In this thread I want to discuss Missile Defense in the United States. (This has nothing to do with the recent uproar about Bush wanting to place Missile Defense sites around Europe.)

Missile Defense is defined as other missiles or lasers that can intercept ICBMs before they strike their target. The United States ran a successful test of such a system in September of last year.

In the past, organizations such as Greenpeace opposed Missile Defense because of early failures of the Star Wars program and also citing this:


Question for debate:

1. Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea.

Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea.

I find the whole "because missile defense can be easily obsoleted means we shouldn't pursue it" to be an unconvincing argument. Nevertheless, I do think that we need to weigh costs vs. benefits here. Will the money spent pursuing and deploying missile defense be better spent in other endeavors (particularly, other defense endeavors)? Where would the missile defense money come from? Would other programs (defense or otherwise) be starved? Would we raise taxes? What about the cost of maintenance and upgrades? How will we know if holes are discovered in the system?

These are the questions I would like to see answered before we seriously embark on any deployable missile defense system.

I agree with logophage that it is a cost to gains equation, and the missile defense system might not be the most practical way we want to invest our defense dollars. Think Maginot Line. It is unlikely that a nuclear weapon would reach our shores by projectile. For the countries listed in particular, Iran and North Korea, the odds are probably zero.

Even in the old paradigm, I always considered missile defense to be destabilizing. The MAD doctrine worked because it made nuclear warfare unconscionable, unsurvivable on all sides. Missile defense would change that, and the higher the perception of survivability of a nuclear strike, the more likely it is to be used.

Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea.

I think this is a technology that should be pursued to try to deal with a rogue strike against the United States. It is not something, IMHO, that needs to be the cornerstone of our defense system and actively supporting the existing nuclear nonproliferation treaty likely will be more effective.

The missile defense technology has the danger of being presented as more effective than it really is. But technology gets discovered and developed. We should develop these technologies and carefully consider the applications.

I am not a fan of proactive strikes against countries. Those attacks that must be done should be done with the support of the international community against a threat to the world.

Firstly, and I ask out of genuine curiosity, could you link to info about the sucessful missile test carried out that you mention? I hadn't heard about that.


On to the questions:

I do not believe that a misile defence system serves any purpose considering the enormous cost and unreliabaility of such a system, and the incredible ease in defeating it. It is not that such a system 'night become obsolete', it is that the system became obsolete in the 1980s. The Soviet Union discovered a dozen cheap and effective ways of defeating missile defence systems. Ranging from radar absorbant stealth coating on missiles (which is now quite inexpensive), to carbon balloons deployed as RVs at the missile apogee and dozens more. The latest Soviet ICBM, already in mass deployment is immune to any such MDS, as it has integrated into it a variable speed, variable trajectory system which renders completely invalid the US Missile defence system even if it DOES work at peak capacity. Now North Korea could not afford a weapon of the sophistication of the Topol-M (at the moment) but carbon balloons would cost only a few thousand dollars per missile.

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_arti...le_defense.html

In the history of R&D it has been the standard that missile systems in development are abandoned if they become obsolescent during research, I can list a dozen such cases right off my head. But in the case of the MDS it has been given an entirely political lease on life, one not based in practical reality.

Add to that the fact that such a system is in direct violation of a treaty signed by the United States, and you have a few serious problems.

Furthermore, even if the MDS did work at peak capacity and could not be easily overcome, it would have zero capability against the much more realistic and important threat from North Korea,Iran, or Iraq-- short-range cruise or ballistic missiles fired from merchant ships near U.S. shores or a submarine, a nuclear weapon detonated in a harbor, or biological warfare agent (BW) disseminated in the United States or from a ship in harbor.


Lastly, there is one other very effective way of defeating the MDS system, a system that by definition depends on killing the re-entry vehicle of a ballistic missile: start building MRV and MIRV missiles again. These terrible weapons were banned by Start II signed between Russia and the US, and they not only completely defeat the NMD system but also massively increase the lethality of missiles: certainly a good investment. Russia has withdrawn from the Start II treaty in response to the United States' plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty and build the NMD, and China, North Korea, Iran and other potential rogue states never signed any ban on MIRV weapons in the first place. becaise of the NMD, Russia has maintained its MIRV capable SS-18 and SS24 missiles as opposed to destroying them as originally scheduled, and the Topil-M has a MIRV capability as well, though this has not been tested. Russia is currently running trials on its latest MIRV capable barnd new missile even more advanced than the Topol: the Bulava (SS-NX-30)

(Aside: though most Americans still imagine themselves with worldwide technological superiority in weapons, in fact the Russians are almost a full generation and a half ahead of the US in strategic missile development and deployment)

Do you think there is ANY question that, if the US proceeds with its attempts to deploy this syem, China and likely other states will start equipping their missiles with MIRV or MRV systems? It isn't that complicated, the USSR deployed its first MRV missiles in the 1970s, and 1980's era Soviet misiles like the SS-24 carry 50 warheads: 10 nukes and 40 decoys. This is a technology China could develop very easily, if they have not already done so.

