Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hey Firaxis! SDI doesn't work!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Don't believe the hype. This story is from salon.com.


    The rigged missile defense test

    The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect. Why has the media mostly ignored the story?

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Joe Conason


    July 31, 2001 | The Pentagon and the Bush administration are determined to sell the American people a national missile defense system that will probably increase tensions with allies and adversaries and will surely cost more than $100 billion. Their latest marketing exercise took place on the evening of July 14, when a "kill vehicle" launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific smashed into a rocket sent up from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

    Precisely according to plan, the target was instantly vaporized on impact -- and along with it, or so the Pentagon's uniformed salesmen hoped, the perennial concern that missile defense won't work. With the cooperation of major news organizations and conservative pundits, that test provided an enormous propaganda boost to the Bush proposal, which conveniently enough had been brought up to Capitol Hill by Defense Department officials just two days earlier.

    There was only one thing that all the happy salesmen forgot to mention about their latest test drive. The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged.

    No wonder, then, that Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the Air Force officer who oversees the NMD program, told the Washington Post on the eve of the test that he was "quietly confident" about the outcome. The general knew about the GPS beacon, while the reporters didn't.

    This rather significant aspect of the July 14 mission remained hidden in the fine print until a few days ago, when the Pentagon confirmed the role of the GPS device to a reporter for Defense Week magazine. But of course most Americans still don't know why the test functioned so smoothly, because the Defense Week scoop was either buried or ignored by the mainstream media, which had so obediently celebrated the technological breakthrough two weeks earlier.

    And as Kadish later acknowledged, each of the previous three tests -- two of which failed anyway -- had also involved the use of a guidance beacon. (To longtime observers of the missile-defense effort, this latest news recalled the notorious "Star Wars" scandal, when investigators discovered that a target had been secretly heated to ensure that it would be picked up by the interceptor's infrared sensor.)

    Reuters was among the few news organizations that bothered to cover the Defense Week story. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons." Probably not, although we can always hope that the Iranians or the North Koreans or the Chinese will attach to each incoming nuke a loudspeaker that screams "come and get me!"

    Unfortunately, weapons experts agree that even the most primitive enemy missiles are more likely to carry a very different kind of accessory, namely, decoys designed to fool the computerized sensors aboard the kill vehicle.

    While the missile launched from Vandenberg on July 14 did spit out a single Mylar balloon as a symbolic decoy, that scarcely challenged the kill vehicle's capacity to select the correct target -- particularly because there was no GPS beacon on that shiny balloon. In real warfare, an incoming missile is expected to deploy multiple decoys of varying shapes and sizes to lure the kill vehicle astray. Past tests have indicated that these simple fakes work far more reliably than the complex technology designed to detect them.

    Eventually, the truth about the inherent problems of national missile defense may emerge in congressional hearings. But meanwhile, the Pentagon and the Bush White House mean to stifle any dissent about the capabilities of their favorite toy. They have repeatedly sought to reclassify documents that show that the system doesn't function as advertised. And within the past few weeks, they have blatantly attempted to intimidate Theodore Postol, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is the country's leading critic of missile defense.

    In early July, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Defense Department officials asked MIT to confiscate the reclassified report from Postol and to "investigate [his] actions." At first MIT president Charles Vest, no doubt worried about millions of dollars in defense research grants to his university, moved to comply with that request. Only when Postol protested publicly did MIT back down.

    Bogus tests and bullied critics are the hallmarks of a defense establishment that fears facts. With billions in contracts at stake and bellicose ideologues in power, the salesmen for national missile defense must conceal the many defects in their dangerous product. And the press corps, reverting to the bad habits of the Cold War, has done little so far to penetrate the Pentagon's propaganda.

    So when the next "successful" missile-defense test is announced with fanfare and fireworks, don't necessarily believe what you hear. You are the buyers targeted by this massive sales effort -- and you should most certainly beware.

    Comment


    • #17
      The last time the defence industry was threatened with massive loss of revenue Kennedy got shot....but of course that is just a conspiracy theory.
      To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
      H.Poincaré

      Comment


      • #18
        ...So Bush Jr. will live forever!

