Hawaii hit by false alarm of a ballistic missile threat

[r16]

and then the Japanese ; on the day 20 countries that fought during 1950-53 assamble a meeting in Canada on what to do about North Korea . Interesting , seems the US can not track them down in the terminal phase .

 

[innonimatu]

True. One cab be though of as a mistake. Two? It gets odd.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It turns out @Commodore was right, the employee behind the alert was an incompetent ****. There was some serious errors both in the design of the alert system but the protocols I think were fine. This wouldn't have happened if the employee hadn't been so bad at his job - another employee had to grab his mouse and cancel the alert as he just sat there confused. Moreover, he was a known problem for at least a decade.


Even scarier: the missile defense system was tested and it failed to intercept the target, again. It's proving to be a very expensive boondoggle and everyone except the defense contractors that are building it have said so since they started building the system. Technology has improved since they tried this in the 80's for sure, but it hasn't improved enough. And this system could only plausibly help defend against a very basic North Korean attack. Just a few more years worth of improvement by the North Koreans and the system will be useless against even them and it's always been useless against say Russia or China.

 

[Commodore]

Even scarier: the missile defense system was tested and it failed to intercept the target, again. It's proving to be a very expensive boondoggle and everyone except the defense contractors that are building it have said so since they started building the system. Technology has improved since they tried this in the 80's for sure, but it hasn't improved enough. And this system could only plausibly help defend against a very basic North Korean attack. Just a few more years worth of improvement by the North Koreans and the system will be useless against even them and it's always been useless against say Russia or China.

That doesn't mean we should give up on it. A missile defense system is something that's too important to give up on simply because they are having trouble getting it to work. You keep working on it and improving it until it does work.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That doesn't mean we should give up on it. A missile defense system is something that's too important to give up on simply because they are having trouble getting it to work. You keep working on it and improving it until it does work.

It's a question of physics and resources. The physics behind this are extraordinarily difficult to overcome - the comparison to hitting a bullet with another bullet doesn't do it justice - and only get harder exponentially as the enemy develops more capable systems. What I mean is that it is very difficult to intercept a single, unprotected missile as is. This test and all the other ones the system has failed prove as much.

When you add in maneuverable warheads, decoys, MIRVs and stealth systems then missile defense becomes a pipe dream.


The cost also scales exponentially with capability. We've spent probably over $100 billion dollars in pursuit of missile defense since the 50's and all we have to show for it is maybe a 50/50 chance to shoot down a single unprotected warhead (and let's be honest, the odds are likely far worse than 50/50 in a real world situation). We could have spent all of that money much more productively.

 

[Lexicus]

With respect, I think the problems are more political than technical. Even if we could surmount the technical challenges building a missile defense system just makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely and for that reason alone we shouldn't do it. We should rather start to disarm and hope we can bring other nuclear states along with us.

That doesn't mean we should give up on it. A missile defense system is something that's too important to give up on simply because they are having trouble getting it to work. You keep working on it and improving it until it does work.

Do you think maybe we should try to make college more affordable in the hope of producing more scientists to help with this?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I actually think that true missile defense could also enable disarmament. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed outcome but I find it more likely that if a country developed a more or less perfect system that then the world would get serious about getting rid of nukes altogether. I don't find it particularly likely that if a country developed a perfect shield that they'd start bombing all of their rivals back to the stone age just because they could. There are of course lots of scenarios where things could escalate between a country with missile defense and one without it but that threat of accident/escalation already exists.

Edit: I don't think a perfect system can be developed at any cost in the next 30 years, fwiw

 

[Lexicus]

I actually think that true missile defense could also enable disarmament. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed outcome but I find it more likely that if a country developed a more or less perfect system that then the world would get serious about getting rid of nukes altogether. I don't find it particularly likely that if a country developed a perfect shield that they'd start bombing all of their rivals back to the stone age just because they could. There are of course lots of scenarios where things could escalate between a country with missile defense and one without it but that threat of accident/escalation already exists.

