MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD: Is it needed?

[RyanH]

For once, I might agree with President Bush.... Imagine that. His idea for a MISSiLE DEFENSE shield seems to be a well-needed defense mechanism since there are several small rogue nations that cannot be trusted, particularly in the hands of unstable leaders like Saddam Hussein.

Democratic Senator Leahy is, however, opposed to the plan, but I am not familiar with the opposition's argument, other than that it would be expensive. Do any of you know the other arguments being presented as to why a MISSILE defense shield would not work? I want to become more familar with this issue....

 

[Jimsbbc]

isn't this a continuation of the Star Wars program Ronald Reagan introduced?

 

[Wraith]

I cought a little bit of that argument. The opposition feels that it is only a theory and can't be proven effective therefore a waste of money. I personally think it is a good idea - but isn't this just an upgraded 'Star Wars' plan? What happened to that?

 

[RyanH]

Well, if there is major doubt as to its effectiveness.....why pursue the plan.....this seems like a no-brainer...

I wasn't aware that its effectiveness has been questioned.

 

[Cleaner]

Well the patriot work out very well.


Yes -- with all the littel guys these days.
It should be global and shoot down all actors.
That way everyone has the protection of it.

 

[MR.?]

The Star Wars Misslie Defense Program proved to be futile. The effectiveness of such a program has been heavily debated. The idea of a missile defense system is very noble and intriguing, however many researchers believe that to perfect a system of this complexity is highly unlikely and considered a waste of money and time.

 

[RyanH]

It's a waste of time with current technology. You see, the Pentagon likes to engage in projects with technology that is clearly not up to par, but they force it through anyway and end up spending Billions by the time they finally throw the towel in. It's all a cushy little cluster fuck with weapons manufacturers. It's a good idea, no A VERY GOOD IDEA, to have a missile defense system. But work has to be done in coming up with new technologies, because with current techs. the system would be unreliable and put us back into triple digit debt. And the russians can toss my hairy salad, these fuckers sell their top nukes to anyone with the cash, and than cry foul when we want to build a shield? FUCK EM!!!!!!

So are you saying that President Bush is sold out to big business---weapon manufacturers?

 

[Jimsbbc]

well, consider this though. As sucessful as the Patriot was at striking down scud missles, the tehnology exists. Remember, the Gov't technology is far more advanced than anything civilians have, computers included. If the Patriot was being used 10+ years ago, isn't possible that maybe they have a system developed now that is more sophisticated, reliable?

 

[RyanH]

If there is even a substantial probability that a system would work, it seems only sensible that we should spend our resources on developing it. Although, we should not go too much into debt in the process. Somehow we should look for solutions without piling up "Regean like" debt all over again.

What other defense would we have to unstable leaders of rogue nations? Not employing a defense mechanism seems to great a risk.

Based on what I've heard, I am with the President on this one, thus far....

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

RyanH,

Did you see some of the appointees to some military posts? (Undersecretary of the Air Force was one of the posts)

They were pulled directly from the executive level at the defense contractors - from Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin? This was all kept kind of quiet but has been sharply, and rightfully criticized.

It is a total sellout to the defense contractors, who are huge winners from the missile defense shield idea.

Truth: The Patriot is/was a dismal failure. It was seemingly effective in protecting Israel during the Gulf War because the Scud missile was only slightly more advanced than a bottle rocket. The Patriot worked infrequently. Maybe the technology is there...I personally say it isn't.

Have there been any large scale missile attacks ANYWHERE on the earth(much less toward the US) to warrant this multiple-hundred-billion-dollar effort?

This is a crappy idea. It is simply Bush payback for the big time campaign donations. Ideally, Bush may want a cold war scenario with China like we had with the Soviet Union for so long.

RyanH, I know you haven't served in the military. I'll tell you something: the Army has been marching for 225 years, and the boots still suck. The equipmetn you carry on your body (as an infantryman, the heart of the fighting force) is uncomfortable and could be greatly improved.

Our servicemembers would much more appreciate defense dolars spent on these things...not to mention some decent on post housing while they are at it.

Defense Budgets are not (sadly) about soldiers (or other services), they are about corporations. I'm generally a Republican, but I call a spade a spade, and Bush is fucked up on this one.

 

[RyanH]

MattTheSkyWalker: Your points are well-taken. Although, I have no military experience, I can also see where the existing military force has been neglected. But, how would ground troops help us in the face of missile attacks? Isn't missile defense technology the only way to prevent this type of particular threat?

