New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

aegis1938 - 11:26am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8184 of 8205)

I was a project coordinator on the Safeguard ABM system in the 70s. This was the first ABM system to be deployed. It cost approximately $21.3 billion, and it was abandoned 24 hours after being declared operational.

The advent of MIRV and MARV warheads rendered Safeguard ineffective.

The current NMD tests have been a scam on the American public. None of the tests have been realistic... Not only have the dummy warheads been spin stablized, they only carried one decoy. The last test included a beacon on the RV, to make sure the kill vehicle could find the warhead.

Another problem is the ability to blind the ground and space-based sensors. Look up "Starfish prime", "Kingfish", "Bluegill Triple Prime", or "Fishbowl".

Does anyone really believe that North Korea or some other alleged rogue nation is going to launch a ICBM against us? The moment the missile clears the event horizon, we have the vehicle's launch address. If North Korea, or any other rogue country launched against us, a single Ohio-class submarine, with its 192 warheads, could respond within minutes.

Bottom line is, they would smuggle the weapon into the country, making it difficult to determine who originated the attack. NMD would not protect us against this type of attack.

NMD is not about national security. It is about one thing, only. PROFIT!!!

bearbeer72 - 11:35am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8185 of 8205)

The crazy thing is that no one is questioning the policy aspects of this decision. Yes - the defense infrastructure will make bank by the Bush Administration pushing NMD. The problem that everyone has with it is that the cash flow cycle will end with the defense contractors. It's a closed loop. If Bush was smart on this he would develop policy that would allow an economic open loop so that spending continues to pull the entire economy instead of one segment.

We could argue the technical engineering aspects, most of which can and will probably be solved, but with significant cost and schedule overruns. Look at the F-22 program it took over twenty years to get the go ahead for a production run - no wonder we spent billions.

There are many other ways to continue advanced technology development that would foster improved foreign relations, improved scientific knowledge and have a positive impact on the economy. One example would be an asteroid detection and avoidance system.

stephennnn - 11:53am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8186 of 8205)

According to the NYTimes....

"the missile defense planned by the Bush administration may be least able to destroy warheads from countries that are thought to pose the biggest threat, federal and private experts say."

What the experts don't say is that the MDS will turn space into a battleground. It's far better not to introduce any weapons of destruction into space, even under the pretext of self-defense. It would be better to negotiate peace agreements rather than tearing them up or turning our backs on them.

noordijk0 - 01:18pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8187 of 8205)

Is there some system that can detect a nuclear weapon if it was loaded on a cargo container or sheilded in lead and used as the ballast bulb on a ship. It seems like the whole bmd think is mute unless such as system exists.

Wouldn't that money be better spent monitoring fissile material and coopting(buying) the scientist who have the capacity to build bombs.

The bush administration appears to be obsessed with creating an arms race.

It seems like BMD is calculated to bankrupt the federal government with non-productive spending. so that the administration can claim that the goverment can't do anything with our tax dollars. I can't think of single reason why they would spend so much on such a useless program, if it didn't serve a particular political agenda.

wrcooper - 01:25pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8188 of 8205)

noordijk0 8/27/01 1:18pm

I can't think of single reason why they would spend so much on such a useless program, if it didn't serve a particular political agenda.

I can. It's called the military-industrial complex. Bush's friends, and the Pentagon's friends, who are more or less the same people, want $$$ (and power, too). They paid for Bush's campaign; they supported him, and now they want their reward. You're looking for a reason? That's it.

truegrit9 - 01:30pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8189 of 8205)

Bush is sqandering our national treasury on the resurrection of the Reagan rape of the nation. We finally bailed the U.S. out the bankruptcy of the Republican Party only to get robbed again. Only this time it is more serious matter than nuclear missiles or bombs. The planet is running out of oil and gas. When that happens the lights go out, the crops don't get watered or fertilized, the food crop rots in the field, trucks don't deliver to the grocery stores and we start burning wood to keep warm. The money required to convert this energy gluttinous nation to the only known replacement energy system (nuclear power)will require the trillions of dollars that are being stolen by the Republican thieves. Our only chance to correct this looming catastrophe is by throwing them out of office. If we don't, there will be a call to arms when the lights go out.

di0genes - 05:11pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8190 of 8205)

Remember those that said Columbus would sail off the end of the Earth, jets would not fly, and we all remember that long ago Egytian General reporting to Pharoh that the Israelites were trapped at the Red sea. Now we have those that say a wobbling missle is a big problem, probably by those that predicted missles cant get off the ground. C'mon folks, technology moves along, dont get nervous, unless of course politics is the reason for all this nonsense.

"Politics" is the only reason that idiocy such as the above isn't immediately recognized for what it is.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense