Missle Shield Program

[GrandAdmiral]

For the same reason I do not need a untested anti-aircraft gun to defend my apartment

• an anti-aircraft gun will not defend my apartment because the people likely to attack it cannot be attacked with an anti-aircraft gun.
• the gun is untested so even if i do fire it it may not work
• the gun is very very costly. I will be far better off buying a small pistol to defend my apartment
• if I get an anti-aircraft gun there is a possibility that my would be opponent (currently all he has is sticks and stones) will get a bazooka to attack me. Then not only will be anti-aircraft be useless against a bazooka I also end up with a deadlier opponent

The first few responses in this thread are typical too. To most people it is like a switch that you can throw that will make all enemy missiles targetted at US vanish into thin air. I wish it were so. I ask them to first read up on missile defense and understand how it works. Then try to understand what it takes to make it work. Then try to understand if there are other ways to reach the same objective. Then try to understand if those other ways are cheaper.

Then back the missile defense shield if you still are in the mind to do it.

Well I already knew plenty about the missile defense shield thats why I responded. To say it hasn't been tested is a lie. It has been tested although not under the widest range of conditions. The number of warheads intercepted was 5 out of 8 and amazingly enough the interceptor has no fuse or warhead aka hit to kill. It collides with the enemy warhead at high speeds completely destroying it.

Most people don't have a clue as to the effectiveness of any weapon systems during test phases but I garauntee you they are never 100% in any real world situation. Even the famed Aegis system wasn't tested against supersonic drones before it was deployed even though supersonic anti-ship missiles are its most likely adversaries. This is how some of the finest weapon systems are developed. Many great weapons systems were developed in haste with less then adequate testing. Thats how they are improved and thats how you stay ahead. Deploying them is the best way to find their flaws and improve them.

As was stated it was designed to defend against a small arsenal. The argument against the shield is not that it can't take out a few missiles as it was designed to do but that it can be easily overwhelmed by MIRVed weapons and decoys. Currently the nations under that category don't have any MIRVed weapons or integrated decoys. Could they develop them? Someday sure the same as we will continue to develop defenses against them. So right now we are ahead.

 

[Hakim]

A missile defence system is extremely dangerous because it removes the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction - it would allow America to nuke any country with impunity.

True.

That will only last until the other get their shields up, however.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Bazookas could be plenty of things.

• Long range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that a ballistic missile defense cannot see.
• suitcase nukes that can be taken apart and build from parts shipped separately to US.
• Chem bio weapons (in smart bombs) dropped from stealth planes.
• a man carrying a dormat virus which activates itself after the man comes into US and then spreads from his corpse.

Need me to go on?

The missile defense shield wasn't designed to deal with any of this so its irrelevant. Long ranged cruise missiles, conventional or nuclear are the targets for carrier battlegroups and the Airforce's fighters. One of the little known primary missions of the F/A-22 is to intercept cruise missiles. No one besides the US has Stealth planes and no one will anytime soon.

 

[Ovulator]

It's spending billions of dollars to fight a non-existant threat. When has anyone been attacked by ICBMs? When has anyone used nuclear weapons? Who has the se capabilities? It is already an outdated defence system. It is cheaper, easier and more effective to have a single man bring in vials of sarin or anthrax or whatever than develope a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the US. Also, it is painfully obvious when a ICBM is launced and where it is from so international reaction to a ICBM attack would be absolute and devastating. Where as a more covert action such as a suitcase bomb or a short range missle from a submarine couldn't be as easily traced to a source.

Plus it gives the US, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, the immuity to use them again.

 

[BasketCase]

Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles ARE visible to U.S. defensive networks. NON-nuclear cruise missiles are visible to U.S. defense. SDI isn't just satellites, it includes ground-based radar, and other forms of detection as well.

Put security systems in U.S. airports and seaports to detect the nuclear core of a suitcase nuke.

Chem bio weapons dropped from stealth planes? The U.S. military can detect stealth planes too. "Stealth" does not mean invisible. It means MINIMIZING a plane's radar and infrared signature. They can still be spotted by a sophisticated detection system, with an operator who knows how to use it. The U.S. has both.

Human virus bomb? Simple. Quarantine infected area and develop a vaccine. That's been done many times throughout history. The problem with developing a Tom Clancy style super-virus is that medical technology is keeping up with the super-viruses. Mother Nature, bless her cold and cruel heart, has already developed a few super-viruses such as AIDS. None of them are going to wipe out the human race.