Then the NMD is useless and yet because of its development, the relative danger against the United States just increased dramatically. Nice job.

Question for debate:

1. Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea

Yes. Certainly it is far cheaper than war – as we have seen in Iraq, and it prevents the kind of “nuclear blackmail” we have this decade from China and North Korea. In addition it can make going to war with countries like Iran unnecessary (or less likely) since it will make their nuclear threat to Israel and the ME less credible.

Compared to war and conquest of any country – which is what would result if say North Korea nukes LA, the missile shield is very cheap indeed. And lets also remember that without it our entire Naval strategy and carrier fleets are 100% vulnerable to nuclear attack.




Not the case. The US has had the ability to pick out the “real” REV for some time and in any case even if we had to launch 10 missiles to kill all the REV of a ICBM that is still cheap compared to millions of lives lost and all out nuclear war.

AND we have systems like the ABL that destroy the ICBM in the “boost phase” before the MIRV ICBM can deploy its nukes and decoys.


http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/index.html

There are a LOT of errors on fact here.

Firstly, as I pointed out an explained rather extensively, it does not make nuclear blackmail less credible because of the ease in defeating the system even if it WAS fully operational.

Secondly, the NMD system does not make the nuclear threat to Israel less effective, as the system would not protect Israel. Furthermore, even if the system was expanded to cover Israel (which would be exceedingly difficult) it would be of limited to no use, as it only works against long-range ballistic missiles, while Israel can be hit with MRBM and MRM missiles, neither of which the MDS would intercept.

Thirdly, naval carrier fleets would also not be covered by the MDS, at least when they are away from the shores of the United States. The MDS, even it could be made operational, would not help the carrier fleets at all. Not to mention, who would ever fire a ballistic missile at a carrier fleet? That is almost impossible without real-time global surveying skills and targeting systems the like of which no rogue state has. Short range missiles and Nuclear torpedoes are the weapons of choice there, against which the MDS would be useless EVEN IF it's range covered these fleets, which it doesn't.



Pity you didn't read the link I posted, which goes into some detail about the US specifically does NOT have the ability to pick out incoming missiles from amongst decoys, especially decoys which are actually made to look like RVs.

Secondly, The intercept time for RVs is a matter of seconds, this is not a situation where you can fire 10 missiles if the first misses. Depending on the trajectory of the RV, you MIGHT be able to fire a second interceptor missile if the first one misses (Though how would you know if it hit missile or decoy quickly enough?) but no more than that before the RV detonates.

Thirdly, as I explained, the SS-24, a missile with technology dating fromover 20 years ago (so within reach of China, and likely soon of NK) fires 50 warheads: 10 nukes and 40 decoys. The NMD could not cope with that even IF it worked. That is a technology the United States has reintroduced to the world as a DIRECT result of the NMD system.

Fourthly, even if you could launch '10 missiles to kill all the RV of a misile', you had better hpe thats all that is coming, as the current plan for 1st level Capability (C-1) of the MDS involves the deployment of just 10 interceptor missiles in North America.



Firstly you don't 'have systems' like this, as it is entirely in the test phase and has never been used to shoot down anything, even in tests.

Secondly, even if it does work, the ABL has a maximum range of 300 km, reportedly practically far less, against solid-fuel missiles. How useful is that exactly against a 'rogue state'? How do you plan to get the Aircraft within 300 km of China's silos (thousands of miles inland) and detect and shoot down the missile launched from one of about 30 possible locations, within the few-second window of opportunity?

The ABL is a wartime weapon, hypothetically meant for use against known threats from known areas in specific timeframes. It is useless against rogue states, and in fact because of this in Pentagon planning reports it doesn't even form part of the MDS system.

Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea?

Vermillion's post above completely ignores the question for debate.

Would a missile defense system be a good way to defend against rogue states? I agree with the posters above who say that it is a cost-benefit analysis.

There are two benefits not discussed above, however. The first is that research on advanced guidance and radar and interception technologies that could be applied to areas outside of missile defense. This has been a very sizable advantage of the arms race with the Soviets over the years that is often overlooked. Just as the Space program provides such benefits, a program like this would as well.

