As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Dauphin


A quick google check later:

http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-boo1.htm

I was too lazy to google it.

[DanS]

Sorry DanS, but that logic simply doesn't hold water.

As myself and others have pointed out again and again in missile "shield" threads, an intercontinental ballistic missile is the most complex, the most expensive, the hardest to develop and most easily detected delivery system.

A warhead could be much more easily delivered via ship, small plane, or even truck. A multi-billion dollar missile shield gives the US 0% protection against such threats.

Far from "raising the entry barrier", a missile shield (even a perfect one) only channels potential enemies into using lower-tech delivery systems that are (perversely) perhaps more likely to succesfully reach their target (i.e. container ship technology is far more tested, reliable, and available than intercontinental ballistic missile technology).

These arguments have never been refuted in something like ten different missile shield threads.

DanS, I fear you have already forgotten the lesson of the USS Cole. Terrorists did not need to acquire a nuclear sub or an AEGIS cruiser to attack the Cole. They simply used an alternate delivery system: a rowboat.

You're right, it provides absolutely no protection against such threats. But people choose ICBMs for a number of very good reasons.

Parallel to the missile defense shield, we are working on defense systems against these methods of delivering nukes. I have heard of the FBI visiting people who have just had radioactive materials injected into them because the FBI's radioactivity sensors went off.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by Whoha

The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US.A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.

Fishing boats, small cargo vessels, container ships and small prop planes are all routinely - and successfully - used by smugglers to get drugs and illegal aliens into the US, despite the best attempts to "detect and dispatch" them. These are tried and tested delivery systems.

And as we know from NK's nuclear program, smuggling shipments of highly sensitive materials around the world is pretty easy. I wouldn't expect to see, for instance, a container ship set sail directly from North Korea to LA at the outset of hostilities. Anyone capable of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon deserves credit for more cunning than that.

For that matter, the container ship in question may not knowingly have anything to do with the attack. For example, a weapon could be trans-shipped to any number of ports around the world, and finally put on board an unsuspecting vessel destined for an American harbor. Then the weapon is detonated remotely.

The 50 billion could be far better spent on other programs such as intelligence - programs which, unlike a missile shield, would actually contribute something to our national security.

Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?

Better analogy: Should we buy 50 BILLION dollar bulletproof vests to defend against someone who has easy access to a sword?

There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US though, you should know that. You absolutely must get your money's worth with an atomic bomb.

With the correct trade/immigration policies we could reduce that to 0% easy, its a totally different problem from blocking an ICBM, which has a 100% chance of hitting its target if they pointed it in the right direction.

[edit] and hey your analogy is good as well, people charging you with swords are pretty damned easy to take out:

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/29/wnw_2-1.htm

[/edit]

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS

Parallel to the missile defense shield, we are working on defense systems against these methods of delivering nukes. I have heard of the FBI visiting people who have just had radioactive materials injected into them because the FBI's radioactivity sensors went off.

I would very like to hear or see a cite for that. I presume detection involves at least some other reason for a security check?

[DanS]

I spent some time looking, but can't find the reference. I think it was in the Washington Post, but honestly don't know since I read so many different news sources. I remember that it was from what I consider to be a credible source, however.

[Dauphin]

I just find it very unlikely that radiation from a medical procedure would trigger off an FBI sensor unless there was close proximity. The level of radiation from typical injection materials drops to background levels very rapidly with distance. If the source is strong enough to detect an any reasonable distance, or through blocking materials such as walls, its probably doing a lot of damage to the individual concerned.

[Giant_Squid]

Yes, because politicians are the ones who are putting this whole thing together. It's the Senators who are creating the plans and aiming the missiles? Because there are absolutely no scientists working on the project?

It was politicians who decided to create the shield, and who then gave money to companies with hired scientists to do it. As someone so wisely mentioned, if you are being paid money to do something as part of your employment, you're unlikely to quit your job because you don't think it will ever work, especially if its not working won't affect your getting paid.

How dumb can you get?

It would seem our administration is pouring 50 billion dollars into a research experiment on that very question, so stay tuned for the results.

