National Missile Defense - yeah or nay?

[Chump Bailey]

Are you for or against the National Missile Defense System and are you concerned about the approved cuts soon to be implemented by the Democratic Party – why or why not? I also believe they are cutting funds from the airborne laser project as well.

Does it make sense for wanting such a system not to come into fruition with the emerging threats from Iran if you believe the intelligence, China and North Korea? It seems the only ally of the United States not in agreement with such a system is Canada – I believe most others are fond of the idea.

I’m not framing this into some pseudo attack piece regarding the Democratic Party; (although I do think the party needs an immediate infusion of members more in the mold of the late Paul Wellstone and JFK) rather I am searching for more of a rationale / justification for such moves.

Are the cuts strictly partisan in nature, or is there an actual substantive basis to them which are deemed necessary for some greater good as yet to be designated? To me, obviously a novice in this area, with not even a rudimentary degree of knowledge regarding the scientific and technological feasibility and requirements for such a system to work - it seems like a very good idea. It seems like an obviously good program that certainly warrants further spending and exploration - so why the cutbacks?

The program, if memory serves, seems to be proceeding very well and with marked progress and success – most recently I believe we tallied two or possibly three more successes regarding testing.

Russia is obviously opposed even though overtures were made on Sec-Def Gates behalf to persuade them to come aboard and share in the technology and building - to become a partner if I’m not mistaken. From what I can glean, Russia is not worried about the NMDS defeating their 10,000 strong nuclear arsenal, but the system may prove/serve to be a footmark for a future system which may indeed actually pose a threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrence. I can also understand their concerns over the ever expanding NATO allegiances near, or on their doorstep. In addition, would this only invite yet another arms race/cold war scenario with China whose economy is growing exponentially each and every year if not quarter?

Should we continue down this path – having a system in place capable of knocking out of the sky a nuclear missile from a hostile entity/nation which could wipe out an entire city in mere seconds? For me, it is an emphatic – YES.

[GrapeApe]

I've worked quite a bit on the ABL and COIL lasers. That work is winding down for us, but I would hate to see cuts made.

[Leonard Washington]

it doesn't already exist? :paranoid:

[AsburySkinsFan]

nay, no need for another arms race. Spend the money diffusing tensions instead of defending agaisnt them.

[Chump Bailey]

it doesn't already exist? :paranoid:

It's in its infancy - very basic concept at present from what I can gather. It will expand greatly - that's the plan anyway.

[GrapeApe]

nay, no need for another arms race. Spend the money diffusing tensions instead of defending agaisnt them.

The laser being developed for ABL has significant industrial applications.

But it's far enough in development that killing it now would be a bone headed decision. I can't say much, but if they kill it at this point in development, then they are idiots.

[GrapeApe]

It's in its infancy - very basic concept at present from what I can gather. It will expand greatly - that's the plan anyway.

That's not correct.

[Chump Bailey]

That's not correct.

Okay, what is the current state of the system and will it be expanded upon?

[GrapeApe]

I've already said enough on this topic. But you can go search for COIL lasers and get public domain information if you wish.

[Midnight Judges]

To point out the obvious, anti-ballistic missile systems will not prevent another 9/11, a bomb that comes through the border, or in cargo containers. We've spent billions already and the systems still don't work at high success rates...and that's within our own suger-coated testing procedures. There are various ways in which such a system could be defeated.

I like the idea of a strong defense but it's simply a knee jerk reaction to support every possible measure that comes along. This $$$ could probably be more productively spent elsewhere.

[Chump Bailey]

I've already said enough on this topic. But you can go search for COIL lasers and get public domain information if you wish.

Okay, thanks for the input - must have missed the previous thread on the topic.

[GrapeApe]

Okay, thanks for the input - must have missed the previous thread on the topic.

No other threads. I just don't want to say much. But if you are interested in this topic, look at COIL lasers. There's a lot of public domain literature on them. If you are an engineer you can find some good papers. You may even come across a paper I'm co-author on.