While you are certainly right---there have been no large scale missile attacks, how do we know this will be the case in the future?

For instance, if an unstable leader fron North Korea or even China were to unsensibly launch missiles at us.....what would our defense be? Isn't speculation always necessary when planning military strategy?

At any rate, I'm surprised by your response. I expected you would argue the opposite.......

 

[danielson]

apparently scientist have likened it to trying to shoot down a bullet shot across a football field. the technology we have probably aint that good. go with lasers.

and wht the feck. if u guys put a base in britain we become a target therfore we should be shielded. if we're not then we might as well rename the country 'americas bitch'. but i can understand that any president wants to protect his country. but it just potentially renders other counrties weapons useless, making them seek new weapons opr be at a tactical disadvantage, hence increasing the arms race. me thinks thats why countries are opposed to it (olh andd the fact they aren;t under it!)

if one is built in the UK u guiys better foot the bill. our rifles are turd, we should have bought M16's in the first place, they better notspend money on siometing that may not work when they need to make sure they have rifles that are robust enough for military udsage

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Ryan,

My point about the ground troops was merely that they suffer most from this egregious mis-allocation of defense dollars. Their basic soldiering needs are not being met, yet we are spending megabucks to implement something that will not work. (Read on).

North Korea? Well, now that Kim Il Sung is dead, the threat of irrational action has diminished. Yes, the current ruler is unpredictable, but he is faced with the daunting task of bringing a country back from famine and poverty. Just recently, North and South Koreans were visiting each other. This (if anything) is a harbinger of better times over there.

And China? Well, although the administration may want a Cold War environment to justify this monstrosity, but the reality is that huge sums of foreign money has been invested in China, and this has allowed them to become a major player on the world economic stage. It seems unlikely even unrealistic that they would jeopardize that with a "rogue missile launch" (to use popular CNN language).

Yes, it is good to be proactive in matters of national defense. However, this is unwarranted, and it comes at the expense of improving the day to day living condition of our servicemembers.

*****************************************

On to the next point: THE FUCKING PATRIOT DOESN'T WORK. If you want I can quote many Air Defense Artillery officers that I know from my days in the military, who will tell you how shitty the Patriot really is.

It is a failure. There is also something called THAAD, which stands for Theather High Altitude Air Defense. This is an anti-missile system that was intended to protect ground units deployed in the field. (A "theater" in military-speak is where a campaign is waged - for example the Persian Gulf was the "theater" for Desert Storm. In WW2, there was the European "theater", the North African "theater" etc.)

THAAD failed two of the three tests that the pentagon held to determine whether it should be put into production. Since it failed, it was sent "back to the drawing board" and not mass-produced.

Another anti-missile failure.

It is unreasonable to think that a SPACE-BASED system could be successful if a ground based one is not.

As I said - this is a bad idea - a payback for the campaign contributions.

 

[YellowD]

Don't forget the foreign policy implications undertaking a project like this will ultimately alter. Every foreign country that ever invested in ICBM's is sure as hell going to be pretty PO'd at the US for even attempting a project like this. If successful, we could nearly neutralize thousands of missiles aimed for the U.S., which is a frightening prospect for those countries using that as leverage.

 

[Champ]

I think that it is bullshit that the weapon system failed in its trial run. I mean common, it makes the enemy feel better that the darn thing didnt work. But in reality it would work otherwise they wouldnt spend the money.

ALso the money that was funneled intot the starwars project did not produce a missile defence, but it brought many new technologies to market. This money would go alot farther than just providing missile defence. It would help the us take the next step in military technology.

I mean how do you think we developed the lasers that read and write cd roms and do surgerys.

 

[WODIN]

It is tough enough to triangulate a point with a solid stationairy reference point. Try doing it with all three moving. You need a fourth point that isn't yet calculated in order to acheive a point to point contact. And if your off my a 1/100,000 of a percent which is about 100 miles, your fucked! It wont work with today's technology. Period.

 

[Wfabrizio]

This MDS is such a crock of shit, I can't believe it's still being pushed. MDS is a great way for the new administration to secretly funnel billions of dollars into other programs and into the pockets of their corporate military industrialist friends. Just like all of the programs put forth by Reagan.

It's pretty obvious that it's bullshit since even most of our allies even doubt it's ability to do jack shit.

 

[MR.?]

