Continental Missles Defence System

[Bonam]

All of the above. In fact Russia is already building new missile systems designed to beat the shield.

Good news. Progress. Jobs for people like me

[Guest Derek L]

A shield can be either offensive or defensive. I suggest you read up on how and why the MAD doctrine works to keep the peace.

I’ve somewhat of an idea how it works ……….Did it fail to work when the Reagan administration brought about SDI?

The Soviets and the US signed a treaty banning such "shields" because both sides knew the danger presented by either side believing it could strike first and mitigate the counter strike.

Again, what was the Soviet responce to Star Wars?

All of the above. In fact Russia is already building new missile systems designed to beat the shield.

As are the Chinese etc.......The key being the Russians are reacting to the United States, not the other way around.

This has been happening for thousands of years.....

In the end, as has been mentioned, the current program is intended to defend against "smaller" nuclear armed "rogue" states.......The US has no plans to deploy enough interceptors to counter the "Russian threat".

[Bonam]

In the end, as has been mentioned, the current program is intended to defend against "smaller" nuclear armed "rogue" states.......The US has no plans to deploy enough interceptors to counter the "Russian threat".

No kidding. Trying to deploy enough interceptors to ensure immunity for the entire US (or even just the continental US) from an all out nuclear attack by Russia (not even taking into account their future capabilities) would be the most expensive defense procurement in history. When it comes to missiles, offense is inherently much cheaper than defense.

That being said, advanced future technologies may provide more efficient means of defense. Ground-based interceptors would have to be placed at thousands of locations to protect the continent. On the other hand, a single laser system in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) could continuously have the entire hemisphere in its view, but such a system would have very high power requirements and is not really viable without extensive further research and investment. Such a system could be countered by having the missiles maneuver erratically on timescales of tens of milliseconds, since a satellite in GEO is about 0.1 light seconds away from suborbital missiles. Satellites in low earth orbit could get around that, being much closer to their targets, but you'd need lots of them instead of just one, since each one would have a limited field of view (rather than having direct line of sight to an entire hemisphere), limiting their advantages over ground based interceptors. Low earth orbit satellites are also more vulnerable to simple anti-satellite weapons, whereas satellites in GEO are harder to reach and would have more warning against strikes against them (unless the enemy takes it out with a laser system too, in which case there is no warning).

But if we really did want to build an impermeable shield that could handle thousands of incoming missiles, a space based laser / plasma beam system would probably be the best solution.

On the bright side, if we ever went that far, at least we'd be super well prepared if we were ever faced with an alien invasion

Edited May 19, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

No kidding. Trying to deploy enough interceptors to ensure immunity for the entire US (or even just the continental US) from an all out nuclear attack by Russia (not even taking into account their future capabilities) would be the most expensive defense procurement in history. When it comes to missiles, offense is inherently much cheaper than defense.

That being said, advanced future technologies may provide more efficient means of defense. Ground-based interceptors would have to be placed at thousands of locations to protect the continent. On the other hand, a single laser system in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) could continuously have the entire hemisphere in its view, but such a system would have very high power requirements and is not really viable without extensive further research and investment. Such a system could be countered by having the missiles maneuver erratically on timescales of tens of milliseconds, since a satellite in GEO is about 0.1 light seconds away from suborbital missiles. Satellites in low earth orbit could get around that, being much closer to their targets, but you'd need lots of them instead of just one, since each one would have a limited field of view (rather than having direct line of sight to an entire hemisphere), limiting their advantages over ground based interceptors. Low earth orbit satellites are also more vulnerable to simple anti-satellite weapons, whereas satellites in GEO are harder to reach and would have more warning against strikes against them (unless the enemy takes it out with a laser system too, in which case there is no warning).

But if we really did want to build an impermeable shield that could handle thousands of incoming missiles, a space based laser / plasma beam system would probably be the best solution.

On the bright side, if we ever went that far, at least we'd be super well prepared if we were ever faced with an alien invasion

I agree, for the Russians to be worried about missile defense (as is currently planned) is extremely unfounded from a technical point of view. From a political standpoint, I can see that they would be uncomfortable with having interceptors being based in former Warsaw pact countries, but that is even moot, what with Obama’s administration plan to stick with ship based interceptors and ones based in the States proper.

It really reminds me of the Soviets opposition to Pershing II.

As for space based weapons, as was the case in the 80s, there are still many technological hurdles to overcome………….perhaps these will be achieved in the coming decades and implemented once the potential threats (North Korea & Iran) have achieved a level in missile and MIRV technology to equal the Soviets of the 70s & 80s.

[Bonam]

As for space based weapons, as was the case in the 80s, there are still many technological hurdles to overcome………….perhaps these will be achieved in the coming decades and implemented once the potential threats (North Korea & Iran) have achieved a level in missile and MIRV technology to equal the Soviets of the 70s & 80s.

I don't think NK or Iran will ever get there while their regimes last. An impoverished dictatorship and an impoverished theocracy... neither are fertile ground for the development of advanced technology. Putting together a basic nuke is childsplay compared to the level of technological and economic advancement needed for effective MIRVs. I mean, give me some uranium ore and some dudes willing to work with radioactive materials and I could put together a nuke better than what NK tested pretty quick, off the top of my head... not only is the physics really simple but you can find all the needed info straightforwardly in textbooks. The fact that NK barely managed to get it to work speaks volumes about the technical incompetence of their scientists and engineers.