The second advantage is the projection of strength to these rogue nations. As it stands, a true rogue nation--one that does not include retribution to its own people in its calculations for making the decision to launch a missile or not-- cannot be deterred by reprisal. The chance of failure is a deterrent, even to "madmen".

That said, we (the US) should always have a realistic expection of how successful the system is likely to be. A missile defense system has strategic benefits but it can potentially blind us to potential dangers. This is a key part to the use of any defense system: how reliable is it in reality?

The fact that our current system has holes should not necessarily dissuade us from pursuing it. The cost-benefit analysis must be performed to exacting detail so that we can make such a decision of whether or not to pursue this and to what extent.

Yes you seem to be short on up to date info. The 2002 link is outdated and I doubt the man had the real info even then. Read here.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

Read the data. Also the MDS is already fielded on Naval Aegis cruisers and will protect naval carrier groups.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/07news0032.pdf


There is no indication that the NK or China have Russian missile capability or will in the next few years as our system is fielded and upgraded.


The ABL system is effective at 600Km for liquid fueled ICBMs a fielded by NK and China. And the time to intercept is longer for ICBMs.

What are you talking about? My post was and is directly on point: the value (or lack thereof) of a MDS as a defence against missiles launched by Rogue states. I have great difficulty imagining how my post could be any MORE on-topic.




Maybe, maybe not. But you will forgive me if I find that to be a fairly irrelevant point. The US could spend 10 billion dollars a year on building a radar capable of detecting the moons of Pluto if it wanted, or for that matter, you could use the same argument to justify the US spending 10 billion dollars a year to drill through the planet: 'sure the project itself may not be valuable, but it might give us valuable spin-off technology!'.



Possibly, possibly not. The 'chance of failure' certainly didn't deter Hussein in the 1991 war. Besides, as explained above there are a dozen simple steps that can be taken to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the MDS, from decoys to stealth to MRVs, thus eliminating this questionable 'advantage'.




I certainly agree with the value of an honest cost benefit analysis, it is almost truistic that one should be performed, always. So if that is the case, why has one not been performed so far? Why is a cost-benefit analysis being discussed 60 or so billion dollars into the project?

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Ted: I read over the site you provided, and found nothing to disagree with the link I posted above. Can you help me here?


I do however stand corrected regarding the intended capacity of the NMD to supposedly protect carrier groups at sea against ballistic threats. I did not know that was part of the projected system.


As to China and NK having counter-measure technology, well we really have no idea now do we?Considerin decoys and chaff are trivial technology, and MIRV and MRV are 35 year old technology, and stealth is a 15 year old technology, it is difficult to imagine how China at least could NOT have developed them, and NK being well on their way.

The system certainly has the capability to defend the US against rouge state attacks. Even if it is not 100% today it can be in the next few years and as Amlord points out even at a lower certainty it can be a deterrent.

So what is the cost benefit of saving say 5 million American lives? There is no number. You can be sure that if a madman like the ruler of NK ever launched against the US we would wipe him out but as you pointed out this did not stop Saddam and may not stop Kim.

So what would the American people say if there was a possibility we could have destroyed the missile that killed 5,000,000 people? What cost would they have been willing to pay to avoid this and the ugly war and occupation that would have followed it?

Assuming these states are stupid enough to NOT adopt the decades old, cheap and easy technology that can not only significantly reduce if not eliminate the effectiveness of NMD, but also dramatically increase the damage caused by it, in the form of MRV or MIRV... Oh and people were saying it could be 100% in a few years a decade ago.



Quite the irrelevant argument: if a rogue state fired a missile at the US and it WAS intercepted, you can bet there would still be a costly war and ocupation: the hypothetical missile defence alters that not at all.

And as to the 'cost' of killing 5 million people, nice appeal to emotion. But sadly, the system is costing a fortune and is easy do defeat or circumvent, and doesn't even protect the country against cruise missiles, SLBM, ship or locally launched missiles, or portable nukes, all of which are a greater threat then ICBMs. Even if NK's ICBMs could be rendered obsolete, the problems could be overcome, and the easy means of negating the system could be dealth with: NK takes the nuke off the missile, puts it on a ship and sets it off in San Diego harbour. Better still, in fact, as it would be unstoppable, and much harder to tell where it came from.

It isn't a deterrent at all, its a politically based massive expense of taxpayer money. The cost-benefit analysis that was never performed would have shut the project down years ago based on that alone.

You assume much. NK is starving to death. To think this rouge state will reach the capability of Russia soon is a stretch and as the system improves the capability to kill all RV will be there. And as far as identifying RV from decoys I maintain that not all is public in this regard and certainly your 2002 article is no longer relevant.



