Cornellianintel
Registered User
I'm just wondering what you guys think of the future of missile defense. If any physics geniuses have input on its practicability, that would be especially interesting.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
US touts successful missile-defense test
- Thread starter Cornellianintel
- Start date
Missile defense comes in many flavors. While current efforts are a far cry from the SDI concept of the 80s, we already have a fairly credible TMD system which has been proven in battle like Patriot. While not perfect, there's no doubt that patriot saved lives in the Gulf War. When combined with new technologies like PAC III Patriots, SM-IV, and other endo and exo-atmospheric systems, we're likely to have a fairly good range of deployable systems in the years to come. One can debate the cost vs. threat issue, but these systems take time to develop and it's hard to accurately forecast what the threats will be lik in 10+ years. I think we also gain ancilliary benefits through the development of sensor systems and computing power which have applications across a range of military and civilian interests.
Brett
Brett
Patriot had issues in GW1, but the new PAC III from what I've been told is pretty money. I've heard good things about SM-3 and SM-4 as well. Seems like Reagan's SDI is coming to fruition, in a different way.
And it's not "Star Wars" damn it, that's the name the media and opponents gave it.
And it's not "Star Wars" damn it, that's the name the media and opponents gave it.
Cornellianintel
Registered User
I once had to prepare a speech on SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars" for those unfamiliar) and found most of the criticisms to be driven more by ideology than science. For my money, I think that as a deterrent to small-scale nuclear ransom, the system could prove incredibly valuable. Though nuclear stockpiles are being more closely accounted for than just after the fall of the Soviet Union, destabilizing proliferation continues today, and it seems that "the guy with one or two nukes" will be the one whom we have to worry about. I think the system being developed has just that in mind. For nations with hundreds of nukes, of course, our own nuclear force will remain the primary deterrent--given that anyone with that much firepower has much to lose. If, somehow, we could develop an effective shield against a massive attack, I think that the benefits to us would be obvious. There may be some unintended drawbacks as well, however. Since before I put the breaks on the program, I'd like to hear a more compelling case for a new arms race, it has my full support. I don't know how long it will take to implement something truly meaningful, though.
Any critics?
Any critics?
You two have some kind of "relationship" we need to know about?Brett327 said:
I flew support for the SM-3 test package last winter off Kuaui on the Lake Erie. She's had a pretty good record of intercepts, but that particular week, she stumbled. If you want to look up the press release on the Navy website, you can see the UNCLASS side of what they're doing and the launch the week before, which was 5 for 5 on intercepts. Some amazing technology and precision.
Shhhhh!gatordev said:
People, disregard. Nothing to see here. Please move along.gatordev said:
Cornellianintel
Registered User
Steve Wilkins said:
May as well come clean. I was lured in under the auspices of "career advice" and given promises of "steady promotions within the squadron" and "candy". What happened next was so wrong I can't even talk about it
.Shamefully
Cornellianintel
Registered User
Steve Wilkins said:
lol. Nothing like reading classified info on an open forum. I promise not to pass the word on.
Cornellianintel said:
Post-facto rationalization. Is a small-scale nuclear ransom likely to come by conventional means (ballistic missiles) or unconventional means (smuggling a suitcase bomb into the US, for example)? If a country really did have both the wherewithal to develop ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons AS WELL as the irrationality to use them... what's to stop them from going to option b? Hardly "incredibly valuable".
Cornellianintel said:
And so, what does their primary deterrent become? A country with hundreds of nukes is reliant on the idea that they can deter us the same way we can them, right? What does the world become when deterrence is a one-way street and mutually assured destruction is no longer 'mutual'? Wasn't that the whole problem with that business in Cuba back in the 60s... you know, it threatened our deterrent strategy?
SDI was a great idea when it was just scary enough to force the Russians into an arms race they couldn't afford but unrealistic enough that it didn't threaten anyone's deterrent strategy overnight.
Cornellianintel said:
Yeah, I am a critic. I am tired and about to go to bed so this will be short.
I unfortunately have to deal with MDA in my current job on a regular basis. Notwithstanding the fact that they are some of the most arrogant bunch of people who we work with (I need that asset and I don't care what else it is doing, I want it now I will will have it! :icon_rage ), they are building the modern day equivilant of a Maginot Line. But instead of wasting our entire defense budget like the French before WWII, we only pour a paltry $10 billion a year into this black hole we call MDA. And while the Navy has hit the mark several times with the SM-3, the regular inteceptor has not even gotten off the ground the last two tests. It as yet to complete a full test.
If we actually do finish the MDA and it tests well, what is to prevent someone from just bypassing the missile defense shield with a suitcase bomb? Or a short range missile launched from a merchant vessel 100 miles off of the coast?
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/pentagon_eyes.htm
In August 2004, “we launched a Scud from an ocean-going platform, and it was not hard,” [Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering, the MDA's chief] said.
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/nov05-26.php
Congratulations, our Ardennes. An interceptor in Cali or Alaska ain't gonna help defend Norfolk, DC, Miami or NYC from a threat like that.
There are a lot better things to doing with our money than to build something that still has not worked after numerous tests and approxiamately $300 billion dollars down the drain.
I, too, am about to head for bed, so I admit not reading your links, Flash, but I'm curious... Would it be fair to say that it's not necessairly just US interest in TBM defense? Perhaps money continues to poor in hopes of helping our neighbors to the far east. I know they've recently made a big SPY purchase in hopes of having the technology ready in anticipation for sea based TBM defense. Curious as to your take on this.