.) They claim their target was in international waters and thus was completely legal. We claim it was a nuclear missile. They say it wasn't, and the wreckage is now at the bottom of the sea, so nothing can be proved. China says any nuclear attack on Asia will be met with like force, and promise they will work with N Korea to get them to stop being so difficult.

What do you do now?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>1. Missile is tracked and destroyed, in tracking it is determined that
> it is targeted for continental US city,

Okay, what about scenario 3?

Missile is tracked and destroyed; possible target was anything from the Pacific Ocean to LA. N Korea claims it was a simple missile test and they must launch east (which could be true from an orbital dynamics standpoint.) They claim their target was in international waters and thus was completely legal. We claim it was a nuclear missile. They say it wasn't, and the wreckage is now at the bottom of the sea, so nothing can be proved. China says any nuclear attack on Asia will be met with like force, and promise they will work with N Korea to get them to stop being so difficult.

What do you do now?

Easy, invade Iraq.

[cgross 1]

Bill, lets face it... there is a big difference between a shot across the bow with a conventional weapon, and one with a Nuke. It is all about "almosts"

You know the saying.. almost only counts in horseshoes, handgranades, and atomic weaponary!!!
If any moron, and I mean ANY, fired a nuclear shot in our general direction... it would be the "End of days". You know that, and I don't care how crazy someones is.... that is a big step to take. Hey, I could be wrong (though it would be the first time :-), but i still think a weak shield is better than no shield. And, I also know for a FACT that this production system is still a workable, modifiable system.

[billvon 3,070]

>And, I also know for a FACT that this production system is still a
>workable, modifiable system.

Workable? I agree that it can be made to work. We should do that, then field it when it works, like every single other weapons system we've ever fielded.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Bill, lets face it... there is a big difference between a shot across the bow with a conventional weapon, and one with a Nuke. It is all about "almosts"

You know the saying.. almost only counts in horseshoes, handgranades, and atomic weaponary!!!
If any moron, and I mean ANY, fired a nuclear shot in our general direction... it would be the "End of days". You know that, and I don't care how crazy someones is.... that is a big step to take. Hey, I could be wrong (though it would be the first time :-), but i still think a weak shield is better than no shield. And, I also know for a FACT that this production system is still a workable, modifiable system.

None of this is relevant, why would any "rogue" nation deliver the nuke by missile when they can just bring it in with a drug shipment and detonate it anonymously?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JJohnson 0]

I don't think so amigo....

We would treat any launched nuclear weapon as an act of war...with or without a shield in place. So launching already goes into WWIII, regardless of what our defenses are.
No matter how good or bad the shield may be it's only purpose is to help protect the populace.....not to deter anyone from anything.

The only thing that prevents other countries from doing something is the FEAR of our retaliation.

The USSR openly said it, if they thought they could get away with it, they would have. It was the return stroke that prevented it.

What the shield would cause is the fear in other countries that WE would be able to lanuch first without fear of counter action. And that my friend is incredibly destabilizing.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[Scoby 0]

Quote

None of this is relevant, why would any "rogue" nation deliver the nuke by missile when they can just bring it in with a drug shipment and detonate it anonymously?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The reason that MAD works is that any ICBM launched has a return address and massive retaliation is no fun. If a city disappears under a mushroom cloud, it is going to be arriving by container ship, not ballistic missile. This project is a huge red herring and a sop to the military/industrial complex that needs to keep their budgets full. While a boost phase interception system could work, there is essentially no way an interceptor could tell a MIRV from a dozen decoys in space. It's purest fantasy.

[bhammond 0]

>Missile is tracked and destroyed; possible target >was anything from the Pacific Ocean to LA. N Korea >claims it was a simple missile test and they must >launch east (which could be true from an orbital >dynamics standpoint.) They claim their target was >in international waters and thus was completely >legal.

First of all this scenario would never happen:
1. there would be no boost phase intercept, the only time that boost phase intercepts have real value is when we know of a launch and declare " we will shoot any missile that comes out of any silo "
the burden of proof on its destination is just too difficult to prove. besides the 3 to 5 minutes of boost phase is just too short for any unknown threat .

2. a midcourse interception is what would be utilized,
at that point the missile "now warhead" has shed its rocket motors and casings leaving the warhead to ballistically reenter to its target " it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it intended destination" pun intended.

Russia, China, UK, and others would also be able to track this with their own sats and radar sites, the world community would know what they did. their excuse wouldnt hold up,


>China says any nuclear attack on Asia will be met >with like force, and promise they will work with N >Korea to get them to stop being so difficult.

again would never happen, our response would be immediate, China wouldnt have a chance to threaten. it would be over before they could say
anything..