Well you seem to value millions of lives at 0 and I do not. There is no reason to not have a MDS when we face rouge states such as NK. And you have NOT demonstrated at all the system is “easy to defeat” - try again with something more recent than 4 year old data.

And try reading the MDS link. The THAAD system is designed for “area defence”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High...de_Area_Defense

How many times have I said this? Ted, please READ what people type before answering. I never said NK was due to reach Russian capabilities, I said NK was likely to reach Soviet capabilities from 25 years ago, if it had not already.

As far as identifying decoys, you have yet to dispute or disprove: only arbitrarily dismiss the article I cited regarding the inability of the MDS to identify decoys from warheads. Even if you chose for whatever reason to ignore that, you also chose not to respond to the issues of stealth, MRV and MIRV all of which can also defeat the proposed misile system. Not to mention any non-ballistic delivery system.

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/1143/systemic-failure



That is cheap and unworthy, not to mention obviously wrong.



NO reason?
How about the false sense of security behind a system which can easily be overcome?
How about the arms race escalation that has already begun as a result of the US research?
How about the abrogation of arms limitation treaties as a direct result of US research?
How about the reintroduction of MIRV and MRV weapons, previously on their way to the scrapyard, directly as a result of this research?
How about 60 billion dollars spent on a system that still doesn't even work at capacity 1 (C-1) levels
How about a hugely expensive system which will not protect against any of the most likely forms of attack of terrorists or rogue nations?

Even if EVERYTHING worked perfectly, AND worked as you imagine it would (which it doesn't) and Could not be easily overcome (which it can) then all you have compelled NK to do is stick its warhead on an international freighter and set it off in harbour. Or a dozen other easy means of delivery. That is all. You have in no way stopped a nuclear armed madman from attacking the country.

Your entire response is based upon your view that the current system doesn't work. That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not we should develop or continue to develop a system.

Are you claiming that it is technologically impossible to develop such a system? Or is it that doing so would be too expensive? Or a waste of time and resources? These seem to be conclusions based upon a cost-benefit analysis that you haven't performed. In fact, there may be benefits to having a system which doesn't work that potential enemies are unsure of the capabilities of. It seems that there is too much information publicly available already about this top secret system.

False sense of security? For whom? If the military and political leaders are aware of the limitations of the system (as I advocate), there is no false sense of security.

Arms race? I thought the system didn't work. Why would there be an arms race as a resultant of a system that everyone knows won't work?

The treaty question is a valid legal question, but off topic as far as the specific question for debate goes.

Too costly? Doesn't work against the most likely forms of attack? Again, this is cost-benefit analysis.

The one point we should zero in on is the arms race question. Although you seem to indicate that this would be a wasted effort by the enemies of the US (since the system is easily defeated anyway), an arms race IS in the interest of the US since we are more likely to win it than anyone else. Making the cost of attacking the US higher takes potential weapons out of the hands of low ball would-be attackers. This would definitely be in the "benefit" category. Barrier to entry into a market is one way to control that market. Ask any economist.

As usual not worth talking to you. Obviously if NK had a MIRV missile, which they don’t, we could fire multiple interceptors at it to kill all RVs. DUH – do you get the concept?

Do you really think the Pentagon would spend billions and get Congress to approve same if the system could be as easily defeated ads you imply???

I posted the link to THAAD for area non ballistic defense – you obviously didn’t read it.

On 22 November 2005, THAAD launched a missile in its first Flight EMD Test, known as FLT-01. The test was deemed a success by Lockheed and the Pentagon.


You stick your 4 year old article and no other backup – but let me say this – I spoke with people at MIT LL who told me they were months away from having the computing power to identify decoys – that was 1988.



How about that. We always are ahead and always will be.

This is 2006:

by Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
Washington (UPI) Sep 14, 2006
The successful Sept. 1 test of a U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor is already having repercussions around the world. On Sept. 6, Alexanbdr Vondra, foreign minister of the Czech Republic, boldly stated that European members of NATO would have to build an effective anti-ballistic missile system in cooperation with the United States.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Missile_De...action_999.html

The necessity of missle defense is a failure of MAD, as was pointed out above. However, it is also an admission of the failure of will right now.

Let's look at Iran and NK. If we were serious about nuclear proliferation, we'd nuke Iran and NK right now. Unprovoked but for their acquisition of nuclear capability--demonstrated by NK's tests, and bragged about just this week by Iran's "president". Once a nation like Iran has nukes, it is almost a certainty that terror groups will gain access to them. Indeed, how we permitted Pakistan and India to get these weapons is beyond me. But, no use crying over spilt milk--we can only address the present time, not the past.

