ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by mindseye

Whoever said that?

This argument usually turns up sooner or later in an NMD thread. Unfortunately, it's just a "false dilemma". There are many alternative ways to more effectively spend defense funds to increase the security of the US.

Well, we fund an army, navy, and air force because it is a far more effective way to spend defense dollars. They deal with a credible threat. They have a proven track record of actually providing defensive value.

Unfortunately, defense dollars are not limitless. The funds available for homeland defense and other forms of security are limited enough without spending untold billions on a "missile shield" that buys us nothing in terms of real security.

How are you 'defending the US' by spending $400 billion a year on conventional forces and MAD? You outspend the rest of the world by an absurd margin. You could combine the Russians, PRC, NK, and all other potential threats and you outspend them combined. Every year. Year after year. Meanwhile, the United States (and the rest of the Americas) enjoy these two huge, free moats. They are called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. There's actually four of them, they are soo big.

NMD spending from 1991 to 2026 is going to be about 30.2 billion. That's a drop in the freakin bucket, and it actually defends the Americas against something that could hurt us directly. I say us. That's right. If some dimm bulb launches a crude missile from 'away over there' it is as likely to hit Vancouver or Mexico city as it is to hit Oregon.

So, you can spend less than 10% of a yearly buget, but spread it over 35 years (net about one-third of one percent of spending) and it actually might defend us.

What do you think is good value for defending North America against an actual attack?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

then you can get to work on defending against those, as well.

Which kind of attack do you think is more likely?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by notyoueither

So, you can spend less than 10% of a yearly buget, but spread it over 35 years (net about one-third of one percent of spending) and it actually miht defend us.

You're still not getting it. The money spent on NMD is simply squandered. Because it is so easily and cheaply circumvented, it provides virtually no defensive value. Again: it's spending billions to safe-guard the chimney of a house with open doors.

What do you think is good value for defending North America against an actual attack?

Something which actually offers some real defensive value. Plenty of options there, for example increased monitoring of terrorist groups, tracking down missing weapons-grade plutonium, busting weapons smugglers, keeping ex-Soviet defense officials from pawning nukes, etc. All of which would contribute far more meaningfully to our nation's defense than some kind of hi-tech Maginot Line.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

And mindseye, I think nye is arguing that Kim might change from rational to irrational on his deathbed or something like that, and suddenly decide to launch nukes at the US.

What difference would an NMD system make in that situation?

Suppose the US had a 100% effective NMD. Would a suddenly irrational, dying Kim, intent on nuking the USA, just decide ... to forget about it?

Why wouldn't he instead order his generals to deliver the nuke in some other way?

[Q Classic]

mindseye, don't shoot the messenger...

i'm just trying to interpret a fanatic's words.

[Patroklos]

I love what you people describe as "easy." Unlike a terrorist group whose sole purpose is to kill people, any people, and as many as possible, a state would presumably have some greater goal. Probobly one with a timetable.

So no, I honestly cannot imagine any state actor "smuggling" a nuke into the US for the purpose of attaining a state goal.

[Q Classic]

I love what you people describe as "easy." Unlike a terrorist group whose sole purpose is to kill people, any people, and as many as possible, a state would presumably have some greater goal. Probobly one with a timetable.

So no, I honestly cannot imagine any state actor "smuggling" a nuke into the US for the purpose of attaining a state goal.

And I honestly cannot imagine any state actor immolating itself for no good reason, which neatly and cleanly underscores my argument that nkorea isn't run by blind, frothing anti-american fanatics, but a more pragmatic--albeit cruel and still anti-american--dictator.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Gee, UR, people in positions like Kim's have done some really nasty stuff. Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Stalin... I don't even really have to mention Hitler or Mao, but I will anyway.

Do you propose that the incidence of asteroid impacts is on the order of frequency as men with absolute power in FUBARed states doing really bad things?

None of these "madmen" you have listed launched a nuclear missile at anybody. Not even Saddam had any BCN weapons.

So much for that line of thought.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Very good then. It will be a warm end for all of us.

Not all of us, I say. You probably have nothing to fear.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
mindseye, don't shoot the messenger...

i'm just trying to interpret a fanatic's words.

Get over yourself.

[Q Classic]

Get over yourself.

then stop mixing your numerous opponents from different sides of the spectrum into one false monolithic group.

[notyoueither]

Are you some kind of Catholic nun, or something?

I mistook your intent. There. Are you happy now?

[The diplomat]

It wasn't a major flaw in the system that caused the failure.

-----------------------
Offering the first public explanation of what went wrong, Obering said the blame lay with an automated pre-launch check of the communications flow between the interceptor and the main flight control computer. Detecting too many missed messages, the system shut down automatically, as designed.

In response, the Pentagon will increase the pre-launch tolerance for missed messages. Obering said the tolerance level was set too low; increasing it will not risk a flight guidance failure, he said.

"We kind of did this to ourselves," Obering said, by setting the tolerance level so low.

"This has been nothing more than a minor glitch," he added. "Statistically, it's a very rare occurrence and most likely would not happen again."
----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/01/12/missile.defense.ap/index.html

[Patroklos]

You're still not getting it. The money spent on NMD is simply squandered. Because it is so easily and cheaply circumvented, it provides virtually no defensive value. Again: it's spending billions to safe-guard the chimney of a house with open doors.

You keep repeating this "chimeny thing," not sure if you realize how not clever and not logical the thing is.

Two threats here.

1.) A limited ICBM launch that can be countered.

2.) A limited "smuggled nuke" threat that can't be countered. Incidently Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, INSOC etc. with their infinitly more closed societies could not either.

Number 2 is the wasted money, becuase no matter what we throw at it that threat will always be a viable option to any party pursueing it.

[Urban Ranger]

Interceptor missile failed to launch, again

Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's planned ballistic missile shield suffered another setback on Monday when an interceptor missile again failed to launch during a test of the U.S. missile defense system.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it was unable to complete the planned $85 million repeat of a failed December test after the interceptor missile, built by Raytheon Co., failed to launch from its base in the Pacific Ocean.

The interceptor missile, built by Orbital Sciences Corp., had also failed to launch during a Dec. 15 test, which officials later blamed on a "very minor software glitch."

The only surprise here is the missile fails to launch. This does not exactly lend confidence to the "missile shield."