And wasn't it Kennedy, a politician, who said we'll get to the moon by the end of the decade? How DARE a politician who knows less about science say those things.... oh wait, we did that. Never mind then

Once again, you're saying a totally different person in a totally different time period made a totally different statement about a totally different issue that was contradicted by a totally different set of people, therefore, your position has to be right? As easy for me to say that Qin Shih Huang Ti, a political leader, thought he could discover immortality, everyone told him he was crazy, he killed them all and tried it anyway, and, of course, he was crazy. I am not saying that in every single case politicians must necessarily be wrong about everything scientific, just that in a case where politicians and scientists disagree about science (and many scientists thought Kennedy might be right, so your example doesn't count) it's usually the scientists who have spent decades studying the subject and are more likely to know what they're talking about, and I can't imagine that anyone could say otherwise. I'm quite willing to concede that politicians know more about politics than scientists do, if it would make you feel better, but I honestly don't think this is such a hard concept.

The UCS have forgotten that progress takes baby steps. Simply because something doesn't work perfectly as it should now, doesn't mean that we should stop all work and tests on it. That's utterly silly. Saying that something like this will never work is a foolish statement akin to saying everything that will be discovered has been discovered.

Oh, I'm certain that one day we'll be able to build a working missile shield (although by that time they'll probably have better missiles). I'm also certain that one day we'll be able to create practical starships. I'm just not sure either of those days is today. I certainly wouldn't want Bush funnelling all of our money into trying to build a starship before it's likely to work, and so I don't want him funnelling our money into this until it's likely to work. I believe what these scientists are saying is that the point when it's likely to work is not here yet.

I might support a little bit of research into missile defense to make that day come sooner, although I suspect that it will mostly come because of unrelated advances in other fields of technology. But what Bush is saying isn't "It will work someday", he's saying "We've got it up right now." Which is dumb, because now people might think "Well, we can fight China or somewhere and be protected from them" whereas in fact if we tried this they'd nuke the West Coast into smithereens, not that it would be all that big a loss.

[Sinapus]

This is the same UCS from the 80s, right? I remember some of their earlier claims... and a nice essay debunking many of them by Doug Beason titled "Debating SDI: Opinion or Fact?" which is annoyingly not available online as far as I can see. The copy of the book that the essay was published in is in a box somewhere in my apartment. The essay was written in 1988, which probably explains why it's not anywhere to download. (darnit)

Summary: the author takes many of the main arguments used against SDI and points out the flaws in their arguments, and explains them.

Found a web page about him:
(I'll leave it at that so people have to do a little work to dream up the usual strawmen and ad hominem attacks. "We can't believe this guy! He's a-")

But the essay is only mentioned as one of the things he wrote.

Which is too bad, because I think the UCS tried to pull the same "balloon decoy" claim last time as well. Unforunately, all I remember from the essay are the UCS claims of 20,000 satellites being needed (because the entire Soviet ICBM arsenal is going to be launched from one point on the planet, after all) and spinning and/or putting reflective paint on a missile will protect it from laser weapons.

The tethered decoys are a new twist, though. I'm sure they tested it's effectiveness against sensors and such, right? You know, launched a rocket with a warhead that a balloon will inflate around, and deployed the tethered decoys to see if they'd come in all nice and confusing to infrared and radar sensors. All I saw in the report was some nice claims, nifty charts and a few pretty pictures.

Odd, I couldn't find that old report they put out back in the 80s at their website.

BTW: Nice use of the poorly-veiled "billions involved so of course anyone remotely close to the project is lying to rake in the cash so we can ignore whatever they say" ad hominem by several of you. Really convincing.

DanS wrote:

You're right, it provides absolutely no protection against such threats. But people choose ICBMs for a number of very good reasons.

Delivery time, for one. There's also the pitfalls of the Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM being caught before they have a chance to detonate... and finding proof that your nation was the one who sent the boat. Oh, and our reaction towards the group or nation we catch trying it. Same thing applies to the car or truck carrying it to places that are a bit harder to reach by boat. Like Stratcom HQ in Nebraska. Wow. Doesn't sound quite as easy as originally proposed.

I'm guessing it's amazingly easy to justify why you shouldn't do what you didn't want to do in the first place.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Whoha

There isn't a 100% success rate with smuggling things into the US though, you should know that.

Shipping a nuclear weapon would be much easier. You only have to get a vessel into the harbor or near the coast.

You absolutely must get your money's worth with an atomic bomb.

Own goal!
That's precisely why a missile shield is useless. If the US erects a credible missile shield, who is going to waste the enormous resources required to build an ICBM that will likely go splat against a shield and waste their warhead? They will simply use another delivery system, a delivery system likely to be much cheaper to deploy, much harder for the US to detect, and not leave a tell-tale pointer directly back to the place of origin (as a missile trajectory does). Vaporized ships leave few clues.

Better to let them build the ICBMs, which will waste more of their limited resources, and are easier for the US to detect, monitor, and destroy pre-emptively if necessary.