The Patriot Missile was highly inaccurate. Initial reports of the accuracy of the missile system by US military officials were exaggerated. After the war ended hearings were held to determine its true capabilities. In the end research and the studies proved the missile to be highly ineffective due to software and design problems.

If you have any doubts...here is a link.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I think that it is bullshit that the weapon system failed in its trial run. I mean common, it makes the enemy feel better that the darn thing didnt work. But in reality it would work otherwise they wouldnt spend the money.

I can give you the addresses of people that watched the THAAD tests and saw the miss. I could give you the home phone numbers of officers in charge of Patriot batteries and let them tell you how sorry of a system this is.

ALso the money that was funneled intot the starwars project did not produce a missile defence, but it brought many new technologies to market. This money would go alot farther than just providing missile defence. It would help the us take the next step in military technology.

Champ - not to flame you - but anyone who has ever served in the military can tell you that better technology is not what we need to win the war, which is after all, the military's mission.


The fucking stealth bomber doesn't have stealth capability in the rain. Yet it is pushed, when a real ass-kicker like the A-10 warthog is being retired.

I'm getting off teh point - but the last fucking thing defense dollars need to be spent on is a missile shield that will NOT work, and will suck up much of the Defense budget for the next decade.

 

[Frackal]

This is a total sham...listen, Saddamn Huessein, and the leaders of these so called 'rogue' nations, which are only conisdered 'rogue' nations when it serves our political interests, are not stupid.

No person smart and devious enough to be the leader of a country, ie. Saddam Huessein is going to launch a nuclear/biological/chemical weapon at the United States from his country, in turn facing total annihilation for a chance to take out a part of Manhattan. It won't happen, if they are going to bomb us, it would be covert terrorist style, like sneaking it over on a boat.

Also, this system is for OFFENSE. Having a web of powerful space lasers circling the earth will basically give us complete 'space superiority' over the entire world. Later I will find some quotes on this aspect of the 'BM Defense System.'

Oh, and yeah, Bush is in the pocket of the military industrial complex...

 

[RyanH]

What countries to you all feel are our biggest threats? North Korea? MatttheSkyWalker--you mentioned that you doubt they are much of a threat.....

 

[Badkins21]

Although I respect the opinions of the more knowledgeable people on this subject--Matt--I have to say that when it comes to new technology, there is always, always skepticism. I'm not going into specifics, because I am not qualified when it comes to military technology, but IN GENERAL, anything "new," and "high-tech" is always feared because it MIGHT not work...But what if it could?

**And why the fuck would we care how other countries FEEL about it...that's the lamest friggin' point. Argue money, argue effectiveness, BUT don't argue "foreign relations" when it comes to defending American soil!!

 

[Wfabrizio]

Badkins, that is not the lamest point. A missle defense shield would have to operate internationally and domestically. Our NATO allies are not on-board with this idea because they know it will not pan out the way that they are pushing it.

Of course our President and his cronies will say it will work, they are the ones pushing for it. Their industrial friends are lobbying the piss out of Washington to get it done. The opinion of our allies should mean alot to you. They have an outside view and in every case an outside opinion needs to be reviewed.

 

[Fonz]

This thread is cracking me up........
Don't mean to flame, but do any of you guys do
aerospace/aeronautical engieering?

You guys are arguing about something you have
no knowledge about.

2 Things guys:

1. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!

It enters the atmosphere, then separates.
The warhead is made of Uranium(pure) which is
VERY DENSE and you'd have to nail it with a VERY
BIG explosive to destroy it.
It would have to be a skin-skin kill too.
Big explosive=extra weight=less manouverability=
not a chance of hitting the target.

To sum it up:
There is NO CHANCE of intercepting it.

2. Patriot missiles have a top-speed of Mach 3-5
(depending on the model/booster-type used).

IF THEY HAD PROBLEMS INTERCEPTING THE PATRIOT
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THEY COULD INTERCEPT
A BALLISTIC TRACK????? I think not.

The air defense shield is a current joke in the aerospace field.

The only theoretical way of intercepting ballistic inbound track
would be with lasers. They would heat up the war-head
to the point it exploded. However, at this time the
technology is not there. I'm talking about a free-electron laser
btw.(In case you're interested).

Godspeed

 

[lt1yw]

Intercept

"You guys are arguing about something you have
no knowledge about.

2 Things guys:

1. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!"