Our corollary would be whenever a new nations gets close to the nuclear club, they are on notice that the gig is up. I would hope we could even get the Chinese and the Russians to join us, as whether they fully appreciate it, they are, or will be, targets of the new Muslim caliphate as well.

Now, as a practical matter, I seriously doubt we'd vaporize 30 million Iranians over their leader's dangerous pursuit of power, but the truth is this--once Iran gets the bomb, terrorists will get it as well, and a bomb WILL go off in the US, in Israel, maybe in Europe. Count on it.

Is this the worst thing imaginable? I guess not--it might be worse to have the lives of millions of Iranians on your hands; but then, the lives of millions of Americans killed by a terror nuke might be a little hard to swallow, too. In any event, you'd only have to do this once--what other nation would be so foolish after such an event? We'd have proven we have the will to launch....

In any event, the missle shield is a waste of money, as no nation will launch against us because of MAD (unless we continue to disarm, MAD is a great strategy and has served us well for decades). I know someone argued that this is not the case, but even some idiot like the head of NK is not going to sacrifice his people, his govt, and himself, to some huge nuclear conflagration rained down on his head by launching directly against us. We know where they are, and they will become glass; however, a terror group without a definite geographic location is not so targetable, and they will be the ones to pull the nuclear trigger, and they won't use a missle. NK and Iran have already supplied weapons to terror groups, for Muslim pride or money, as they case may be, and there is no reason to believe nukes will not be supplied as well. Also, I doubt we'd nuke Iran for supplying the weapons to Hamas, if Hamas set them off. I just don't see it.

Ho Chi Minh said the nuclear weapon was a paper tiger because the US hadn't the will to use it; he was probably correct....

I agree – and neither will we go to war with Iran and NK when they get nukes. But consider that the fissionable material used in a device can and will be traced back to the country who’s power plant made it. Thus no country will just give terrorists the material knowing we will trace it back to them and probably go to war over the loss of life.

As far as MAD I feel this works fine with Russia and (maybe) China but not NK. They may be just nutty enough to launch against us and if they do and we have no shield millions of Americans will die 20 minuets later. Also remember the system has a “area defense” that would prevent troops who were for example fighting an invasion of the south by NK from being nuked.

The alternative to a defense is playing chicken with the likes of NK. Are we willing to bet the lives of millions of Americans they would never attack us?

You make a good point, but let me put it this way--NK is very easy to find and eliminate; I think the trillions of dollars needed for a realistic missle defense, up and running and maintained and upgraded over the years, could better be spent infiltrating terror groups, up close and personal, and spying on Iran and NK, up close and personal.

If we ever get a first class human intelligence capability again, it would be the best single weapon we could ever have, and by far the most cost-effective.

I like the idea of a missile defense system because we are talking about a purely defensive system that has nothing to do with actually attacking another country. It boggles my mind when people are against this measure. We can't be pro-active and attack a country before they attack us and now people say we can't have a missile defense system to protect us from an attack.

I may be stepping on some toes here but I bet people would still be against a missile defense system if it was cost efficient and nearly 100% reliable.


Oh and here are the many, many , many links on the google search page that show the successful test.

Using google is easy and fun!!

I like the idea of a missile defense system too. If we hadn't signed on to the ABM treaty, then I would not be questioning the worthiness of such a system from a political perspective. I do question its technical feasibility, though, given that we don't have infinite resources -- money & time perhaps better spent elsewhere.


If we want to live in dreamland, then no toes stepped on here. I'd be fully in favor of a cost efficient, nearly 100% reliable system (except for the ABM treaty part). Unfortunately, there's no such thing. The system will never be nearly 100% reliable -- it will never even be 50% reliable. It will also not be cheap. In fact, its cost will be proportional to its reliability.

Sleeper

I agree and what you will find is vast ignorance on the part of the public on this issue.

If you asked the average American (10 + years ago and today) what will happen if NK launches an ICBM at the US the answer is “we will shoot it down of course”. Try it.

Most people are shocked when they learn that until recently we had absolutely no defense from missile attack.




Check out Amlord’s response on the last page. He covers it nicely. And I maintain it will be nearly 100% reliable for the rouge state threat.


Decoy identification:

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMGNC03_...PV2003_5446.pdf

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6741341-description.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/def..._jwstp/jw4d.htm

No, only the sixth response was based on the fact that the system doesn't work yet. NONE of the others do.