The above problems all come down to just the same problem as with SDI. Put in something to block SDI, your opponent will simply make something else. Put security in airports to block suitcase bombs? Opponent will make something else. Human doormat virus bomb? Once the U.S. develops a vaccine and stops the outbreak, the opponent will try something else.

It's still worthwhile to put the defenses up. As h4ppy put it--if you put up an SDI net, only 1000 nukes will get through instead of 3000. If your opponent gives up on nuclear missiles and tries something else, then ZERO nuclear missiles will hit you, which means your SDI defense is having a 100% success rate! Sounds GREAT to me!

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Nukes delivered in which way? In every way? Using ballistic missiles? But that is an impossible objective. A boomer off the east coast can deliver a nuclear missile on NY in minutes. No ballistic missile defense is going to stop nukes.

The only nukes that a missile shield may stop are ones that are launched from static sites thousands of miles away on a slow arc. For example, nukes from NK using their long range ballistic missile.

So that can be a valid objective.

But if that is your objective, why spend billions on a missile shield. Spend millions, maybe hundreds of millions on a covert operation to take out all their nukes in one go. Or even have a anti-missile ase permanently stationed at or near NK. That would do it. You can shoot down the nuclear missiles at the boost phase itself when they are most vulnerable instead of their terminal phase over Alaska when they are least vulnerable.

Shooting the missiles down in their boost phase is not realistic. The interceptor has the same limitations in the lower atmoshpere as the ballistic missile. There isn't enough time to detect them or catch them. Your method would make the warheads harder to intercept and would require a non hit to kill type warhead that would still allow a nuclear detenation on friendly territory to occur. Anyways Alaska is just the initial site. Plans to expand to the Pacific theater have already been made. The current design when intercepted provides no posssibility detonation within the earth's atmosphere.

 

[betazed]

Well I already knew plenty about the missile defense shield thats why I responded...

So you know about the different phases of a ballistic missile flight? how they are tracked in those phases? What are the vulnerabilities in each of those phases? What is the best way to bring them down in each of those phases? How the current missile shield has been tested in these scenarios etc.
If you know all that, then maybe you should write a post on that and educate us. Then maybe you can prove me worng and I will accept it and change my opinion.

The missile defense shield wasn't designed to deal with any of this so its irrelevant.

And when did I say that misile defense is supposed to deal with those?

No one besides the US has Stealth planes and no one will anytime soon.

And you know that for sure, right?

 

[Ovulator]

Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles ARE visible to U.S. defensive networks. NON-nuclear cruise missiles are visible to U.S. defense. SDI isn't just satellites, it includes ground-based radar, and other forms of detection as well.

Put security systems in U.S. airports and seaports to detect the nuclear core of a suitcase nuke.

Chem bio weapons dropped from stealth planes? The U.S. military can detect stealth planes too. "Stealth" does not mean invisible. It means MINIMIZING a plane's radar and infrared signature. They can still be spotted by a sophisticated detection system, with an operator who knows how to use it. The U.S. has both.

Human virus bomb? Simple. Quarantine infected area and develop a vaccine. That's been done many times throughout history. The problem with developing a Tom Clancy style super-virus is that medical technology is keeping up with the super-viruses. Mother Nature, bless her cold and cruel heart, has already developed a few super-viruses such as AIDS. None of them are going to wipe out the human race.

The above problems all come down to just the same problem as with SDI. Put in something to block SDI, your opponent will simply make something else. Put security in airports to block suitcase bombs? Opponent will make something else. Human doormat virus bomb? Once the U.S. develops a vaccine and stops the outbreak, the opponent will try something else.

It's still worthwhile to put the defenses up. As h4ppy put it--if you put up an SDI net, only 1000 nukes will get through instead of 3000. If your opponent gives up on nuclear missiles and tries something else, then ZERO nuclear missiles will hit you, which means your SDI defense is having a 100% success rate! Sounds GREAT to me!

Yes those other solutions do work and that is what we should be preparing for because those are the most likely, not an attack from an ICBM. The enemy will try the cheapest and most effective way. An nuclear ICBM is none of these. Which would people have expected an ICBM hitting New York or our own jets being run into those buildings. We arn't fighting the Soviet Union any more people.

