US Missile Shield already Defeated? 375
Anonymous Coward writes "Forbes is reporting that although interest in the missile defense system has waned while the US military addresses more pressing matters of immediate concern, the Russians have already developed an anti-missile-defense missile designed to defeat the system. Were the US military to actually prove that the missile defense shield worked, the Russian rocket's "zig-zag" flightpath taken en route to it's target would render the shield useless. Russian President Vladimir Putin says that the non-ballistic trajectory would leave the projectile virtually impossible to down or divert. The author feels inclined to say that the missile defense shield was intended as a defense against rogue states such as North Korea that have not acquired this technology yet."
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
if you need... (Score:2, Insightful)
Need for missile shield? (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be easier than spending all this money on trying to perfect something that people will always find a way around.
It's not a bug, it's a feature! (Score:1, Insightful)
From TFA: Sounds like some clever froods over in Russia decided to 'pull a Microsoft' and bill a bug (defective guidance system) as a feature (anti-missile defense guidance system).
But the bomb won't arrive by missile (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be a suitcase bomb delivered by a madman.
Star Wars is just toys for the boys and pork barrel contracts.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that this is one of those things that is simply too difficult a task to make work under battle conditions. At least for now...
Exactly. Someone really should have told Bush this before he scrapped a perfectly good 30-year old treaty in favor of science fiction nonsense...but then again, they probabaly did. As we all know by now, our fearless leader isn't too keen on hearing things he doesn't want to hear.
Mouse or Food? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's good they've built a better mouse. That's what the people need. *note sarcasm*
Anyone find any numbers on what these "zig-zagging" missiles cost to develop? Anyone else sick of seeing countries burn money on defense while their people starve?
What it's come down to is simply Fruedian penis...err...missile envy [zmag.org].
What's more disturbing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Russia isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real danger is that North Korea or Iran scraps something together that can just barely make it to the US. Then, through political instability, fanaticism, or provocation they lob a few nukes at the US. Such nukes would probably just barely be able to reach the US, and certainly would not have any fancy zig-zagging capabilities. In such a case a missile defense shield would be a damn nice thing to have, even if it can't stop a full Russian assault.
The real issue is cost / benefit. What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.
It would be nice to throw a few dollars at it and have technology waiting in the wings should we need it or should it ever become cost effective. If I could get an effective ballistics defense system for the cost of an aircraft carrier, I would merrily be all over that. If it is going to cost a fleet of air craft carriers, I am far less enthusiastic. A defensive weapon in the arsenal is nice, but not if it takes Apollo like time and effort to achieve it.
I would like to see low level funding of a ballistics defense system. I do not want to kludge together a half-working system at massive expense. Work towards getting the technology ready should it be needed, but don't go all out building an elaborate defense system that is massively expensive and only kinda-sorta works until there is a clear threat.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The treaty was with the Soviet Union, the USSR.
That entity no longer exists. The treaty was useless since the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Treaties can also be broken at any time. That treaty would not have stopped nukes from raining down on American cities. The missle defense shield *might*.
Re:Anti-anti-missle defense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anti-anti-missle defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin could just be saber rattling too.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Develop the laser based missle defense and forego trying to knock one out with another missle.
Re:Need for missile shield? (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is that some people are just pissed at us existing, and that we have so much and they have so little, or that we have different cultures, or whatever. Even if we do help them, they have no problem biting the hand that feeds them. I have no problem with trying to protect ourselves. There will always be conflict as long as there is religion that advocates destruction, or a way to interpret your religion so it advocates that, and if you aren't prepared to defend yourself if attacked, you're prepared to lose.
Never worked... (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea is that the missle defence 'kill vehicle' will launch after it has been confirmed a rogue nation has launched a missle against the US (or North America), and will hunt down and intercept it. The difficult is *not* actually hitting the target, which has been accomplished, but knowing which one the real target is.
Obviously, any nation sending nukes against the states would send decoy ones as well. As Theodore Postol (an expert on missle defence) recently said in a speech at McGill, not sending nukes would be like making a tank without armor, assuming the enemy doesn't have anti-tank weapons.