That may be true, but the defense shield that was discussed was to intercept very soon after deployment, on the way up when it is not going nearly as fast. That would be the only way to effectively target the missle.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Fonz,

Have you even been reading te thread? Almost every post is pointing out the near-impossibility of the system. Some of us have SEEN earthbound systems fail.

Trying to make yourself feel smart again? Sick of doing that on the anabolics board? I am

 

[RyanH]

Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said this morning on Meet The Press, that the technology does exist for a missile defense system. ........Is he B.Sing?

 

[peter8581]

. A MIRV warhead(thats the cone of an inter-continental
ballistic missile which has the actual nuclear warheads)
has a RE-ENTRY speed of MACH 14!!!!!!!!!

It enters the atmosphere, then separates.
The warhead is made of Uranium(pure) which is
VERY DENSE and you'd have to nail it with a VERY
BIG explosive to destroy it.
It would have to be a skin-skin kill too.
Big explosive=extra weight=less manouverability=
not a chance of hitting the target.

To sum it up:
There is NO CHANCE of intercepting it.

A laser shoots at the speed of light. with the right calculations and technology you can easily hit a warhead

 

[jja]

**And why the fuck would we care how other countries FEEL about it...that's the lamest friggin' point. Argue money, argue effectiveness, BUT don't argue "foreign relations" when it comes to defending American soil!!

How the fuck can you not argue foreign relations? There are 6+ billion people in the world and only about 270 million of them are American. We may be a very rich country, but we still can't do whatever we damn well please.

And, aside from the fact that it would piss off the rest of the world, the software to control such a huge system just isn't there. It would always be much easier for enemies to bypass the software than for us to maintain it in the face of new wartime attacks.

 

[Champ]

There were alot of fantastic achievements made from the starwars program. Lasers for example wouldnt be at their current level of sophistication if there werent millions of dollars poured into the starwars program. These advances made cd players and heart surgeries with lasers possible.
Whether it is possible to build a space missile defense or not, this is the only way that the american public is going to approve of R&D money for experimental technologies unless they are promised somthing like a missile defense.

Champ - not to flame you - but anyone who has ever served in the military can tell you that better technology is not what we need to win the war, which is after all, the military's mission.

No Flame taken Matt. I thought that the Gulf war was won becuase of superior technology. But then again I only thought that from what I saw on TV.
but, WW2, nuclear bomb....

I agree that the money could be used for better purposes in the military instead of the sheild sucking it up for a decade.

I say, give us back 200 bucks instead of 300 for the tax break. Take the other 100 and use it for the shield.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said this morning on Meet The Press, that the technology does exist for a missile defense system. ........Is he B.Sing?

If you consider the subpar performance of the Patriot, and the failure of the THAAD system, yes it looks as if he is full of shit.

However I do not have a Top Secret clearance, and the government had the Internet in 1969, so they may have some things I am not aware of.

 

[Fonz]

Put a laser in Space?

Thats definately NOT how a laser-based system
works.

First-off:

You need a mirror in order to focus 6 or more
different laser beams into one COHERENT
BEAM.

This is called a phased-array laser.

Secondly:

You'd need to be able to channel enough power into the laser
for it to be a weapon, without obviously damaging the mirror.

40MegaJoules will INCINERATE a MIRV in re-entry.

The mirror is the KEY.

You then have to use "adaptive optics" to compensate for the
scattering effect the atmosphere would have on the coherent
laser pulse(made out of 6 beeams as I have said).

If this is not done, "thermal blooming" occurrs and
the energy from the laser is dissipated into the atmposphere.
Result: :Less energy delivered to the incoming misile.

The one HUGE advantage this system would offer is that
the recycle-time of the laser is VERY, VERY FAST.

I'm talking one pulse per .05 seconds.
You could shoot a missile 20 times in 1 second.

Thats 40MJ per pulse btw. result: BYE BYE missile.

Another expansion of this proposed laser defense sytem
is for OFFENSIVE use.

i.e. You could deploy small mirrors on multiple satellites.

You could then fire from the ground-based laser
and BOUNCE it off the mirror on the satellite.
The beam would then be directed downwards again.
This would give you the ability to strike any ground-based
target anywhere in the world.
Even airborne targets using this method could be targeted.
(But it would be a lot harder)

Without space-based mirrors, the laser system would only
be able to hit targets on the visible horizon.

Godspeed

 

[Latimer]

It's really going to be a defense system against U.F.O.'s. We already have one in place.