I need to retract my statement that you were wrong. You are right. I'm looking at this from the laser side (and strictly that side) which I see as having progressed to a point where I think it would be a travesty if they canceled the program. But there is a lot more that goes into an ABL system then just the laser. Forgive me.

FYI: These are not the kind of lasers most people are used to when you say laser. They are not solid state lasers.

[Isifhan]

To point out the obvious, anti-ballistic missile systems will not prevent another 9/11, a bomb that comes through the border, or in cargo containers.

Have to agree with this. The biggest threat isn't from a nation, it's from the religious fanatic terrorist cell. A nation, no matter how crazy, would make a nuke it's last resort because the nation, no matter how crazy, doesn't want to die. The leaders have their people to think about and wouldn't subject them to the level of retaliation that would inevitably come. The cold war is a great example...they were scared of our nukes we were scared of theirs. The terrorist cells don't care about dying, they embrace it. Do everything in our power to track and recover rogue nuclear material. That's where the money should be focused.

[gbear]

I'm against the program because I think there are far cheaper and less tracable ways for a country to attack us. As a result, a missile seems like one of the least probable ways we will be attacked. To do so would (worse case senario for us) lead to mutual extinction.

I think the money could be better spent protecting our ports and other domestic infrastructure from attacks. It seems like the logical first step should be to identify what could be attacked easiest, do the most damage, and with the least likely retaliation. Then we should try to make it harder to attack. That should be the first priority.

I'm sorry, but a missile is an expensive way to deliver a (possibly nuclear?) bomb that can be tracked? Millions for an ICBM or a few thousand dollars for a suicider? It just seems like getting into a boxing match and worrying that the other guy is going to flip over you and hit you in the back of the head. So we go into the boxing fight with our gloves held behind our head like a chicken instead of protecting our face.

[PeterMP]

To point out the obvious, anti-ballistic missile systems will not prevent another 9/11, a bomb that comes through the border, or in cargo containers. We've spent billions already and the systems still don't work at high success rates...and that's within our own suger-coated testing procedures. There are various ways in which such a system could be defeated.

Since several people are essentially agreeing w/ this point, I'll address this one post. The fact is as we've seen since 9/11, terrorism from an external source is LARGELY (not compeltely; there is always some chance of the terrorist getting lucky) controllable IF we are vigalent. You can see that w/ respect to the millenium also. The authorities were vigalent and attacks were stopped. 911 happened because people weren't paying enough attention. These methods that prevent these attacks are in fact rather inexpensive. Other rather inexpensive things could be done to prevent terrorist, such as deporting people on expired visas.

On the other hand a shield would be designed to prevent something that we can't easily stop (at least not w/o breaking international laws). We really have no control over N. Korea developing nuclear missiles and how they use them once they have them. We have no real control over what happens inside of Rusia and who has control over their missiles and as other contries develop/obtain this technology (e.g. Pakistan) what happens inside of those countries.

These same technologies would almost certainly be involved in protecting us from a major meteor or comet hit, which everybody agress will come.

I'm not saying that it should be a priority, but I do believe a reasonable amount of funding only makes sense. Otherwise sometime in the near future people will be saying, 'how could they be so stupid not to have realized this was a problem?'

[Predicto]

I think attempting to make a workable missile defense system makes sense if you are trying to defeat one or two missiles from a rogue nation.

It would be worthless with regard to all out nuclear war with, say, Russia, because it is so much cheaper and easier to just build more missiles to overwhelm any shield. Offense is always much cheaper and mre effective than defense in this area.

The trick is to convince Russia and China that we are only concerned about the rogue missiles. Otherwise, Russia and China will respond by building more and more missiles as a matter of their own defense, and things will be even worse than they were before.

It is not a simple subject.

[PeterMP]

I think attempting to make a workable missile defense system makes sense if you are trying to defeat one or two missiles from a rogue nation.