And how do you people factor in North Korea as a threat to the US? What do they have to gain by attacking us?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So you know about the different phases of a ballistic missile flight? how they are tracked in those phases? What are the vulnerabilities in each of those phases? What is the best way to bring them down in each of those phases? How the current missile shield has been tested in these scenarios etc.
If you know all that, then maybe you should write a post on that and educate us. Then maybe you can prove me worng and I will accept it and change my opinion.

And when did I say that misile defense is supposed to deal with those?

And you know that for sure, right?

Yes I do. Thats a lot of info you want so I will try to narrow it down to what more relevant. The best way to bring a ballistic missile down is by force of impact with an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. At 16,000 miles per hour and EKV will pulverize a warhead without it the possibility of detonation over friendly or enemy territory. Boost phase defense, ground based defense and terminal defense are all under development. Your mention of terminal defense is not relevent to the installation in Alaska because it uses ground based midcourse defense GMD (missile wouldn't be intercepted over Alaska as you stated), which used to be called NMD or National Missile Defense. GMD is the best option for this type of ballistic missile defense for the reason above and because intercepting a missile in boost phase is even more diffricult because you have less time to detect it, you would be playing catch up and like I stated in an earlier post you can only use the hit to kill method in midcourse tradjectory. Intercepting in the last phase should be a pretty obvious last ditch attempt.

The testing of GMD took place 140 miles above the earth destroying the last 4 consecutive targets that were traveling at around 16,000 miles per hour. The method of collision destroys nuclear, chemical or biological agents when conventional warheads in other phases may not. The EKV or Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle uses an infrared seeker to identify targets. It also has its own propulsion, guidance and targeting computers. The system was tested amid decoys as far back as 1997. The problem with testing has to do with real world factors only present if the Russians attacked.

GMD or NMD is only one layer of defense. The other phases of ballistic missile defense are handled by more conventional means. Its up to naval and airforce assets to deal point defense in the terminal phase or interception in the boost phase but these are the least likely phases to intercept. Aegis is another layer of ballistic missile defense designed to intercept a missile in all 3 phases which has been very promising.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

And you know that for sure, right?

Yes. There are some underfunded low observable (not stealth) projects out there. They aren't Stealth planes even if they were to be manufactured. Russia, North Korea or China are not goin to suprise anyone by deploying their version of a B-2. NK doesn't even build most of its fighters. China just makes inferior copies of Russian ones and Russian obviously doesn't have and can't afford a long range stealth aircraft. If they did the US would know about them and no fan of the US military's enemies has any faith in stealth aircraft anyways.

 

[sysyphus]

Would someone care to explain how such a system would prevent things like the attacks of 9-11?

Just what the world needs, another arms race

 

[BasketCase]

If we don't have an ICBM defense system, then a direct missile attack IS the cheapest and most effective way to hit the US.

DOH! Out-of-order-post. Was replying to Ovulator.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Would someone care to explain how such a system would prevent things like the attacks of 9-11?

Just what the world needs, another arms race

Obviously it wasn't designed to combat the attacks of 9-11 so an explanation would be as ridiculous as asking for one. Can you explain how my stereo system would prevent attacks from army ants?

If the arms race is against Iran or Iraq then its a damn good way to put them out of business.

 

[Ovulator]

If we don't have an ICBM defense system, then a direct missile attack IS the cheapest and most effective way to hit the US.

DOH! Out-of-order-post. Was replying to Ovulator.

No, it takes an emmense amount of money to develope and research rocket technology then actually gain all the resources to build them. It is much cheaper to buy a passport for one guy and have him use a car bomb he made out of fertilizer.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

No, it takes an emmense amount of money to develope and research rocket technology then actually gain all the resources to build them. It is much cheaper to buy a passport for one guy and have him use a car bomb he made out of fertilizer.

Yes and its not going to whipe out a whole metropolitan area either. No amount of money is going to stop a needle in a haystack. I will take the occasional terrorist over the occasianal ICBM anyday. Regardless of your argument we should be defending against both. But ignoring one (terrorism or wmd) just makes the other a more likely adversary.

 

[Ovulator]

Yes and its not going to whipe out a whole metropolitan area either. No amount of money is going to stop a needle in a haystack. I will take the occasional terrorist over the occasianal ICBM anyday. Regardless of your argument we should be defending against both. But ignoring one (terrorism or wmd) just makes the other a more likely adversary.