Edit: I don't think a perfect system can be developed at any cost in the next 30 years, fwiw

The real problem isn't that the country with the missile defense would be emboldened to launch a first strike (though that is a problem particularly with someone like Trump in charge, and particularly if the idea that the US is made invulnerable to retaliation by its missile defenses permeates the culture sufficiently), it would be that country's adversaries suddenly see their second-strike deterrence as irrelevant, with unpredictable consequences.

this article lays out the arguments:
http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newsletter/2001/april2001/galbraith.pdf

The fact that NMD cannot defend against a first strike again calls attention to the only configuration in which NMD might work: as an adjunct to an American first strike that destroys most enemy forces (and everything else) on the ground. Following a first strike, a limited missile defense might shoot down a handful of surviving retaliatory missiles. This point is clear to both Russia and China, who long ago concluded that NMD merely extends long-standing American strike-first plans. They will respond, as both have warned, by increasing the numbers of their own missiles, and by placing their forces on a higher alert.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I also do not find that potential outcome very likely. The rewards of such a course of action are very minuscule compared to the cost and the risks are intolerable.

 

[Lexicus]

I also do not find that potential outcome very likely. The rewards of such a course of action are very minuscule compared to the cost and the risks are intolerable.

That outcome is not only near-certain, it has already happened since that article was written (2001). US pursuit of missile defense has prodded Russia and China to strengthen their nuclear forces both by adding more missiles and improving their missiles. Anyway, the point of missile defense is nuclear blackmail against other states: we can attack you and you can't hit us back, which is why I find this outcome:

if a country developed a more or less perfect system that then the world would get serious about getting rid of nukes altogether.

to be unlikely to the point of fantasy
People tend not to respond well to attempts to blackmail them.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Anyway, the point of missile defense is nuclear blackmail against other states: we can attack you and you can't hit us back, which is why I find this outcome:

This is a really cynical take on missile defense.

In any case China and Russia don't actually have to spend a dime to overcome our imaginary missile defense. They already have more than enough capability to overwhelm our feeble system.

But I do agree that a perfect missile defense system is fantasy.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a really cynical take on missile defense.

It's also an accurate take though. But of course, whether it's really accurate or not is beside the point, the point is that Russia and China most assuredly will interpret it that way and respond accordingly. And indeed the public statements of both governments on this subject make it clear they regard US development of missile defense as an aggressive move.

Again, for those looking to reduce the nuclear threat the approach that's been proven to work is arms control, strategic deescalation, and ultimately - multilateral disarmament.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's also an accurate take though.

It's accurate but not the only reason to have missile defense.

 

[Lexicus]

It's accurate but not the only reason to have missile defense.

What other reasons are there?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Missile defense.

Protection from rogue states.

 

[Lexicus]

Missile defense.

Protection from rogue states.

Come on hobbs, the first one is nonsense (the purpose of missile defense is....missile defense? that's a way of avoiding the issue, the reason we want to defend against enemy missiles is to threaten them with our missiles with impunity), and I don't think the second one works because a rogue state looking to nuke the US probably wouldn't bother with a ballistic missile.

 

[Zkribbler]

When you add in maneuverable warheads, decoys, MIRVs and stealth systems then missile defense becomes a pipe dream.

Too true.

The cost also scales exponentially with capability. We've spent probably over $100 billion dollars in pursuit of missile defense since the 50's and all we have to show for it is maybe a 50/50 chance to shoot down a single unprotected warhead (and let's be honest, the odds are likely far worse than 50/50 in a real world situation). We could have spent all of that money much more productively.

I'd say since Reagan's Star Wars initiative. Now, we can sometimes hit an ICBM if we know when it's coming, at what speed, in what trajectory.

 

[Lexicus]

Now, we can sometimes hit an ICBM if we know when it's coming, at what speed, in what trajectory.

And if it uses no countermeasures. At all.

 

[choxorn]

It turns out @Commodore was right, the employee behind the alert was an incompetent ****. There was some serious errors both in the design of the alert system but the protocols I think were fine. This wouldn't have happened if the employee hadn't been so bad at his job - another employee had to grab his mouse and cancel the alert as he just sat there confused. Moreover, he was a known problem for at least a decade.

They'd also apparently recently changed to a new system and not really adequately trained their employees in the new system.

 

[r16]

the missile defence system's worth is zilch for any opponent which is not an American sock puppet . But it helps keeping Joe Public with the "elites" who want to "engage" hostiles with games , the cost to be borne by Joe Public's taxes and even blood . Like invasions and civil wars and economic stuff . Almost the equivalent of closing threads on charges of spam .