[ohio]

So I just attended a very interesting talk on the engineering and science (maybe this shouldn't be in the political forum as it contains, *gulp*, facts) of ballistic missile defense.

What it comes down to is that Clinton spent an awful lot of money studying this to appease certain components of Congress and the Pentagon, and the system that was proposed was found to be entirely ineffective. Plans were discontinued until Bush decided to go ahead with a small fraction of that system (about 1/20th of it, and missing key components) and actually build and deploy it. Now while Pete Aldridge managed to testify that this system could be 90% effective (a figure which makes no sense as it includes no confidence interval), the fact of the matter is that it is actually 0% effective, or so close that it cannot be measured.

In addition to this system being entirely ineffective against even a single missile, there is no system that could EVER be put into place that would be effective enough to protect against more than one missile. None, zero, zip. It is nothing but a very very expensive false sense of security (which is incredibly dangerous in its own right). Despite much of the information being retroactively classified, the science community knows this. So the question is, why are we STILL spending $10.7 BILLION each year on this project?

 

[Silver]

David Cross (comedian) has a great bit on the missle defence shield, if you haven't heard it.

"Well, since you really want to know, quite simply a missile defense shield is a net made of magic held in place by pixies."

Then to paraphrase the rest of the bit:
That stuff is expensive. It doesn't cost $100. You want to spend $100? Sounds more like you want a boxcutter shield, not a missile shield.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ohio
So I just attended a very interesting talk on the engineering and science (maybe this shouldn't be in the political forum as it contains, *gulp*, facts) of ballistic missile defense.

What it comes down to is that Clinton spent an awful lot of money studying this to appease certain components of Congress and the Pentagon, and the system that was proposed was found to be entirely ineffective. Plans were discontinued until Bush decided to go ahead with a small fraction of that system (about 1/20th of it, and missing key components) and actually build and deploy it. Now while Pete Aldridge managed to testify that this system could be 90% effective (a figure which makes no sense as it includes no confidence interval), the fact of the matter is that it is actually 0% effective, or so close that it cannot be measured.

In addition to this system being entirely ineffective against even a single missile, there is no system that could EVER be put into place that would be effective enough to protect against more than one missile. None, zero, zip. It is nothing but a very very expensive false sense of security (which is incredibly dangerous in its own right). Despite much of the information being retroactively classified, the science community knows this. So the question is, why are we STILL spending $10.7 BILLION each year on this project?

We used to have a very effective anti-ICBM platform but it was given away in SALT I. I speak of the Nike program... There were several versions, the Nike Ajax, Nike Zeus, Nike Hercules et al...

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8
We used to have a very effective anti-ICBM platform but it was given away in SALT I. I speak of the Nike program... There were several versions, the Nike Ajax, Nike Zeus, Nike Hercules et al...

Are you talking about the nuke-theatre based system Rumsfield shut down in the 70s?

It would have been effective only against a single nuke and it would have knocked out our own satellites, and depending upon where it occured also our ground-based radar and our own missile launch systems... leaving us not only completely vulnerable but also unable to launch a counter attack. Not exactly what I would call "very effective."

If it were very effective, that would also be the system we built this time around.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ohio
Are you talking about the nuke-theatre based system Rumsfield shut down in the 70s?

It would have been effective only against a single nuke and it would have knocked out our own satellites, and depending upon where it occured also our ground-based radar and our own missile launch systems... leaving us not only completely vulnerable but also unable to launch a counter attack. Not exactly what I would call "very effective."

If it were very effective, that would also be the system we built this time around.

Well, the last version (Nike Zeus) would have been quite effective VS Russian ICBM's. The first versions were primarily deployed against Russian bombers but later versions of the Hercules were modified for ICBM duty and were primitive.

My Dad worked on the Nike program as an engineer and much of the Nike Zeus spec's have never been released to the public. The missile was so effective that it was eliminated in the SALT I treaty.

 

[brenth]

Ohio, where did you sit in on this talk? Ever since bush decieded to deploy this, I have always figured it was much more of a dream that a reaility. But I know absolutly nothing about misslies and such. Anyone have good books/sites/etc so I can learn more?

 

[Spud]

I really enjoy reading Bob Park’s weekly column from the American Physical Society – he does a good job of clarifying outrageous claims regarding physics. Some of his best material of late has been the Pentagon’s implementation of this missile shield nonsense.

Generously put, the tests to date have essentially been unsuccessful attempts to hit a target equipped with a homing beacon launched from a known location at a given time.

Hell, it's just taxpayer's money and cancelling missile defense treaties. No biggy...