No, the system doesn't currently work. The arms race exists because of the need of other nuclear powered states to overcome it if it is ever made to work. sadly, overcoming it is relatively easy: decoys, stealth and MRVs are only three easy means well within the reach of Rogue states I mentioned.




That only applies if the cost of defeating it relatively the same as the cost of developing it, it is not. Not even close.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



yeah Right Ted, I'M the one here wasting everybody's time and not worth responding to. Hint: If I'm 'not worth responding to', then do everybody here a favour and don't respond.

Firstly, thank you for your in depth analysis of the missile capacity of North Korea. sadly, you are (typically) wrong on fact. Making things up again?

"Global Security (GlobalSecurity.org) reported that North Korea began working on the SS-N-6 as early 2003. The SS-N-6, initially designed for launch from a submarine, may have been modified by North Korea to be used by mobile vehicles on land. The SS-N-6 delivers a 1500 lb re-entry vehicle (RV) while common variants can deliver multiple re-entry vehicles (MRV)"

"China has had the technical capability to develop multiple RV payloads for 20 years. If China needed a multiple-RV (MRV) capability in the near term, Beijing could use a DF-31-type RV to develop and deploy a simple MRV or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) 1 for the CSS-4"

"North Korea's first satellite Kwang Myong Song #1 went into orbit on August 31, 1998 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 1948 founding of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The satellite was launched on a three-stage propulsion unit made of a Taepo-dong 2 (a 2-stage missile named after the town in which it was developed) and a 3rd stage solid-fuel unit. It is believed that the rocket was a MIRV (Multiple Independenty-Targetable Re-entry Vehicles) prototype intended to launch several warheads at different targets."

"China continues to modernize its ballistic missile arsenal. Although limited in number and capability when compared to their American counterparts, China's ballistic missiles are being improved in a number of key ways, making them a growing threat to the United States. The newly-developed DF-31 is capable of targeting the west coast of the United States, while its longer-range follow-on, the DF-31A, once deployed, may be able to reach much of the continental United States. Furthermore, advances in warhead design and multiple independently-targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) technology (including a successful test of a MIRVed DF-21) appear intended to enable China to overcome U.S. missile defenses, allowing it to maintain a credible deterrent."

Who 'isn't worth talking to' again there Ted?

Oh but wait, there's more. Your suggestion of 'if there is a MIRV, we just fire more missiles' is hilarious, and redundant as I already deiscussed this, pity you don't make it a habit of readng before posting. MRV's deploy at the apogee and reenter at about mach 20. Ground radar then has literally a few dozen seconds to make out the decoys from the warheads and fire the 'appropriate' number of misiles. But they can't. Even your own site says the eventual intention is to have the missile itself make the determination at close range. There is no time for volleys or repeat firings. Read here:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...s_starwars.html
The terminal phase of the warhead, where it reenters the atmosphere, can be as little as 20 seconds.

To quote another poster here: DUH, do you get the concept? Not to MENTION that C-1 deployment of the MDS envisages a grant total of only 10 interceptor missiles covering the continental United States.



Of course you are right because the Pentagon has NEVER made politically motivated decisions before.



Yes I did, though I am still trying to figure out how it is in any way relevant to the discussion.

THAAD is essentially an improved patriot-style missile system, useless against ballistic missiles. Its planned use if perfected is against high-altitude, long range non-ballistic missiles like the SCUD. How is that relevant to anything?




Since you have been unable to dispute or disprove my 4-year old article, yes thank you I will. And given that that artcile was written in 2003, onbiously your friends in 1988 (four years earlier) were completely wrong.

However, since you insist on arbitrarily dismissing this article because of it's age... well, let nobody ever say I do not aim to please:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/a...ssile-0033.html

Two weeks ago recent enough for you?


Oh and let me be clear aout something else. The three methods I laid out above are only three of the cheap and easy methods known to have a high probability of defeating the MDS: decoys, stealth and MRVs. There are more.