        Comment


        • #19
          SDI has the potential to become 100% effective. Right now in the beginning of a lot of future testing it's about 50% effective. This is of course in testing, which means the effectiveness is even lower than this in real war. I'm not sure why so many people are down on this for the fact that it isn't 100% effective yet. If you're reasons against are that it costs too much money than it is slightly more understanding. It is only slightly more understanding because if it does become 100% effective than it well worth the money to save millions of lives. If it doesn't become 100% effective than it was only worth the try in the defence point of view but a big dissapoint in the financial view. Every major technological improvement is going to take some time to become 100% effective. Give it more time for it to become 100% effective until then it looks like it's on the right track.
          However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

          Comment


          • #20
            Oh, and regarding the myth of the Patriot missile working mentioned above, here is some text from the Frontline documentary on the Gulf War, airing January 9, 1996:


            NARRATOR: America had rushed Patriot missiles to Israel and Saudi Arabia to shot down Scuds. In the skies above Tel Aviv and Riyadh, they dueled with the incoming missiles. The Patriots got as close as they could and detonated, filling the air with shrapnel.

            The Patriot became a symbol of resistance, damping down the pressure for Israel to join the war.

            Pres. GEORGE BUSH: The Patriot is 41 for 42 - 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted! I view it as an honor to be here, to come to Raytheon, the home of the men and women who built the Scud-busters. We're very, very proud of you.

            NARRATOR: The Israeli government thought all this was nonsense. The Pentagon was claiming a kill every time a Patriot exploded near a Scud and the Israelis simply didn't believe the American figures.

            On the ground in Tel Aviv, experts from the Israeli military analyzed the damage every time a Scud fell to earth. What they discovered was kept top secret so as not to inflame Israeli public opinion.

            MOSHE ARENS, Israeli Defense Minister: When I met President Bush in Washington, we got into something of an argument because he was convinced that the Patriots were doing a great job. I told him that, at the very best, the intercept ratio maybe was 20 percent intercept probability. He asked me what I meant by that and I said that maybe out of every 10 Scuds the Patriots tried to intercept, they might succeed with two. But in retrospect, I was overstating the case. I think that probably not a single Scud was intercepted by a Patriot.

            NARRATOR: After the war, the Army downgraded the Patriot's overall success rate against Scuds to sixty percent. But that figure was hotly disputed and other studies placed the kill rate much lower. A GAO study of classified military records said the Army really had "high confidence" that twenty five percent of the Scuds were destroyed, but that there was no way to conclusively determine how many targets the Patriots had killed.

            --------------

            The above is actually being overly generous by only mentioning the Army's own estimate in the GAO study (a US Government study), and not the other results of that study. Most non-Army estimates now hover between 10 and 0 percent. The scud missile were so bad they tended to break up in flight without any assistance.

            Don't believe the hype! Missile intereception technology is still far off from working, and will never work 100%, because of the many constantly evolving countermeasures sure to be used.

            And Techwins, given that there has not been one successful non-rigged test yet, I would call that a success rate of 0% for SDI so far.

            Comment


            • #21
              I do have one additional concern/query. So suppose we have a situation where we have incoming nukes, we somehow manage to shoot one down, what happens to the warhead then? If it detonates anyway, just at an alernative site is that an awful lot better?
              "Don't know exactly where I am"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Grumbold
                For the ultimate in unexpected disasters, set your PC to automatically shutdown at a set time regardless of whether it is in use, then take all watches and clocks out of the room and disable autosave. Can you win before a sudden massive meteor strike heralds the end of the world?
                Heh, you could just live in California alternatively, I am sure their power supply will take care of that for you

                Back to nukes anyway. I would expect that the system for nuclear weapons is going to be a bit more sophisticated anyway, so who knows how the SDI factor will work. Look at SMAC, it works completely and utterly different to Civ2, for example...
                Speaking of Erith:

                "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'm not sure why so many people are down on this for the fact that it isn't 100% effective yet. If you're reasons against are that it costs too much money than it is slightly more understanding.
                  So we can't 'be down on it' because 1) it's breaking of the ABM threaty 2) It's a potential threat to the gobal security and powersystem?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    My understanding is that Mr. President isn't prepared to honour a treaty unless he signed it himself.....
                    "Don't know exactly where I am"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Considering that he can't write that kind of narrows 'em down.

