Missile defence test fails

[BlackArcher101]

Originally posted by arsenal@Dec 17 2004, 01:27 PM
You could say the same about NASA. How many missions have they done that have failed? They poured millions/billions of dollars into programs. All of which do not have a guarantee of working. The MDS looks like a huge black hole, but all it takes is one incident to either make it look brilliant, or what should have been in place.

You have to keep in mind that the reason NASA is failing some missions is because their funding has been cut drastically by the bush administration and was declining even before that. They can barely keep up their schedule of shuttle launches.

[arsenal]

Didn't Bush just give like 30 billion dollars to NASA?
And it wasn't just Bush that was cutting spending, Clinton cut a huge portion of spending from NASA.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bush adds 1 billion dollars to NASA to go to the moon

bang pow Alice

3% increase on top of the 20% increase due to Shuttle accident

Kapow

NASA's budget sits at around $68 billion dollars right now

[comrade]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 17 2004, 09:34 AM
I'm fully onboard with the missile defense shield especially since its going to cost us nothing, and its not putting offensive weapons into space

Lets be honest here

The MDS is not designed to stop a determined attack using the new generation of ICBM's that the Soviets possess or to a small extent the Chinese, thats where MAD still applies since the leaders of those countries are still rational.

Where the MDS does apply is a rougue nation like North Korea or a Iran or if god forbid a terrorist organization gets thier hands on a delivery vehicle and warhead. You can't use Mad against a North Korea or to a lessor extent Iran or some other nation because they're not exactly rational.

You also have to realize that the majority of the members of the Fallout club don't have

A) a lot of long distance warshots

B) Hardened and sophisticated delivery systems.

Most of thier delivery systems are based around either artillary or gravity dropped bombs.

So under its initial design the MDS should work

One failure dosen't mean an entire failure for the project

The scary thing is that there's not a whole lot more that the U.S can do about smuggled weapons from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to process now, and a airport security guard or customs officer can not take down a rogue missile unless he's a really good shot

It was an interesting comparison that somebody made with the missile defense system to the Phalanx CIWS mounted on Navy ships, except that the Phalanx is the last line of defense in a interlocking strategy, the Sunburn still has to go through 4 belts of antimissile systems before it even gets close enough for the Phalanx to fire, even the Russian Navy agreed that it was unlikely that it was going to happen unless they used the concept of overwhelming numbers of missiles. Which like the MDS the Phalanx isn't designed to do. The Phalanx is a mop up weapon put into place to knock down the few leakers left after the attack has run through the long and short range Sam defense.

The latest generation of Naval variant Sams were also designed with the Sunburns and other sea skimmers in mind.

The other funny thing about the Sunburn is that its got a 90 mile range, which means that any Russian or Chinese ship would be well within sensor range of a carrier task force before it could get its shot off, and likely to be attacked in the event of a hostile scenario.

In fact the U.S. navy just aquired a large portion of all varients of the Russian Navy Sunburns to test thier system.

The moral of the story.

National defense against a unpredicatable foe is to take into account every scenar. Interlocking defense. the MDS, increased border vigilance, better foreign intelligence all have to be there or the concept of being prepared is empty and hollow.

Surely you jest. The missile defence is nothing but a precursor for putting weapons in space. You should visit read the U.S. space command's mission statement (division of the air force) and then try to explain that the U.S. doesn't want weapons in space.

If you want to be honest, you should realize that anyone capable of building a nuclear warhead and a suitable delivery system, which is the hardest part of building ICBM's, has the capability to build countermeasures to render the missile defence useless. Which means that North Korea can and probably has already numerous countermeasures.

Do you honestly think that a country like Iran(which happens to be less repressive regime than US allies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) or North Korea would shoot a missile or two at the US, knowing full well that America can easily respond in kind with hundreds of missiles? The leaders of these countries aren't exactly on the same page as everyone else, but they'd have to be suicidal to initiate a nuclear war with the US. The warheads are used(as they see it) as a deterrent to US aggression or a bargaining chip in world politics.

Furthermore, this failure isn't the only one. It's one of dozens. Any success they've had have been in highly scripted, unrealistic conditions where "success" is deemed as coming within a certain distance of the ballistic missile. Many of their supposed successful tests didn't even hit the warhead. The radar they're trying to deploy into the field hasn't even been tested once, every ballistic missile has been equipped with a beacon to let the missile defence know exactly where it is.

