Son of Star Wars

[JonnyBGood]

Looks like it's going well for the Americans guys. Ten billion dollars a year in order to fail to complete two tests? ****ing hell I would have done that for a couple of million! Also is it on here that someone said they were involved in working on the shield? Does anyone know what exactly makes it so hard to operate effectively? Reading wikipedia it seems that there is significant scientific debate over whether or not "destroying a solid fuel ICBM in it's boost stage is even feasible. Wiki also kindly linked me to this article which is a pretty interesting and, I'd hope, fairly unbiased commentary on the NMD (which also slightly disagrees with wiki :eek: ). Has anyone read any opposing viewpoints concerning the practicability of the system?

[Dace]

scientists say it's gay

americans say it helps boost the american economy by spending lots of tax money

i think its gay

[Summanus]

Why not address the underlying causes which would bring these missiles into play, instead of trying to unsuccessfully defend the country from them?

[Tactitus]

Everything is infeasible--until it isn't. Intercepting missiles will be a reality at some point, it's just a question of when.

Also, the system to destroy missiles in their boost phase is different from the one being currently tested (ballistic phase intercept).

Originally Posted by Summanus

Why not address the underlying causes which would bring these missiles into play, instead of trying to unsuccessfully defend the country from them?

How would you suggest that countries like North Korea and Iran, which seem intent on developing these delivery systems (and the nuclear weapons to go with them), be addressed? Diplomacy has yet to produce any tangible results. This is not exactly a rhetorical question since Europe will be in range of Iran's missiles long before the US is.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Does anyone know what exactly makes it so hard to operate effectively?

OK, say you're playing pool.

Say you've got to hit a red into the opposite corner.

Now say the balls are the size of dust particles.

That's about the scale of it.

It's like looking for a needle in the internet hay exchange.

Under current technology, it is, if not damn near, then actually impossible, and shall be for the foreseeabe future.

It's the bolded part that makes spending so much money on it, you know, stupid.

And that's even before getting into the argument about its political and military ramifications.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

OK, say you're playing pool.

Say you've got to hit a red into the opposite corner.

Now say the balls are the size of dust particles.

That's about the scale of it.

It's like looking for a needle in the internet hay exchange.

Is it the detection and act of precisely locating the target and it's track that is so complicated or actually getting something to intercept that target? Or both?

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Everything is infeasible--until it isn't. Intercepting missiles will be a reality at some point, it's just a question of when.

By feasible I meant is spending 80 billion dollars on this a good idea. We'll probably be able to do most things that don't break the laws of physics at some point (and maybe even some that do!) but spending everyone's money trying to develop matter replication or something isn't exactly a great idea.

Also, the system to destroy missiles in their boost phase is different from the one being currently tested (ballistic phase intercept).

I don't know if you read the last article I linked to but in it the guy, who seems fairly qualified, gives a whole host of reasons as to why anything bar boost phase interception is completely impractical due to the ease with which decoys can be used to quickly overload the NMD.

How would you suggest that countries like North Korea and Iran, which seem intent on developing these delivery systems (and the nuclear weapons to go with them), be addressed? Diplomacy has yet to produce any tangible results. This is not exactly a rhetorical question since Europe will be in range of Iran's missiles long before the US is.

Frankly I think anyone willing to launch a nuclear missile at someone is not the sort of person intelligent enough to get into power in a country such as Iran or North Korea. Rumsfeld himself told reporters "Countries have placed ballistic missiles in ships--dime a dozen--all over the world. At any given time, there's any number off our coasts, coming, going. On transporter-erector-launchers, they simply erect it, fire off a ballistic missile, put it down, cover it up. Their radar signature's not any different than 50 others in close proximity." Yet there's no system planned for deployment which could defend against this threat. No point bolting the door if you leave the window open innit?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Everything is infeasible--until it isn't. Intercepting missiles will be a reality at some point, it's just a question of when.

By this rationale, we really start spending money developing a death star.

How would you suggest that countries like North Korea and Iran, which seem intent on developing these delivery systems (and the nuclear weapons to go with them), be addressed?

The parent poster said "stop missiles coming into play", not into existence.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

By feasible I meant is spending 80 billion dollars on this a good idea.

Well, Congress seems to think it's feasible/a good idea, at least enough to fund it to the levels they have ($8.2B in FY2004). They might be wrong of course (wouldn't be the first time), but ultimately that's a political question more than a scientific one. In general, however, if you only fund projects that everyone agrees can be done then you're never going to be pushing the envelope.