"Speed: Early re-entry vehicle designs used blunt shapes which caused them to decelerate significantly during re-entry. Modern re-entry vehicles are shaped like ice cream cones to minimize aerodynamic drag. While the primary purpose of high-speed re-entry is to improve accuracy, it carries the collateral benefit of reducing the duration of exposure to terminal missile defense.
Maneuvers: It is possible to design a re-entry vehicle that will perform simple but unpredictable and intense maneuvers upon re-entry. All that is required is that the re-entry vehicle’s center of gravity and center of drag not line up along its trajectory. This can be done by using a slightly bent nose, a small fin at the rear, or an internal weight that is moved laterally during re-entry. In the 1970s the U.S. developed a maneuvering re-entry vehicle, the Mark 500, for the Trident 1 SLBM. Its tests were successful and included 200G maneuvers that would severely challenge any defense. The Mark 500 was not deployed because the Soviet missile defense system did not warrant it. Maneuvering re-entry vehicles of this type sacrifice some accuracy and payload, but for a rogue state attack these are probably not significant.
Ladder down: A nuclear warhead exploding in the upper atmosphere would create a cloud of ionized gas that would be opaque to radar for several minutes. One tactic available to the offense would be to use such a precursor explosion to mask a following re-entry vehicle. The second re-entry vehicle would become visible after passing through the cloud, but the time remaining for the defense would be significantly reduced. Possibly a second, lower, precursor could be used to ensure penetration by the third re-entry vehicle.


An advanced missile, like the Topol-M uses many of these systems at once. But even less advanced missiles could easily adopt one or two, for relatively insignificant cost.




Again, pity you couldn’t be bothered to read what I posted above. In fact the US is not the universal world technological leader in all military applications, that’s just bluster. Ballistic Missile systems, Torpedo systems, TOW missiles are a few of the fields Russia is leading the US in at the moment. And while you will undoubtedly say the NMD isn’t meant against Russia, let us not forget that Russia has the rather unfortunate habit of selling its technology to states like China, who then sell it to Pakistan and Iran.

And it’s not just Russia. Did you know that the most advances anti-shipping missile in the world is Chinese? The Yingji-82. Did you also know that it has sold 60 of these to Iran? That’s why the first thing the US will do if Iranian hostilities are imminent is pull its carriers OUT of the narrow confines of the Gulf.

The point is, the US certainly has the lead in many, in fact most military technologies, but don’t pretend that ‘most’ equals ‘all’.

Ya started working and will have the capability when???? 10 years?? Maybe more.

Read what I posted on identification of decoys and comment. The issue is not lost on missile defense experts and your statement we cannot deal with it based on one article from 2004 is ludicrous.

Try here:

Decoy identification:

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMGNC03_...PV2003_5446.pdf

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6741341-description.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/def..._jwstp/jw4d.htm

Worst of all nightmare scenarios is not just the loss of Millions of Americans but the loss of much of our electronic infrastructure to an EMP device.

We could be brought to our knees quickly by one or two nukes exploded over the US

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

Ted, what is the matter with you?




RIGHT AFTER that quote was another quote that stated that NK had already test-fired a MIRV capable missile, as had China. How could you possibly post that reply, and pretend those quotes had never existed? What could you possibly hope to gain by using this 'ostrich' tactic of debating 'I didn't aknowledge the proof, so it doesn't exist'? I mean come on Ted... seriously that is WAY beyond baffling.



AGAIN!!!, Same thing! What is up with that? In the very post you are responding to I posted another source from just two weeks ago. Do you think by pretending it isn't there that will make it cease to exist? Why would you try that kind of transparent ploy? What could you possibly hope to gain by this? Again, just utterly baffling.

And you had the audacity (and irony) to say MY posts were 'unworthy of response? This kind of bizarre tactic hardly helps you here Ted...



Ah, I see you finally got around to sourcing your points. lets take a look shall we?

I am looking forward to reading them: you have an amusing habit of posting links you have never read, and which end up not supporting your points at all. lets see if you have continued that habit today, shall we?


First Source: Could you link to the rest of the article? Your link only has the first page, and it certainly doesn't help your case at all. It is a 2003 experiment in which it sets up an experiment to try to deal with the problem of decoys:

An example of an application is the problem in ballisticmissile defense of target identifcation, when an enemy missile releases several decoys in addition to the warhead. Decoys can have the same radar and/or thermal properties as the warhead, and therefore can fool sensors while still above the atmosphere. Fortunately different masses and aero- dynamic properties may make targets and decoys distinguishable during reentry. Thus, the ability of the mixture of experts to act as an hypothesis tester will be extremely important. This will be tested in a scenario where the gating network will have to decide between filters working with a different hypothesis on the ballistic coeffcient of the Marv.

So this hypothetical proves the military has solved the problem? How exactly?

Second Source

This one is interesting, and might almost make a case for your point: almost. It is a patent application for a new kind of missile which seeks to deal with the previously unsolvable problem of decoys fired along with RVs. Of course, we have no idea if the susyem works or not, or has been tested in real terms, as this is just a patent application. In addition, 10 seconds of research also shows the US and Russia had fairly simple means of defeating IR seeking on interceptors, concealment ond heated decoys, but given a lack of detailed description I don't know how advanced those countermeasures are, and weither China or NK would be presumed to have access to them...