Of course, there are other costs besides monetary ones. First would be the fact that missiles sent over Canada would be shot down over Canada, spreading the biological, chemical, or radiological substances over Canada instead of the US, making it our problem and killing Canadians. Secondly, one thing it has done is started a new arms race with Russia and China. Shortly after Bush announced the proposed missile defence early in his first term, China came out and announced they would triple their nuclear arsenal by 2010. As for Russia, they've just developed a missile that can actually maneuver in flight, making missile defence obsolete against a Russian attack. Thirdly, joining the missile defence would be seen by Al Queda and others as joining the US military crusade, thus making us more likely targets for terrorist attacks. Fourth, it goes against all of Canada's efforts over the years to push for international nuclear non-poliferation, as the US has begun to back out of 30 year old treaties to deploy the NMD.

And like you pointed out, the missile defence does nothing to prevent by far the most likely scenario of attack by which Al Queda smuggles in weapons through the ports or however. The US gov't has poured over 100 billion dollars into the NMD and have almost nothing remotely useful to show for it. It's a welfare program for the defence industry. Preeminent physicists from all over the US and world have stated that no system exists that could even hope to make the NMD even remotely successful. Meanwhile, the government has actually cut funding for programs which buy or help guard older soviet nuclear weapons and facilities.

Personally, I think pursuing a NMD in any form or helping the US pursue it is insanity. The next logical step after a missile defence is to put weapons in space and to think anything else is naive and foolish. The US military already has plenty of ideas for spaced based weaponry and they are under development. Just wait, before you know it you'll be hearing of tungsten rods travelling at extremely high velocities, aimed at US enemies, straight from space. The US Air Force call them "rods from god".

[CaptainCrunch]

Surely you jest. The missile defence is nothing but a precursor for putting weapons in space. You should visit read the U.S. space command's mission statement (division of the air force) and then try to explain that the U.S. doesn't want weapons in space.

Maybe, possibly the developement of the MDS could lead to that, but its not under the actual mandate of the MDS and would be a separate project that might or might not be supported.

If you want to be honest, you should realize that anyone capable of building a nuclear warhead and a suitable delivery system, which is the hardest part of building ICBM's, has the capability to build countermeasures to render the missile defence useless. Which means that North Korea can and probably has already numerous countermeasures.

Adding counter measures to a missile warhead is not a cheap undertaking and there are problems in the developement of them. When you are talking about countermeasures what are we taking about anyways

Are we talking about flair and chaff dispersment? Or stealth technology on the warhead shroud. Or a break away shroud that splinters to give multiple warhead images. the big concern with the MDS system is stopping a mirv'd system which its not designed to take out. Its designed to take out a single warhead on a simple bus. The only nations that are currently in possesion of Mirvs are the U.S. and Russia. China's warheads are all single entry warheads as are Isreal's, Pakistans, India and the others. Most of the Nuclear clubs weapons are designed around either short range theatre rockets, or artillary rounds, or bombs from planes.

Its also unlikely that a terrorist launched weapon is going to be any more sophisticated then a single warhead, thats what the MDS is built around.





Do you honestly think that a country like Iran(which happens to be less repressive regime than US allies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) or North Korea would shoot a missile or two at the US, knowing full well that America can easily respond in kind with hundreds of missiles? The leaders of these countries aren't exactly on the same page as everyone else, but they'd have to be suicidal to initiate a nuclear war with the US. The warheads are used(as they see it) as a deterrent to US aggression or a bargaining chip in world politics.

I don't know how North Korea works, but I wouldn't put faith in them having ICBMs, the leadership there has shown that they don't really value thier citizenship very much. the danger from Iran isn't the same as it was years ago, but who knows, I'd rather be safe then sorry when dealing with some of these governments.

Furthermore, this failure isn't the only one. It's one of dozens. Any success they've had have been in highly scripted, unrealistic conditions where "success" is deemed as coming within a certain distance of the ballistic missile. Many of their supposed successful tests didn't even hit the warhead. The radar they're trying to deploy into the field hasn't even been tested once, every ballistic missile has been equipped with a beacon to let the missile defence know exactly where it is.

Hence why its still considered under development and not deployed

Of course, there are other costs besides monetary ones. First would be the fact that missiles sent over Canada would be shot down over Canada, spreading the biological, chemical, or radiological substances over Canada instead of the US, making it our problem and killing Canadians.