It would be worthless with regard to all out nuclear war with, say, Russia, because it is so much cheaper and easier to just build more missiles to overwhelm any shield. Offense is always much cheaper and mre effective than defense in this area.

The trick is to convince Russia and China that we are only concerned about the rogue missiles. Otherwise, Russia and China will respond by building more and more missiles as a matter of their own defense, and things will be even worse than they were before.

It is not a simple subject.

There's nothing much we can do about Russia and China. They are going to build more misseles, but it really isn't that much of an issue. If all out nuclear war does occur, the realistic difference between 100 missles and 400 missiles isn't that much. 100 nuclear missiles will kill enough people and damage enough of the infrastructure that the country will collapse. I'm sure you've seen the calculations from the cold war about how we and the Soviets had enough missiles to destroy the other country several times over. Once you've been destroyed once, it doesn't matter if you are destroyed again.

The key is to keep communications between them up so that the real nuclear war does not happen no matter how many missiles countries like that have.

[Predicto]

There's nothing much we can do about Russia and China. They are going to build more misseles, but it really isn't that much of an issue. If all out nuclear war does occur, the realistic difference between 100 missles and 400 missiles isn't that much. 100 nuclear missiles will kill enough people and damage enough of the infrastructure that the country will collapse. I'm sure you've seen the calculations from the cold war about how we and the Soviets had enough missiles to destroy the other country several times over. Once you've been destroyed once, it doesn't matter if you are destroyed again.

The key is to keep communications between them up so that the real nuclear war does not happen no matter how many missiles countries like that have.

It is also what level of alert they feel they need to be at. From their point of view, a missile shield means that WE (the US) can nuke them, but THEY can't nuke us as easily. Which is scary, to them. So they will aim even more missiles at us, and have them on an even shorter trigger in order to retain their nuclear deterrent zagainst us. Which is more dangerous for everyone.

[JMS]

China currently has a few hundred nuclear warheads as best we can tell. Fewer than Israel. If we spend the TRILLION dollars on the limited star wars defensive sheild it's only supposed to protect us from a handful of missles at a time. If Russia for instance shot off 200 ICBM's we would still be defensless.

So what good is it? It's going to cause China, N. Korea, and Iran to just build more nukes to ensure their deterant is in effect. Likewise Russian scientists have said they think countermeasures are likely to be several orders of magnatude cheaper to implement than the Star Wars sheild itself.

So the question is build something that is very expensive, which doesn't work, and may never work, which our proposed enemies can easily counter for .0001 the cost. Or not.

I say continue the research, don't deploy jack until it's effective. Say in 2040.

[rumpshakers]

To point out the obvious, anti-ballistic missile systems will not prevent another 9/11, a bomb that comes through the border, or in cargo containers. We've spent billions already and the systems still don't work at high success rates...and that's within our own suger-coated testing procedures. There are various ways in which such a system could be defeated.

I like the idea of a strong defense but it's simply a knee jerk reaction to support every possible measure that comes along. This $$$ could probably be more productively spent elsewhere.

Well said

[redman]

To point out the obvious, anti-ballistic missile systems will not prevent another 9/11, a bomb that comes through the border, or in cargo containers. We've spent billions already and the systems still don't work at high success rates...and that's within our own suger-coated testing procedures. There are various ways in which such a system could be defeated.

I like the idea of a strong defense but it's simply a knee jerk reaction to support every possible measure that comes along. This $$$ could probably be more productively spent elsewhere.

Just because a defense technology doesn't cover all threats doesn't mean it's worthless or shouldn't be pursued. In case you haven't noticed, some very unstable regimes like Iran and North Korea have shown quite a bit of interest in developing missile technology, and have even collaborated with each other on it. Pretty soon (in historical terms) IMHO intercontinental ballistic technology will be ubiquitous. We should have something in place to counter it aside from M.A.D.