Even the most up to date missle defence technology really doesn't have a good way of differentiating nukes from fakes, if we don't know what the fake would look like in advance.
More info here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0902-03.h
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The Union of Independent States formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union was successor in interest for all treaties and contracts. So the ABM contract was still valid.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
It was never about an actual, working shield. Everyone knew that such a thing is nearly impossible at this time.
Backpack Nuke (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Russia isn't the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Lasers still work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a fall of the Soviet Government and the formation of a Russian govt. that doesn't consider the US an enemy (maybe not best freind either but...) isn't an extradinary event in your mind? I don't think Russia care whether or not we build a missile defense system at this time since they don't see us in the same light as before.
Re:Anti-anti-missle defense (Score:5, Insightful)
The working alternative is MAD. I.e. if anyone attacks US we will have enough time to respond.
The "missle shield" is unworkable - well, it does it's job of fooling taxpayers into funding Raythenon, but so far it can't even intercept test missles with known trajectory [bbc.co.uk]. And even if we somehow manage to make it "work", it will still be useless against, say, a torpedo with nuke hitting any of our coastal cities. Or against a hijacked airliner with nuke. Or against a nuke delivered by car.
At the same time customs don't have enough resources to scan all the cargo coming into US [planetark.com], because huge amounts of money are spent on unworkable pork barrel projects like this "missle shield".
I declare shenanigans! (Score:5, Insightful)
Historical revisionism at it's finest! When Reagan proposed the v1.0 missile defense, the USSR/Eastern Bloc was the only potential enemy. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were allies back then. Who else might Reagan have had in mind?
So - it is mostly against the "rogue" state.At least that is the current excuse. Much like the justification for the invasion of Iraq, I expect that the rationale will change as circumstances require
The other thing that people don't realize is that this is a system of systems. There are several levels of defense that are being worked on.The fundamental issue is still the same: how to shoot down a bullet with another bullet. It doesn't matter how many layers of abstraction you have, it never becomes any less complex than that. The physics of the problem suggest that the best way to stop a missile from landing is for it not to be launched in the first place. I don't see Bush pressing for disarmament though.
Besides, a missile is an expensive and complex toy. There are much simpler and cheaper ways to launch a nuclear attack. Some people in this thread have suggested a suitcase bomb. It would be much easier to utilize cargo containers as a delivery mechanism.
Patriots have been upgraded to do a better job than they did during Desert Storm,Well, it wouldn't take much:
The field-test results of what is currently available has not been encouraging. There are failures even with advance knowledge of the exact trajectory of a slow-moving target missile...
I think it has more to do with corporate welfare than actual defense. Defence department cronies get tons of federal cash and nobody really expects to see a finished product. They just have to rig up an an impressive looking prototype from time to time.
It's a bad combination - cronyism and PR.
Re:Nice. (Score:4, Insightful)
For that matter, blowing it a few miles offshore would still be enough to cause extreme civil disorder and economic chaos.
Finally, don't forget that launching a missile makes it clear who launched the missile... and invites massive US retaliation. A cargo container leaves a lot of doubt.
possible motivations for discarding ABM Treaty (Score:3, Insightful)
While your point is a good one, it's not what Bush has in mind, no doubt. Likely the American people will never get a straight answer, just as we haven't from this administration for any number of borderline or flagrantly illegal or stupid acts. My guess is that the "extraordinary act" that Bush would be most likely to cite is a combination of 9/11 and "rogue states with WMDs" even though it's pretty clear that neither of these would really apply to this treaty. The major reason for this is probably to allow the Bush camp to pursue their true dream of authorizing the use of so-called "tactical nukes". I must admit I don't know much about the ABM Treaty, but I'm willing to bet it has some more of those pesky international statutes that get in the way of Bush authorizing low-grade nuke strikes against anyone he pleases. Remeber, the department of DEFENSE has been in the business of OFFENSE for decades. Don't look to the defensive reasons (possibly functional missle shield) for these changes in policy, look to the offensive reasons (better war toys). There you will find the true motivations.
Just my gut feeling from the way everything else has been spun and twisted by this administration. As the grandparent post said, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:Need for missile shield? (Score:1, Insightful)
But bombing the crap out of them isn't going to win friends or influence people.