Even more of a reason to be part of the discussion on how the shield should be deployed to prevent this from happening, then complaining to the U.S. if they unilaterally put the MDS in place with its only concern being the protection of U.S. cities.



Secondly, one thing it has done is started a new arms race with Russia and China. Shortly after Bush announced the proposed missile defence early in his first term, China came out and announced they would triple their nuclear arsenal by 2010.

That has next to nothing to do with the MDS which time and time again has been advocated as a diffence against rogue nations firing a few missiles or a terrorist group firing one missile or a accidental launch. Its not Star Wars which had the defense against a thousand inflight warheads in mind

As for Russia, they've just developed a missile that can actually maneuver in flight, making missile defence obsolete against a Russian attack.

They announced that they're going to try to create this, they haven't even put it on the drawing board as of yet, and are unlikely to do so since they don't have the budget to upgrade thier strategic forces to this missile. Again the MDS is not made to stop a massive bombardment

Thirdly, joining the missile defence would be seen by Al Queda and others as joining the US military crusade, thus making us more likely targets for terrorist attacks.

I'm not all of that concerned about Al Queda thinks, I'd rather build a defense to counter what they could do as oppossed to trusting them at thier word that they won't attack us. Besides Al Queda has already named Canada as a target of thier ire.


Fourth, it goes against all of Canada's efforts over the years to push for international nuclear non-poliferation, as the US has begun to back out of 30 year old treaties to deploy the NMD.

Maybe somebody should talk to the Chinese about tripling thier missile load of talk to the Russians about building agile rockets before talking to the American's about defending themselves from a random rocket attack


And like you pointed out, the missile defence does nothing to prevent by far the most likely scenario of attack by which Al Queda smuggles in weapons through the ports or however.

As I stated I don't disagree with that, but if your going to defend yourself properly you need to look at all aspects of possible attacks and not one or two possibilities

The US gov't has poured over 100 billion dollars into the NMD and have almost nothing remotely useful to show for it. It's a welfare program for the defence industry.

Defense against some yahoo shooting a missile at you is never welfare or useless in my opinion, and its better to spend that money on this then the all powerful space based body liquifying deathstar



Preeminent physicists from all over the US and world have stated that no system exists that could even hope to make the NMD even remotely successful.

Only if your considering a massive attack by Mirv'd weapons from a developed nation. Not a small single or small numbered single warhead attack. I've read the papers




Meanwhile, the government has actually cut funding for programs which buy or help guard older soviet nuclear weapons and facilities.

I've always thought it should be the Russians reponsibility to dispose of thier weapons systems. . . call me nuts

Personally, I think pursuing a NMD in any form or helping the US pursue it is insanity. The next logical step after a missile defence is to put weapons in space and to think anything else is naive and foolish. The US military already has plenty of ideas for spaced based weaponry and they are under development. Just wait, before you know it you'll be hearing of tungsten rods travelling at extremely high velocities, aimed at US enemies, straight from space. The US Air Force call them "rods from god".

The missile defense shield is a defense only system. Any of these other things have nothing to do with the technology being applied to this project. If you want to be completely far you need to realize that those are seperate projects, and seperate concepts and equipment.

[Daradon]

Are we talking about flair and chaff dispersment? Or stealth technology on the warhead shroud. Or a break away shroud that splinters to give multiple warhead images. the big concern with the MDS system is stopping a mirv'd system which its not designed to take out. Its designed to take out a single warhead on a simple bus. The only nations that are currently in possesion of Mirvs are the U.S. and Russia. China's warheads are all single entry warheads as are Isreal's, Pakistans, India and the others. Most of the Nuclear clubs weapons are designed around either short range theatre rockets, or artillary rounds, or bombs from planes.

The 'cheaper' countermeasure technologies I have heard about that are the break away types. Also missiles with decoys that can be launched from them. Regardless the tests now are proving how hard it is to hit a small moving target through three dimensions. All the enemies missile has to do is land. The MDS missile has to intercept an oncoming missile flyng at great speeds in three dimensions high enough and early enough in it's flight that it doesn't cause harm. Any countermeasures to help the attacking missile get through are going to come faster and be more effective than the measures needed to catch up to those technologies because they are far simplier and far cheaper than interception technology. It's a catch up game they can't really hope to win.

I'm not all of that concerned about Al Queda thinks, I'd rather build a defense to counter what they could do as oppossed to trusting them at thier word that they won't attack us. Besides Al Queda has already named Canada as a target of thier ire.

