The missile defense shield

[immortalmack]

It works! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite)

[Dark Razor]

Because it can shoot down satellites? From what I understand a satellite is pretty much a stationary target. (even though it moves at high speed it does not necessarily move much relative to the ship that fired the missile.)

I'd say it works if it can reliably shoot down multiple incoming missiles.

[san-cervaza]

total waste of money

spend it piping some water through africa or romanian orphanages or something

somebody tell bush that baby jesus says its a good idea

[Latte]

total waste of money

spend it piping some water through africa or romanian orphanages or something

somebody tell bush that baby jesus says its a good idea

I somehow doubt BushCo has objectives and plans where the welfare of people that won't give them anything in return or they can't gain anything from matters much.

The superpowers are gearing themselves in the face of a possible ww3, where knocking out communications, satellite and radar will be the ultimate act of crippling the defensive and offensive capability of an enemy. Knowing the shit works is kinda nice, and the show of capability may make other nations think twice about acting too aggressively, and may temporarily reduce interest of conflict for the other side (but will contribute to increasing the level of the arms race).

[immortalmack]

Ok....

The significance of this test is this:

Part of the Missile Defense Sheild (MDS) was a component in AK for tracking incoming ICBMs and the attacking component was going to be sea based and land based. With a destroyer using this ability to hit a target with an object that is decaying orbit or flat out coming towards earth presents us with a type of projectile hurling towards us. Now you can believe that every senior military official is watching because it displays just how far along in military science the US is.
Remember up until now the the only thing that humbled other centers of power (think Rome and Carthage) was Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of nuclear weapons. Not only that but you have a threatened Russia, China, and middle eastern actors. What will be interesting is the response of other countries to this new development. The US says that China is not rsponsible player because they won't show their military expenditures and China says that the US is irresponsible because they bully others buy showing how much they spend. The US wants to set up this shield to protect it's allies and thereby staying dominant because once it's built you either are protected by it or you are finding ways to beat it and maybe both. So if you don't challenge in nuclear weapons it goes back to conventional weapons. Who's going to top this one?

[san-cervaza]

to the above

ebola is much cheaper

[Dark Razor]

Ok....

The significance of this test is this:

Part of the Missile Defense Sheild (MDS) was a component in AK for tracking incoming ICBMs and the attacking component was going to be sea based and land based. With a destroyer using this ability to hit a target with an object that is decaying orbit or flat out coming towards earth presents us with a type of projectile hurling towards us. Now you can believe that every senior military official is watching because it displays just how far along in military science the US is.
Remember up until now the the only thing that humbled other centers of power (think Rome and Carthage) was Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of nuclear weapons. Not only that but you have a threatened Russia, China, and middle eastern actors. What will be interesting is the response of other countries to this new development. The US says that China is not rsponsible player because they won't show their military expenditures and China says that the US is irresponsible because they bully others buy showing how much they spend. The US wants to set up this shield to protect it's allies and thereby staying dominant because once it's built you either are protected by it or you are finding ways to beat it and maybe both. So if you don't challenge in nuclear weapons it goes back to conventional weapons. Who's going to top this one?

Yes, the US is trying to attain first strike capability against the other nuclear powers to negate their arsenal. That way the US would become the only relevant nuclear power again and could use atomic weapons at will.

However if they want to show that the system is functional, they should arrange a demonstration with a few dozen balistic missiles all being shot down simultaneously .

Also the US better be damn sure it works, because if you use nuclear weapons your enemy is going to respond anyway, and if your fancy system fails you're fucked.

[Thor]

If memory serves, I remember reading something to the effect that the US used the fact that Russia has had a ballistic missile defense system of sorts surrounding Moscow for some time as a precedent when the Russians originally voiced objection to the proposal at the time it was made.

I've got to say, living in Alaska for the last decade has shown me just how much the US treats this state like a third world country. Most people have no idea that the Japanese not only bombed cities in Alaska, but actually occupied land here. Some of the bloodiest fighting of the Pacific war happened right here on US soil and it amazes me that this usually isn't even mentioned in text books. The world only notices news about Alaska related to oil and the environment, so when it comes to the current missile issue, those of you living elsewhere might not be aware that this state HAS been overflown AND hit by a North Korean long range missile, so this isn't a hypothetical threat, it's a reality. Secondly, have any of you taken a look at the details for the newest generation of Russian ICBM's? Now, just which 'hypothetical enemy' did they have in mind when they designed those? Hint: It wasn't Tonga.

I think a missile defense system based on our own soil is a good move at this point, but placing them right on other nation's doorsteps is grossly overstepping our manners if not outright provocative.

[dubbeltop]

The missile defense shield

What they gonna do with it ?

[thod]

If i set up 2 guns and fire them at precisely the same time I can make the bullets collide in mid air. Soldiers can stop being afraid I now have an anti bullet defense system.

The fact is that ballistic missiles travel at enormous speeds. That means any counter missile must travel even faster. Its easy to introduce slight perturbations to make any counter missile miss since at those speeds path changes are not easy.

The truth is we cannot shoot down even one missile let alone a flock of them. It has never been done outside the contrived example of the bullet experiment.