                      The whole worlds biggest amusement is making mean jokes about the worlds mightiest man. Isn't it great?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TechWins
                        SDI has the potential to become 100% effective.
                        Repeat after me, nothing is 100% effective. Nothing.


                        Right now in the beginning of a lot of future testing it's about 50% effective.
                        As shown above, that is not the case at all.


                        I'm not sure why so many people are down on this for the fact that it isn't 100% effective yet.
                        I am down on it because it will never be very effective. With decoys, multiple missiles to overload the system, and terrorists nukes there is no way that a NMD will protect the US.


                        If you're reasons against are that it costs too much money than it is slightly more understanding. It is only slightly more understanding because if it does become 100% effective than it well worth the money to save millions of lives.
                        Why is it going to save a single life? How many nukes have been shot at the US in the last 50 years?

                        I don't recall a single one. Not one life has been lost in the US because of a nuclear bomb and yet suddenly we need a missile defense shield that will protect all of us.

                        And for those of you that don't believe MAD will work with rogue nations, look at Iraq. I listened on NPR a year ago to a show that was asking why the Iraqis did not use their chemical weapons during the Gulf War. They had them and they were ready to use them. So why didn't they use them?

                        It turns out, we told Saddam that if he used them, we were going to retaliate with nukes. Now whether we would have or not, he did not chance it. He knew that if we were serious, than he was assured destruction. So yes MAD does work with rogue nations, but you won't hear it from Bush.


                        If it doesn't become 100% effective than it was only worth the try in the defence point of view but a big dissapoint in the financial view. Every major technological improvement is going to take some time to become 100% effective. Give it more time for it to become 100% effective until then it looks like it's on the right track.
                        It will never be 100% effective, remember nothing is ever 100% effective. My guess this will never get above 25% acurate. So yes I am going to oppose spending millions of dollars on a system that will never work and even if it does will serve no practical purpose.
                        About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. With a simple click daily at the Hunger Site you can provide food for those who need it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Umm I live in Ireland and generally the media doesn't feed us American propaganda but we have been hearing of these tests. Just about all the leaders of Europe are condemning it. Mainly because if Bush does get his wish (Not his wish of global warming the one where he wants to look like he's invulnerable )
                          we have the following possible situation.

                          An American "patriot" has been trusted with the blueprints/codes of the new SDI system and either by mistake or on purpose relays them to a friend in Beijing.

                          Chinese Leader : We are invulnerable with this marvellous system.

                          Chinese #1: Yes oh all-powerful one

                          Chinese Leader : We can attack whoever we want and destroy them before they can respond.

                          Chinese #1: Yes oh all-powerful one

                          Chinese Leader : Well Jolly good show then lets trot on over to our missile silo's and let those American blighter's have one or two eh?

                          Chinese #2: Righty-oh, Tally Ho chaps!

                          America gets nuked, surprise surprise SDI doesn't work and so America lobs a few back at China and well you know the rest from there.
                          Destruction is a lot easier than construction. The guy who operates a wrecking ball has a easier time than the architect who has to rebuild the house from the pieces.--- Immortal Wombat.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ok first what you have to understand is that George W. Bush's National Missile Defense (NMD) is a different entity than Ronald Regan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)

                            NMD is an anti-ballistic missile system designed to stop either an accidental launch from an established nuclear power, or a small attack from a rogue nation like Iraq or north Korea...from what i have read, NMD will have 50-100 missile interceptors when it is finally completely

                            however the primary hurdle to overcome with NMD isn't technical (though a great many challenges still faces it) the thing most likely to stop NMD is the federal budget surplus, or more precisely the lack of a budget surplus...current estimates are that the non social security/Medicare federal budget surpluses are going to be very small if they even exist...the white house announced a change in accounting practices that makes the non-social security/Medicare about 4 billion dollars bigger...also at the end of the week the white house is also announcing cuts in the military

                            they are cutting an aircraft carrier battle group, 15k army troops in Europe, 30k national guard soldiers, and 3 air force squadrons in part to help pay for NMD

                            read about it here
                            Accounting changes
                            military cuts