We're certainly a lot lower on their list since we decided not to attack Iraq. And I don't think we should have opted out from fear of attack (I think we opted out cause it was wrong) but distancing ourselves from the U.S. projects will probably keep us safer. Especially since these projects don't work anyway. I mean 'Fortress' America was hit, Spain was hit, Bali was hit. If they wanted to hit Canada I think they could have by now. We disappeared of their top 10 or 20 after we refused to enter Iraq.

I've always thought it should be the Russians reponsibility to dispose of thier weapons systems. . . call me nuts

True enough, but if they aren't doing it, and you can, wouldn't you want to ante up for you safety in the future? It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong or who should have paid for it when it hits a city.

[comrade]

Captain Crunch you're deluding yourself if you think the US will deploy a missle shield but will draw the line and not deploy weapons in space. Furthermore, joining this program won't get us "a place at the discussion table", as Paul Martin likes to say, isn't actually a discussion table. Joining the program won't let us have input, because joining implies that we agree with what they want to do. Do you honestly think they'll change any plan that has America's best interest in mind to accomodate Canada. The fact is every major joint military operation that the US has been a part of has been dominated by the US. They make the decisions, everyone else follows their orders.

As for countermeasures, it's as easy as wrapping mylar around the nuclear warhead, which will prevent any radar conceived to this point from distinguishing a dummy nuclear warhead from a real one. Not to mention that they can easily overwhelm the system with multiple ICBM's. Sure it might shoot down a single, terrorist launched warhead, but it is far cheaper and easier to smuggle a device on board one of those huge container ships than to acquire a ballistic missile. The shield will do nothing to stop the by far and large most likely threat, and border authorities could make far greater use of 100 billion dollars.

It doesn't really matter if Kim Jong II treats his populace well or not, firing missiles at the US is a death wish. The US could have North Korea wiped off the map within hours including Kim Jong II.

You're also wrong in claiming that the NMD isn't deployed. It's already partially deployed and the US gov't has stated repeatedly that it wants to "deploy it now
and work out the kinks later".

Claiming that there are no links between the US firing up a missile shield and China and Russia actively pursuing a better arsenal is ludicrous. You try to make the distinction between rogue states and "super"powers because that's what the US gov't tells you but they've lied before and a shield that works against every other country would give the US hegemony over the entire world, which they wouldn't say no to, and must make the other powers nervous. Their arms programs are just to make sure that the US doesn't advance too far ahead, making their arsenals obsolete. What would stop the US from imposing their will anywhere they wanted if they could do it with impunity?

On the topic of proliferation, it was the US that backed out of the non-proliferation treaties first, not Russia and China even proposed talks to ban the weaponization of space, to which the US wanted no part of.

Yes, it should be Russia's job to take care of their nuclear products, but the reality is they don't have the money to do so, and using "it's Russia's job" as an excuse when Al Queda obtains Russian nuclear material is a rather unconvincing argument. Besides, if the US could spend that money used on missile defence to prevent terrorist groups from ever getting any radioactive material, the terrorists would have nothing to launch missiles with or to smuggle into the country, making a missile shield obsolete.

It's a fact that the missile defence is no closer to working than it was 20 years ago, and that the threat posed by North Korea is very remote, at best. The threat posed by Al Queda and its allies is enourmous, another attack on US soil is almost inevitable. So why spend all this money on a missile shield that doesn't even work, when US soldiers don't even have proper armor on all of their humvee's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Captain Crunch you're deluding yourself if you think the US will deploy a missle shield but will draw the line and not deploy weapons in space.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I really don't see how a purely defensive system has anything do do with putting a weapons system in space.


Furthermore, joining this program won't get us "a place at the discussion table", as Paul Martin likes to say, isn't actually a discussion table. Joining the program won't let us have input, because joining implies that we agree with what they want to do. Do you honestly think they'll change any plan that has America's best interest in mind to accomodate Canada. The fact is every major joint military operation that the US has been a part of has been dominated by the US. They make the decisions, everyone else follows their orders.

If you don't have a seat at the table you don't have any kind of a voice. If you agree to participate you at least have the option as far as deployment points. I've seen no indication anywhere that states that the American's want our participation just so that we can sit there and politely nod our heads up and down while the American's show us that shooting down potential targets over Canadian cities is a good thing.