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by brenth
Ohio, where did you sit in on this talk? Ever since bush decieded to deploy this, I have always figured it was much more of a dream that a reaility. But I know absolutly nothing about misslies and such. Anyone have good books/sites/etc so I can learn more?

There's some stuff on the American Physical Society Web Page

http://www.aps.org/WN/toc.cfm

search under missile

 

[Silver]

Just did a little reading on Nike-Zeus.

High atmospheric nuclear detonation in order to stop a missile? Sounds like a perfect way to get obliterated in the second strike, once you've managed to EMP all your electronics with the first anti-ballistic missile.

We can't even shoot down Scuds reliably (the whole Patriot missile hype in Gulf War I was really overblown) so I can't see how that huge leap to shooting down a MIRV-tipped missile is made.

I'm not saying it can NEVER be done, but surely putting a little bit of research money into proper places would be better than pissing away billions of dollars each year for nothing?

 

[LordOpie]

Well, if they want it to work, they need to speak with Sid Meiers... he has a system that is very effective in simulations.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Silver
Just did a little reading on Nike-Zeus.

High atmospheric nuclear detonation in order to stop a missile? Sounds like a perfect way to get obliterated in the second strike, once you've managed to EMP all your electronics with the first anti-ballistic missile.

That's actually precisely correct.

N8, I don't mean it as an insult to your Dad, but the system could never have protected us. It IS however, the closest thing we have to a viable option... it would require years (and $Bs) of replacing satellites and ground radar with new versions containing synchronized disconnecting circuit boards to protect against EMP, if it were to hope to have multi-missile defense capability, and (most importantly for deterrence) retaliation capability. If a rogue nation has more than one ICBM, it ceases to be anything but a false sense of security for lawmakers.

It's actually quite different than the Patriot system, because you're dealing with low orbit and an extended time-frame. The Patriot, despite initial claims of 90% effectiveness, actually only had a SINGLE successful interception during the first Gulf War. The Pentagon has since lowered their claims to 40% effective, which is still a blatant lie.

brenth, here's a list of sites. I won't claim that they're unbiased politically, but they are populated by scientists (engineers and physicists) who know what they're talking about. You better believe China, NK, Pakistan, and Iran know exactly what these guys know... missile defense doesn't work, as soon as you incorporate very simple and effective offense.

Union of Concerned Scientists (the MIT professor that I saw speak is a member of this group, and has testified before several congressional sub-committees)
Federation of American Scientists

 

[LordOpie]

so why are we still pursuing this system? are there other benefits to exploring this technology that might be applied elsewhere?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by LordOpie
so why are we still pursuing this system? are there other benefits to exploring this technology that might be applied elsewhere?

Okay, this is the part that is my OPINION (or speculation...). I think we're pursuing it for the following reasons:
1. It sounds cool, and makes people feel safer. The version we've deployed is completely ineffective, and congress said we couldn't deploy more until it's actually been tested, but we're about to double the size of it AT NO INCREASE in efficacy, because it sounds nicer to say we've got 40 of them than to say we have 20. They're basically each multi-hundred million $ duds. They're a placebo.
2. The defense contracts are worth a ton. There are numerous cases of naysayers in the DOD getting stonewalled by higher-ups that don't want to hear it. when you're talking a bout a multi-billion $ project, there are a lot of people that want to see it happen.
3. Domestic political tool. If you can convince Joe Public that it works or even that we're making a real effort to protect him, you're going to win some points. The problem is, it's NOT a real effort.

Some might say it's an international political tool... but foreign defense departments know the same things (if not more) than non-DOD scientists in the US do. They have nothing to fear from ABM, which is exactly why Russia permitted the current program to be restarted. In fact, it was leaked to them during negotiations that as long as they have a "launch on warning" policy and more than 2000 warheads, they have nothing to fear from ABM because we can't protect ourselves from that.

 

[brenth]

cool, thanks for the sites ohio, does anybody have any sites that are pro missle shield? I like reading both sides, alot of times it helps get you to the real truth ( not to say that these sites are wrong ohio, they seem right on the money from the little I have read/understand. )

 

[DRB]

The NIKE system was offered up in SALT I for the exact opposite reason N8 suggests. It was a crap system and we knew it. This is evidenced by the fact that we never truly deployed the one area system that we were allowed under the ABM treaty. Why we offered it up was that we were more than a little concerned (wrongly so) with the Soviet area ABM system. We had a strategy to overcome it in limited deployment. The US simply could brute force it into submission. However, if they started to widely deploy it, it was going to lead us into building more and more missiles. It was simply cheaper at the time to scrap ABM (which was pipe dream in those days) instead.