We'll probably be able to do most things that don't break the laws of physics at some point (and maybe even some that do!) but spending everyone's money trying to develop matter replication or something isn't exactly a great idea.

We probably are funding matter replication to some extent (basic and applied research grants, etc). :/

One of the problems with being a really rich country is that you end up funding all kinds of junk. Much of it probably never pays off in any meaningful sense. Strategic weapons are especially problematic in that regard because their essential purpose is deterrence.

I don't know if you read the last article I linked to but in it the guy, who seems fairly qualified, gives a whole host of reasons as to why anything bar boost phase interception is completely impractical due to the ease with which decoys can be used to quickly overload the NMD.

Yeah, I read it.

Frankly I think anyone willing to launch a nuclear missile at someone is not the sort of person intelligent enough to get into power in a country such as Iran or North Korea.

Heh, first you imply that the US is really stupid to (try to) build a missile defense system and end up asserting Kim-Il Jung and the mullahs in Iran are far too intelligent to do anything foolish with the missiles they're trying so desperately to acquire. Do you have such a low opinion of all democracies btw, or just ours?

Rumsfeld himself told reporters "Countries have placed ballistic missiles in ships--dime a dozen--all over the world. At any given time, there's any number off our coasts, coming, going. On transporter-erector-launchers, they simply erect it, fire off a ballistic missile, put it down, cover it up. Their radar signature's not any different than 50 others in close proximity." Yet there's no system planned for deployment which could defend against this threat. No point bolting the door if you leave the window open innit?

Ships can be easily intercepted if you're looking for them though (which you probably would be doing during a "crisis" period). As can planes and every other delivery system--except missiles atm.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

By this rationale, we really start spending money developing a death star.

Well, you just have to convince Congress to fund it. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

The parent poster said "stop missiles coming into play", not into existence.

Once they exist they can be put "into play" in about 30 minutes. That may not leave you very much time to stop them.

[Marilyn Manson]

As long as it all adds to the Ronald Reagan Memorial Defecit™ (Currently standing at nine thousand trillion dollars.), I aint bitchin'.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

We probably are funding matter replication to some extent (basic and applied research grants, etc). :/

Only in a blue sky research 'you don't know that one of these things won't develop replicators' kind of way, and not $80bn. Even if it was $80bn, there's much more tech that can arise out of trying to develop replicators than there is out of the NMD.

[JBOY]

Wednesday's trial had been put off four times because of bad weather at launch sites and, on Sunday, because a radio transmitter failed.

so it works in good weather?

Fire missiles when its raining an its all good

[Nusselt]

I doubt they'll ever get it to work, even if they did afaik its still designed for limited missle intercepts, the R&D they get out of it won't necessarily be of any real use anywhere else either, but it means $$$$ for the big defence firms and looks all this stuff isn't exactly new either they'll always be generals and politicians who get caught up in the hype of the latest must have idea, whatever became of those nuclear powered aircraft and the billions spent on them?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, Congress seems to think it's feasible/a good idea, at least enough to fund it to the levels they have ($8.2B in FY2004). They might be wrong of course (wouldn't be the first time), but ultimately that's a political question more than a scientific one. In general, however, if you only fund projects that everyone agrees can be done then you're never going to be pushing the envelope.

I'm not saying fund nothing unless the entire scientific community agrees on it but this does seem to be especially "controversial", for lack of a better word.

We probably are funding matter replication to some extent (basic and applied research grants, etc). :/

Not to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year.

One of the problems with being a really rich country is that you end up funding all kinds of junk. Much of it probably never pays off in any meaningful sense. Strategic weapons are especially problematic in that regard because their essential purpose is deterrence.

I'd tend to agree as regards paying for crap but I think this one is pushing it a bit too far. God knows you probably waste far more on social welfare or something though.

Yeah, I read it.

Any thoughts? Any opposing articles?

Heh, first you imply that the US is really stupid to (try to) build a missile defense system and end up asserting Kim-Il Jung and the mullahs in Iran are far too intelligent to do anything foolish with the missiles they're trying so desperately to acquire. Do you have such a low opinion of all democracies btw, or just ours?

I'm hardly calling the entire USA stupid here. The fact that a democratic government can make a poor decision and tyrants are smart enough to know how far they can push the envelope is hardly revolutionary thinking. For some reason I always find you misrepresent your opponent's views in any sort of anti-American argument on this forum. I'm not some sort of vapid moron who runs around spouting off whatever trash comes into my head on a Thursday morning and I certainly don't need you insinuating something which we both know isn't true.

Ships can be easily intercepted if you're looking for them though (which you probably would be doing during a "crisis" period). As can planes and every other delivery system--except missiles atm.