With the correct trade/immigration policies we could reduce that to 0% easy, its a totally different problem from blocking an ICBM, which has a 100% chance of hitting its target if they pointed it in the right direction.

Huh? 100% chance? Designing, building, testing, deploying and maintaining an ICBM is a lot harder than deploying a container ship (which you don't even need to build, you can use another nation's).

The kind of enemies that the "shield" is supposed to protect against are not likely to be able to afford the scores of test launches required to assure anything near 100% success rate. Just look at how many rocket failures nations like US, Japan, China, etc have experienced. And if they are able to build that many launchers, they can easily overwhelm the shield anyway.

and hey your analogy is good as well, people charging you with swords are pretty damned easy to take out

Sorry, try again. In a room where lots of people are carrying swords around everyday, it would be darn hard to spot a stealthy attacker. A Liberian-registered container ship or Panamanian fishing vessel sailing into New York or LA harbor isn't going to attract much attention. For that matter, a weapon could be pre-positioned far in advance. One could be sitting in the hold of an innocuous ship anchored near Seattle right now.

Summary: the billions spent on the "shield" are utterly wasted in terms of improving our national security. They get us nothing, other than persuading enemies to use cheaper - and possibly more effective - alternatives to ICBMS.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But implimenting the system IS a part of research. It will better be able to perform field tests if you have the system set up how it will be when the technology is 100% workable.

Hm, no. Implementing a model of the system is a part of the research. This part was already done, and the model has been found wanting.

So they install the full scale system at any rate. It just boggles the mind.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Sinapus

Delivery time, for one.

Probably not important for the kind of attack the "shield" is supposed to protect against. A surprise nuclear attack does not require speedy delivery time. After all, it will take many years for this kind of enemy to develop or obtain both the warhead and missile. Why would they balk at spending another six weeks shipping the weapon?

There's also the pitfalls of the Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM being caught before they have a chance to detonate... and finding proof that your nation was the one who sent the boat. Oh, and our reaction towards the group or nation we catch trying it.

Okay, let's compare:

Container Ship
Successful: vaporized container ships leave few clues
Unsuccessful: experience proves it's hard to catch, but if intercepted could provide trail back to attacker

ICBM
Successful: missile trajectory clearly identifies attacker
Unsuccessful: missile trajectory clearly identifies attacker

Hmm, looks like this "pitfall" more adversely affects an ICBM-based delivery platform.

Wow. Doesn't sound quite as easy as originally proposed.

Still a heck of a lot easier to deploy than an ICBM! Not to mention cheaper, harder to detect, and harder to trace if sucessful.

Any other arguments?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sinapus
There's also the pitfalls of the Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM being caught before they have a chance to detonate...

This bit is going to be really, really, really tough to pull off. I've got a nuclear device in the hold of my fishing boat and you are trying to catch me? You know, this thing could go boom at the wrong time.

The best you could do is to try to sink the boat before it gets to the destination.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sinapus
The essay was written in 1988, which probably explains why it's not anywhere to download.

Odd, I couldn't find that old report they put out back in the 80s at their website.

Nice double standard there.

UCS has plenty of reports on their website which are more up-to-date. Probably because they keep updating their positions as more information is available, maybe?

[CharlesBHoff]

Re: Re: As we knew all along... Missile Shield is a boondoggle

Originally posted by The diplomat


Protecting this country from a nuclear attack is not a waste of money!

I am amazed that some people (mostly form the Left) seem to want this country to be defenseless. You want NK to nuke us?

Isn't some defense better than none at all?

The Missile shield willnot work against than mass attack with thousand's of warheads heading toward you. The tests are false too as they know than missile is heading they way at what direction,speed and height and angle of warhead reentry the earth atmosphere. You can have than computer do the math ahead of time. Under real cond you will have no warning of than attack like 3 week from now we will fire than target missile at you to test the anti-missile missile. You willnot know the direction of the attack of it speed or height than other data about it untril you detect the missiles and God help you it you shoot drown than space shuttle or MIRA Space station by mistake.

[The Mad Monk]

The whole point of having a nuclear device is to say, "if you push me too far, I'll use it".

Part and parcel of that is the ability to deliver it in such a manner that it unmistakably came from you. A theat that cannot be credited to you is no threat at all.

The "Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM" (let me count those O's...yep, right number) has two flaws, in that it would be too slow to respond to the kind of emergency that would provoke a nuke strike in the first place, and that it's much too anonymous -- too many groups could conceivably claim responsibility, for varying reasons.