As for countermeasures, it's as easy as wrapping mylar around the nuclear warhead, which will prevent any radar conceived to this point from distinguishing a dummy nuclear warhead from a real one. Not to mention that they can easily overwhelm the system with multiple ICBM's. Sure it might shoot down a single, terrorist launched warhead, but it is far cheaper and easier to smuggle a device on board one of those huge container ships than to acquire a ballistic missile. The shield will do nothing to stop the by far and large most likely threat, and border authorities could make far greater use of 100 billion dollars.

Norad radar systems have succesfully tracked inbound ballistic targets wrapped in Mylar. They are tracking by more than just radar. Launch Blooms, temperature differentials, and other methods are used to track inbound ballistics. If it was that easy to spoof radar, America would have been a smoking communist haven by now.

I have never debated about smuggling bombs in, and again the missile defense shield is part of a comprehensive defense program including border and customs inspections and ballistic inbound stoppage. The issue with the inspections at airports and docks and highways is not a lack of finances, its a lack of comprehensive training and planning. But in order to be completely sure you have to protect yourself from seabound, airbound, roadbound and spacebound threats.

It doesn't really matter if Kim Jong II treats his populace well or not, firing missiles at the US is a death wish. The US could have North Korea wiped off the map within hours including Kim Jong II.

Possibly but Kim is not exactly known for being all of that forward thinking. This at least gives a chance of stopping something launched by Kim or a Ayatolah or whatever from incinerating a U.S. city. Its easier to have that defense now then to say that your sorry that you didn't later.

You're also wrong in claiming that the NMD isn't deployed. It's already partially deployed and the US gov't has stated repeatedly that it wants to "deploy it now
and work out the kinks later".

But still considered under development. Nobody attached to that program has signed off on it or said they're satisfied with the results.

Claiming that there are no links between the US firing up a missile shield and China and Russia actively pursuing a better arsenal is ludicrous. You try to make the distinction between rogue states and "super"powers because that's what the US gov't tells you but they've lied before and a shield that works against every other country would give the US hegemony over the entire world, which they wouldn't say no to, and must make the other powers nervous. Their arms programs are just to make sure that the US doesn't advance too far ahead, making their arsenals obsolete. What would stop the US from imposing their will anywhere they wanted if they could do it with impunity?

Oh come on, look at the MDS specs, its obvious that it hasen't been built to stop a massive overwhelming nuclear bombardment. Its way to small scale for that. And like I mentioned before the Chinese and Russians are more than free to spend money on upgrading thier aresenals if they choose, that thier national right just like its the American's national right to build a defense centered around a small scale missile attack

On the topic of proliferation, it was the US that backed out of the non-proliferation treaties first, not Russia and China even proposed talks to ban the weaponization of space, to which the US wanted no part of.

Yes it was because the Americans didn't like the conditions being imposed on themselves. There was also an attempt to call the MDS a space based weapon which it is not. there is no offensive capability at all.

Yes, it should be Russia's job to take care of their nuclear products, but the reality is they don't have the money to do so, and using "it's Russia's job" as an excuse when Al Queda obtains Russian nuclear material is a rather unconvincing argument


We'll if the Russians can't properly take care of thier nuclear weapons and keep them secure I'm sure that the American's would be only glad to help them get rid of all of them. The fact that the Russians are crying poor in trying to keep up to the task of disposing of thier older weapons that they agreed to rings as a hollow excuse to me.

Besides, if the US could spend that money used on missile defence to prevent terrorist groups from ever getting any radioactive material, the terrorists would have nothing to launch missiles with or to smuggle into the country, making a missile shield obsolete.

The American's have offered thier expertise on this since the late 90's and have been continually rebuffed by the Russians and the former soviet states.

It's a fact that the missile defence is no closer to working than it was 20 years ago, and that the threat posed by North Korea is very remote, at best. The threat posed by Al Queda and its allies is enourmous, another attack on US soil is almost inevitable. So why spend all this money on a missile shield that doesn't even work, when US soldiers don't even have proper armor on all of their humvee's.

Hey I'm all for the proper arming and protection of American troops, I'm the hawk here remember. However I just don't see where its a sin to build a mds shield for a just in case probibility. I don't see where its any other countries concern that the American's are choosing to shield themselves from an attack. The fact that they offered Canada an opportunity to have a voice in the defense of the North American continent speaks volume. they can and will if need be put this up with any other countries input or right to speak about it and consequences be damned. I just feel that it would be a stupid and utter mistake for Canada not to take advantage on a deal that could help defend thier country and 0 cost.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one