Who is going to hit us with an ICBM? And we could stop alot more of those needles if we pumped the money into intelligence which seems to be lacking as of recently. I'm usually all for military research but this is such an insane amount of money to counter a threat that is barerly even there. I would almost support it if it meant that the US would also get rid off all their nukes since there would be no more use for them, but that would never happen.

 

[betazed]

@GrandAdmiral: Good to see you at least know what you are talking about. I am sorry if I sounded skeptical earlier but CFC-OT forced me to be so.

So what do you say about the fact that the all the current tests of the missile defense system has been rigged. I can understand if a system is not perfect. I mean, I buy a gun and under battle simulations it fires 4 times and fails 2 times. I can understand that. But would I buy that gun if it has been tested only under laboratory conditions and that too with blanks?

The Pentagon has yet to conduct a truly realistic test of the system, but it has scored six direct hits. However, in those tests the general area and the radar signature of the mock enemy warhead was known in advance, and in only some were minimal countermeasures used to try to confuse the system.

and what about this?

The Pentagon is likely to deploy its multi-billion dollar national missile defense system in Alaska in September even if it fails its flight tests this summer, the general in charge of the program said Tuesday.

Source

 

[Free Enterprise]

The NMD would not grant immunity to nuclear strikes from all sources therefore it is impossible to argue that the development of such a system would render the United States invulnerable and able to launch strategic nuclear attacks on other countries. Even if it did grant one hundred percent immunity then I would much prefer the U.S. acquire it long before most other countries did (if somehow they discovered a viable technique to deploy such a system).

Despite the fact a anti-nuclear missile defense system is not a one hundred percent immunity to nuclear strikes it would still both worth pursuing in the long run since it would provide a base to expand missile (and possibly other forms of) defense and would provide further insight into the defense against nuclear missiles. The primary purpose would admittely be limited to foes with minimal or rudimentary nuclear arsenals in the immediate future (perhaps 5-10 years). Testing should continue after the deployment of the NMD and it should not be viewed as a shield of invincibility however that does not mean it is necessarily a waste to construct.

I would favor a reduction in nuclear arms (for the United States) if a system could attain a substantial level of utility.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Who is going to hit us with an ICBM? And we could stop alot more of those needles if we pumped the money into intelligence which seems to be lacking as of recently. I'm usually all for military research but this is such an insane amount of money to counter a threat that is barerly even there. I would almost support it if it meant that the US would also get rid off all their nukes since there would be no more use for them, but that would never happen.

Its an insane amount of damage that just 1 ICBM would do. 10 billion dollars pails in comparison. The reason the threat is not out there is because we spend so much money to deter it. I'm sure if we had no nukes or no defenses against them the possibility would be much more attractive. And if our conventional military was weak we would be at greater risk for a conventional attack. There are plenty in the world who will use force to get what they want and that doesn't just include America. There are situations where China or North Korea may attack the US with an ICBM or threaten to do so. Nuetralizing that threat would greater server American interests.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

@GrandAdmiral: Good to see you at least know what you are talking about. I am sorry if I sounded skeptical earlier but CFC-OT forced me to be so.

So what do you say about the fact that the all the current tests of the missile defense system has been rigged. I can understand if a system is not perfect. I mean, I buy a gun and under battle simulations it fires 4 times and fails 2 times. I can understand that. But would I buy that gun if it has been tested only under laboratory conditions and that too with blanks?

and what about this?

The Pentagon has yet to conduct a truly realistic test of the system, but it has scored six direct hits. However, in those tests the general area and the radar signature of the mock enemy warhead was known in advance, and in only some were minimal countermeasures used to try to confuse the system.

The Pentagon is likely to deploy its multi-billion dollar national missile defense system in Alaska in September even if it fails its flight tests this summer, the general in charge of the program said Tuesday.

Source

The failures that did occur had to do with the booster and not the missiles ability to intercept. Colliding with the missile was the real challenge of the project so thats what the tests focused on. Thats not rigged testing. As I stated earlier countermeasures will only be present from MIRVs which China and North Korea have not deployed. These are only present in the more advanced arsenals. Dealing with decoys and the boost phase was largely based on technology which has already been achieved. So some tests were criticized for a lack of a booster and the 2 misses were actually caused by their failure. The booster was not the technological leap that prevented us from creating similar systems in the past. This doesn't reperesent a failure of the system. This only accounts for some of the tests others used decoys and boosters. The system will continue to improve after deployment and testing will continue.