Third source

Oops... you were doing so well. Sadly, your third source argues exactly the opposite of what you want, arguing that US based interceptors have not yet managed to overcome the countermeasures I listed. Thank you do much for providing me another source that defeats your argument.

From YOUR source:
"Key limitations of current technologies that now preclude development of the functional capabilities needed to fully satisfy the JTMD goals are highlighted in the third column of Table IV.D-2, Goals, Limitations, and Technologies for JTMD. For example, for the target intercept functional capability, key limitations include discrimination of the actual target in the face of a sophisticated threat including decoys, tracking of maneuvering targets, lack of a current capability for boost-phase intercept, and the inability to defeat early-release submunitions. "


In all honesty, this is far from the first time this has happened to you, you REALLY need to start reading your sources before you post them.

Missile not warhead – do you know the difference.?




Yes try reading my sources. And realize they are dated and do not release details that are still classified. And then remember that the “enemy” we are discussing in this phase of the program are rough states not Russia and China. So the fact that they may be able at this point to defeat the current system is hardly relevant. There is no indication that Russia will give MIRV warhead technology to NK is there?????

And as far as your statement that the Pentagon is a pushover I beg to differ but can understand your ignorance in that you are out of the US and have never dealt with the military here.

Here is how it works sir – the Pentagon and services develop a threat matrix and a specification for systems to defeat the threat (and theis evolves over time) – industry bids on supplying a solution and the low bid wins (of credible bidders). You then build and the military tests your system to the spec. If it does not work you don’t get paid. Long gone are the days that you could build crap and get paid.

Congress is different. They will try to force the Pentagon, at times to take poor performing products – think Osprey.

Yes, and of the two the MIRV capable missile is by FAR the more difficult.



I did, and responded to them at great lenth, including the one that directly contradicts your point. Again you employ the ostrich tactic, and hope that if you don't aknowledge it, you can pretend it never happened.



When on earth did I ever claim anything even close to that?


I'm sorry Ted, but you have pretty much given us a textbook case of posts that are literally not worth the seconds it takes to answer them. You can only make arguments by deliberately ignoring sections of previous posts, and cutting-and-running in the face of contrary evidence and pretending it never existed. That's not debating, that is just a phenominal waste of time.


I'll wait for Amlord to reply: his responses, though we may disagree, are intelligent and sourced, not to mention respectful and thought out. Unless you want to take this seriously by actually posting intelligently and answering other posts, I see no reason to bother responding to your bizarre and transparent tactics.

As usual you employ the apples and oranges comparisons. You say the system, which is designed to defeat rough states ICBMs will not work because of the issues of MIRV warheads – knowing full well these states do NOT have this capability now.



Yes but it is the area defense system you said we didn’t have – read your own posts please.





Right here :





So to sum up your entire argument rests on the MDS not yet having the capability to deal with a threat you admit does not exist from rogue states – brilliant.
And as you were forced to admit by Amlord the reason the Russians are concerned about the MDS is that they know it WILL have the capability to deal with MIV and menuvering RV.

And to sum up the alternative to a MDS against states like NK (and Iran in a few years) imo would be a premtive strike to cripple or eliminate the capability.
I see no other alternatives. Do you?

1. Is missile defense a good way to defend the United States without having to have proactive military strikes against countries like Iran and North Korea.

Until you can verify the system's true value in a credible fashion, your question comes off as an emotional response not a logical one.

I disagree with Amlord's assessment. This question cannot be answered without a prefeasability study [and it isn't good] assessing the likelyhood of success.

Two, is this inside or outside American borders? Defense has been turned on its head since the inception of pre empting so we can't assume this is in America anymore.The difference is huge. You can create two separate tangent threats detailing:

1) Political implications of multiple base structures in satellite nations and potential blowblack, you know in the form of counter stations by former super powers? Would you be secure with the notion of militarizing Cuba with Chinese or Russian missiles?

2) Ethics of striking from a distance on foreign soil and the moral implications of swapping ICBMs out and nuclear warheads in and using them in first strike scenarios which you heavily imply. Why? Given the material presented from the pentagon, it becomes evident that nuclear proliferation hits main stream thinking under the guise of missile defense. As in, puff of smoke? [pdf]

But you didn't do that did you? How about a little more information?

If you are implying we have to defend against ballistic missiles launced at the US from the US - you have to be joking.



Again we could care less about others potential defenses as long as we are protected. And remember no system even conceived can defend against the thousands of warheads the US and Russia can launch. And since the little 1962 dispute over Cuba you can bet there will be no Russian facilities there.