The very idea of the US wanting to strike first is equal flawed. If the US were strike at all the Russian missiles silos it would create a nuclear winter. The number of Americans dieing to that would be greater than the number of Russians dieing to the missiles. The rest of the world would be slightly upset with the US when they find themselves plunged into darkness and their children die of malnutrition.

[Dark Razor]

The very idea of the US wanting to strike first is equal flawed. If the US were strike at all the Russian missiles silos it would create a nuclear winter. The number of Americans dieing to that would be greater than the number of Russians dieing to the missiles. The rest of the world would be slightly upset with the US when they find themselves plunged into darkness and their children die of malnutrition.

The idea of missile defence is that the enemy weapons are negated by the fact that they are intercepted mid air, and thus do not present a deterent against a first strike. So you do not have to hit their missile silos, you hit a few main cities which destroys the enemy's command structure and civilian and military administrative structures, and intercept the missiles that they do manage to fire.

As a result the enemy is incapacitated and you remain unharmed, mission accomplished.

[thod]

The idea of missile defense is that the enemy weapons are negated by the fact that they are intercepted mid air, and thus do not present a deterrent against a first strike. So you do not have to hit their missile silos, you hit a few main cities which destroys the enemy's command structure and civilian and military administrative structures, and intercept the missiles that they do manage to fire.

As a result the enemy is incapacitated and you remain unharmed, mission accomplished.


The first problem being there exists no tech capable of shooting down a ballistic missile flight.

The next is that launch protocols assume that central command structures will be eliminated. Just as the US plans on the assumption that Washington DC and NORAD are taken out before any orders can be given. The command structure is distributed. Any system that works on the basis of affirmation to fire is vulnerable. So you take the approach of the "dead mans handle". Unless you get the "hold" signal, you fire. Taking out the command prevents that signal being sent.

No missile defense shield is going to protect the capital. I can have my nuclear armed ship floating 12 miles offshore from Washington in international waters. At a sedate 3600 mph the missiles would land 12s later. You cant take out the subs hidden under the ocean.

[Dark Razor]

The first problem being there exists no tech capable of shooting down a ballistic missile flight.

The next is that launch protocols assume that central command structures will be eliminated. Just as the US plans on the assumption that Washington DC and NORAD are taken out before any orders can be given. The command structure is distributed. Any system that works on the basis of affirmation to fire is vulnerable. So you take the approach of the "dead mans handle". Unless you get the "hold" signal, you fire. Taking out the command prevents that signal being sent.

No missile defense shield is going to protect the capital. I can have my nuclear armed ship floating 12 miles offshore from Washington in international waters. At a sedate 3600 mph the missiles would land 12s later. You cant take out the subs hidden under the ocean.

I know that the system does not (yet) work that way, that's why I was critizising the OP's declaration that the system "works".

Though the most important point is that a missile shield replaces the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" with the doctrin of "nuclear primacy". The scenario that no missiles reach the country with the shield is the ideal situation. However, if the expected casualties are within "acceptable" levels while the enemy can be reliably obliterated, then that is a perfectly acceptable scenario as well for some policy planers.

One also has to evaluate what the actual goal within the conflict scenario is. Usually in war, your goal is to impose your will onto the enemy nation by force. To do so, you must break their ability to effectively resist you.

If you attack the economic and military centers of a nation with nuclear weapons, the ability of that country to respond immediatly will be significantly impacted, and in the case of a missile shield protecting the aggressor, mostly limited to weapons on submarines.

What is more important than the immediate ability to respond to an attack however, is the ability to fight and win a protracted conflict. If the attacker followes up on his nuclear attacks with large-scale strategic bombings of important military and civilian installations, and continuously repeats those bombings, the enemy will not be able to recover. Also keep in mind that the electronics of the target nation will be disabled by the EMP over a vast area, which further impacts his ability to muster a coordinated response.

So the purpose of the "shield" is mostly to reduce your own casualties to manageable levels while assuring that the enemy's military is permanently disabled.

[Rozza]

I'd say it works if it can reliably shoot down multiple incoming missiles.

And can deflect meteors away from earth... :mellow:

[immortalmack]

I know that the system does not (yet) work that way, that's why I was critizising the OP's declaration that the system "works".



I say the system works because:

1. It's not rational to simulate dummy missile attacks like the kind that may challenge. You really send a notice to the world that you have the capability.
The purpose of shooting down the satellite is to serve as a "type" of projectile. I'm pretty sure that something falling through the earths atmosphere may not be as fast as a missile but it won't be a Pinto either.

2. When has the government ever told you about technology when they first get it. they will tell us when all the bugs are ran out and they can start to profit from it.

3. Just because you can shoot down ICBMs doe'snt mean that you are ready to fight a doomsday scenario. What it does mean that as you fight conventional wars you can be more aggressive because no one can just quit the fight and lob some nukes even in desperation.

4. What this does (if the system is perceived by foreign countries to work)mean is that The US has up'd the ante so much that other world players are gonna begin to practice Machevelli and forge alliances to once adversarial powers. Also you might as well knock a few trillion dollars off the gdp because no one is going to cooperate willingly with an unofficial empire.