I thought it had been a crisis period for the last three years over there

[Texan]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Also is it on here that someone said they were involved in working on the shield?

My organization is working on the facilities for the system, not the actual defense system.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not saying fund nothing unless the entire scientific community agrees on it but this does seem to be especially "controversial", for lack of a better word.

New weapons systems and especially strategic defense systems have always been controversial. I think that's been due more to politics than to science though.

Any thoughts? Any opposing articles?

I'm not an expert on missile defense but it seems like the author overstates the problems. The it-can't-possibly-work arguments are a bit late since the program is now in the testing/initial deployment stage. All we can do now is look at the test results and see if they're making sufficient progress to warrant continuation of the program. If I recall correctly, they've failed at something like 60% of the their tests--which isn't good but not exactly hopeless. Also, a high initial failure rate isn't necessarily indicative of a flawed concept. For example, the first missile launched underwater (Polaris) failed its first five launch tests but now underwater missile launch technology is fairly mundane.

I'm hardly calling the entire USA stupid here. The fact that a democratic government can make a poor decision and tyrants are smart enough to know how far they can push the envelope is hardly revolutionary thinking. For some reason I always find you misrepresent your opponent's views in any sort of anti-American argument on this forum. I'm not some sort of vapid moron who runs around spouting off whatever trash comes into my head on a Thursday morning and I certainly don't need you insinuating something which we both know isn't true.

I'm sorry. I probably should have put a winkie in there to denote the fact that I wasn't being serious. Oh wait, I did.

I shall attempt to avoid such subtleties in the future.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

New weapons systems and especially strategic defense systems have always been controversial. I think that's been due more to politics than to science though.

I'm not an expert on missile defense but it seems like the author overstates the problems. The it-can't-possibly-work arguments are a bit late since the program is now in the testing/initial deployment stage. All we can do now is look at the test results and see if they're making sufficient progress to warrant continuation of the program. If I recall correctly, they've failed at something like 60% of the their tests--which isn't good but not exactly hopeless. Also, a high initial failure rate isn't necessarily indicative of a flawed concept. For example, the first missile launched underwater (Polaris) failed its first five launch tests but now underwater missile launch technology is fairly mundane.

I think this is a different kind of problem here though. Most (that I've read/heard of) third-party observers have agreed that most of the tests conducted by the Pentagon haven't accurately portrayed the conditions that the NMD would have to face. I just read up on the Polaris test failures now and they seem to be more engineering problems (head-end insulation and bonding and thrust termination port failures) rather than scientific problems where the technology required quite literally doesn't exist (I realise I've drawn a pretty fine line there but blah).

Frankly I just think eighty billion dollars is an excessive amount for a system that still doesn't work. If the potential reward was invulnerability from WMD attack then maybe yeah it's worth it. However that's not what the project offers.

I'm sorry. I probably should have put a winkie in there to denote the fact that I wasn't being serious. Oh wait, I did.

I shall attempt to avoid such subtleties in the future.

Fair enough, I probably deal with too many pro-america trolls elsewhere. So do you think that the leaders of North Korea or Iran are likely to launch a nuclear missile attack on the US. I'd agree that they might try something which is more difficult to trace (the so-called suitcase bomb) but an actual missile attack. The kind of people in charge of those countries must have a certain Machiavellian sense of power in order to get where they are and I'm pretty sure that anything so bloody likely to get them hunted down to the ends of the earth is highly improbable.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So do you think that the leaders of North Korea or Iran are likely to launch a nuclear missile attack on the US.

No, not really. That's not how it's done. They will make their position known and the other countries of the world (not just the US) will have to decide how serious they are and if they really want to risk a confrontation with a nuclear power possessing long range missiles. So, for example, when Iran demands that Salman Rushdie (or someone similar) be extradited to face Islamic 'justice' they may just get him--how many nations would take such a risk (especially for a mediocre author)?

I'd agree that they might try something which is more difficult to trace (the so-called suitcase bomb) but an actual missile attack. The kind of people in charge of those countries must have a certain Machiavellian sense of power in order to get where they are and I'm pretty sure that anything so bloody likely to get them hunted down to the ends of the earth is highly improbable.

Sure, but they may someday be in a position where they have little or nothing to lose. Neither Iran nor North Korea are particularily stable countries. If their leaders are looking at the wrong end of a coup they may decide to up the ante. And in a change of power, who's to say whose finger is going to be on the button?

Then there's the accidental launch scenario. Terrorists/extremists seizing the missile sites, etc.