                            and i also thought that Bush and Gore both promised to pay down the national debt which is trillions of dollars...unless they use social security/Medicare surpluses they won't be able to do that

                            then not only is NMD sucking money from the conventional military and social programs...once it is built all it will do is protect us from Iraq and north Korea...so the united states is no more powerful than what it was, Russia and China would both be able to overcome the little protection it offers, and the US conventional military is going to be smaller meaning that China therefore becomes more powerful relative to the US even if it doesn't expand its military

                            the best time to hit a ICBM is when it is either on the ground or when it is in the boost phase...the airforce has a 747 with a laser that can rupture an ICBMs fuel tank...however it's not fully operational yet...but it even seems like the old phoenix missile system from the F-14 tomcat or a new very long range missile could be fitted on a 747, or a B-52 or other large plane and then those planes just hover above the rogue nation ready to strike at possible ICBM launches when they are in the relative slow liftoff stage...right now the US and the UK controls most of the skies over Iraq, and i'm sure that it would be easy to do the same over North Korea, or Iran, or whoever else is considered a threat...there was also a proposal by the navy to redesign the Aegis Missile system for ABM duty, and then the Navy would just park a Aegis Cruiser close to the rogue nation so it would be able to hit an ICBM on liftoff

                            this can be done...but it depends most on the budget surplus...if the economy tanks there isn't going to be a NMD system or if Putin and Bush can't work out an agreement over the ABM treaty and Russia starts putting multiple warheads back on their nukes then i'm sure congress will balk at NMD...however if the economy goes back to being better than before then most likely Bush will build an NMD system to better protect his presidency from a democratic opponent more than a rogue nation

                            also NMD can't stop terrorist with nukes

                            SDI is a proposed ABM system that in theory would protect the US from a Massive Soviet nuclear strike...though some have suggested that in practice SDI would be coupled with fleets of stealth bombers that would penetrate Soviet airspace and launch a pre-emptive first strike on Soviet ICBMs and that SDI would have to counter a Soviet retaliatory nuclear strike

                            however SDI would almost certainly have failed, and the idea of SDI (which could have been a bluff to encourage the strained soviet economy to spend even more on its military) died with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991

                            SDI would have had to intercept massive numbers of Soviet ICBMs, most of which were deep in Soviet territory, in highly defended airspace so the only way to hit these ICBMs in their highly vulnerable liftoff phase would have been to place, either missiles or laser or particle beams on satellites...if the missiles survived through the liftoff phase then the challenge would increase enormously

                            first until arms control banned multiple warheads, many missiles in both the US and Soviet arsenals carried them...that means that each missile would turn into a much larger number of decoys and warheads...each one of the nuclear warheads would have to be intercepted...if you fail to intercept all of those (which numbered in the thousands) then somewhere is going to get nuked

                            for those of you who are interested in learning more i found a site full of information about the history of the space arms race



                            here is a FAQ that contains just about everything you need to know about nuclear arsenals



                            but besides SDI not really existing in the real world...

                            100% effective SDI in civ isn't good for balance, while M.A.D. is...SDI lets one player launch nuclear attacks at will, without fear of reprisal, while M.A.D when coupled with more powerful nukes should make everyone think twice before using nukes...if nukes do completely destroy a city then even an enemy civ with five nukes should scare you (that's your five best cities and all the wonders they contain gone forever)...i don't know if firaxis will make nukes destroy a city it has good sides and bad, but if they did then M.A.D. would be absolutely essential...try playing SMAC with the following change...give missiles a range of 99 and a play on a small map where both sides have an equal number of cities and nukes...and see what it's like where the person with first strike capability has an enormous advantage

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Will MD/SDI work? Clearly, in some sort of indefinite sense, yes. However you have to look at it in a practical way, in which case, MD won't work.

                              Of course, this is just a game, and a player can always send a spy into a city to destroy it's SDI first.
                              (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                              (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                              (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Should be some modifiers for SDI

                                Getting back to the topic

                                There should be some modifiers for SDI. It shouldn't be 100% effective.

                                For example, if you are the most technologically advanced civ maybe it should be more effective, like say 75%. Maybe if you put it in all your cities, damage might be lessened, or pollution from blasts reduced, etc. etc.
                                Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                                Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X