It's not a game, it's a farce. (Score:3, Insightful)
But building a better mousetrap is rather difficult, which is why we have the saying about it.
The problem is that this "cycle" is so overwhelmingly stacked in favor of the attacker that treating it like some kind of treadmill you just have to have the dedication to stay on is foolhardy and doomed to fail. The problem of disabling an incoming missle is inherently orders of magnitude more difficult than the problem of landing a missle in the vicinity of a target.
It's always been this way in the battle between attack and defense. Knights' armor was easily penetrated by the English longbow. Once the cannon was invented, the reign of the castle ended almost overnight. Or look at a modern day example: The M1A1 Abrams, with all that technology first deployed in the 90s, has pretty good survivability against should-carried infantry weapons invented in the 60s, or cobbled-together explosives made in some insurgent's garage. Against a similarly modern weapon system, like an A-10's cannon, that super-advanced armor might as well not be there for how easily it is breached.
The way you stop a nuclear missle assault is not with a techonological shield that can never keep up due to its inherent disadvantage. You do it with psychology -- make the opponent not want to launch the missle. This is the basis for MAD, and it has been proven to be effective. Unlike this missle defence shield which fails even the most optimistic of tests rigged in its favor.
The sad part is that for the only enemy against whom MAD won't work -- rogue terrorist groups not tied to a nation they don't want to see remodelled into a glass parking lot -- are also the ones against whom missle defense will never work either, because they won't use missles.
The only benefit of a "missle defense shield" is that it keeps military contractors employeed and makes people who don't want to think too hard about this kind of thing anyway feel safe. Worth every penny, if you ask me!
Re:Need for missile shield? (Score:1, Insightful)
USA has taken to invading, propping up corrupt leaders (including brutal dictators), funding revolt and war in the Middle East over the past century to get influence and cheap oil. USA continues to gift Billions in weapons to Israel which was set up by USA and other countries who wanted a quick easy way to placate the Jews. It didn't matter if the land belonged to another country, AND the houses belonged legally to Muslim families.
Osama Bin Laden did not even attack USA (I am a sceptic on this "FACT") until AFTER Clinton tried to have him assassinated AND sent cruise missiles into many civilian factories "just in case" Bin Laden had some sort of chemical factory. Your 9/11 if you are lucky (you would not be lucky if your own government orchestrated the act itself) was nothing more than a retaliation. USA itself claims the right to retaliate to ANY attack. WHy don't you accept that other people have this same basic right?
You may not be aware that around the world and outside of "diplomatic circles" the average person is referring to USA as Nazi America. This is important as you have used the same arguments for invasion as this little man. You may have heard of him in history class. A man called Adolph.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
Nuclear North Korea, blame for which can be entirely laid at the feet of Bill Clinton and Madeliene Albright, for giving the N. Koreans the technology to do so, and for believing the N. Koreans when they said they wuoldn't use the technology to develop a nuclear weapon.
Funny...the treaty was in existence from 1972 to 2002, ans I don't recall a single nuclear incident on U.S soil during that time.
The treaty had nothing to do with that: The threat of mutually assured destruction did. The reason, despite Reagan leaving the negotiating table at Reykjavik (which the NY Times said was going to start WW3...) for there being no nuclear exchange is because both sides knew if one started it they'd both be destroyed.
Ask the Cherokee how well their treaties worked out for them....
You might want to keep up on current events.
Cute. The Missle Defense program is still under development, and the potential is still there. Just because it's not working very well yet is no reason to drop the program.
Edison, for example, had several failures before he got the light buld working. Dyson went through 5000 prototypes before he got the Dyson Vaccuum right.
Not much of a surprise, though, given that this same President pulled out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change,
That Bill Clinton had no authority to sign, and that the US Senate voted against 99-0
withdrew the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court,
which opponents see as a threat to US Sovereignty
opposed a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failed to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Again, I can't help but see a trend.
You got a source for the non-proliferation treaty? Or are you upset that the military developed nuclear tipped bunker busters?
I see a trend, too. A blind left leaning one.
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush however will probably find a way to blame it on Saddam. Or maybe Iran, if that support his agenda better.