Not so for a MIRV, however. They are a very complex technology, requiring advanced computer control, a deep understanding of orbital mechanics, computational aerodynamics, signals & communications, plasma physics, etc. They also require much more advanced warheads than the simple stuff that regimes build at first. Miniaturizing a nuke to the point that you can fit multiple warheads on one missile (to make a MIRV) is much more complex than just making a basic nuclear device. You can't use the simple "gun and target" nuclear weapon design, rather, you have to go to precisely timed spherical compression waves, much harder to get right. And, realistically, most MIRV warheads deployed by the US, Russia, and other countries are thermonuclear or even three stage (fission-fusion-fission), again, another order of complexity harder to make than fission-only warheads.

Most importantly, if the US got a whiff of either NK or Iran developing any of the above, those places would be invaded so fast they wouldn't know what the heck happened to them. The US would not allow crazy suicidal regimes to gain technology that would pose an existential threat to America.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

Most importantly, if the US got a whiff of either NK or Iran developing any of the above, those places would be invaded so fast they wouldn't know what the heck happened to them. The US would not allow crazy suicidal regimes to gain technology that would pose an existential threat to America.

NK for all the bluster in the media about its military might is very open to air attack. It'd be over fairly quick...the main fighting.

[bloodyminded]

Then they retreated back to Great Britain?

Yes. Exactly so.

You do understand there are some distinctions between 1812 and 1867?

[bloodyminded]

They are also banned by international treaty, which the US has so far chosen to comply with. In any case, space based weapons are not really necessary for missile defense.

Presumably not, but it doesn't matter. No one--no one--who has an interest in constructing the missile defense technology is proposing that it should be strictly a defensive measure. Offense is part and parcel of the plan.

[bloodyminded]

On the bright side, if we ever went that far, at least we'd be super well prepared if we were ever faced with an alien invasion

Assuming a lack of profoundly superior technology on their part.

In Martin Amis' story "The Janitor on Mars," Earthlings were informed that the interstellar wars generally lasted less than a second.

[Guest Derek L]

Presumably not, but it doesn't matter. No one--no one--who has an interest in constructing the missile defense technology is proposing that it should be strictly a defensive measure. Offense is part and parcel of the plan.

Why is it being built then?

The Americans could turn Iran/North Korea into a glass parking lot, ~30 minutes after I've made this post.

[bloodyminded]

Why is it being built then?

???

Why is an offensive weapon being built?

When isn't one being built??

[Guest Derek L]

???

Why is an offensive weapon being built?

When isn't one being built??

As I posted above, if the Americans launched a nuclear strike at ~9:17 am PST on North Korea, as of ~10:30am PST the nation would no longer exist.

What do the American's gain with missle defence?

[bloodyminded]

As I posted above, if the Americans launched a nuclear strike at ~9:17 am PST on North Korea, as of ~10:30am PST the nation would no longer exist.

What do the American's gain with missle defence?

From USSpaceCommand "Vision for 2020:

Global Engagement (GE) is the combination of global surveillance of the Earth (see anything, anytime), worldwide missile defense, and the potential ability to apply force from space. GE addresses increasing ballistic and cruise missile threats, the need for force application, and the need for effective forward presence with reduced forward basing.

Mind you, I think that piece is several years old; but here is what's currently on the US Air Force website, in which Missile Defense is intrinsically part of a larger, offensive capability, rather than standing alone as "defense":

The organization has five strategic priorities:

- Guarantee a safe, credible, ready nuclear deterrent force with perfection as the standard

- Deliver assured combat power to the joint fight

- Forge a battle-ready team by attracting, developing and retaining America's best

- Modernize and sustain AFSPC's enduring missions and mature emerging missions

- Re-engineer acquisitions to deliver capability at the speed of need

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest Derek L]

From USSpaceCommand "Vision for 2020:

Mind you, I think that piece is several years old; but here is what's currently on the US Air Force website, in which Missile Defense is intrinsically part of a larger, offensive capability, rather than standing alone as "defense":

Sure, I don't discount that the Americans have offensive weapons, (I've spent a night or two at the Holiday Inn in El Paso county Colorado), but what does the Missile Defense strategy alone, provide to their offensive capabilities?

And, for example, if Canada (a member of NORAD) allowed sites on our soil to be used for missile defense, would that likely spurn the development of offensive nuclear/space based weapons programs for Canada?

[bloodyminded]

Sure, I don't discount that the Americans have offensive weapons, (I've spent a night or two at the Holiday Inn in El Paso county Colorado), but what does the Missile Defense strategy alone, provide to their offensive capabilities?

The point is that there is no "Missile Defense strategy alone."

I'm not saying it couldn't be done; I'm saying it's not the plan.

And, for example, if Canada (a member of NORAD) allowed sites on our soil to be used for missile defense, would that likely spurn the development of offensive nuclear/space based weapons programs for Canada?

I don't think so.

[Guest Derek L]

The point is that there is no "Missile Defense strategy alone."

I'm not saying it couldn't be done; I'm saying it's not the plan.

The B61 thermonuclear bomb will be able to be deployed from the F-35, so does that make the Canadian purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter an offensive nuclear weapon delivery system?

As I've said, the Americans can already "take care of" the threats the missile defense program is designed to neutralize with a "pro-active" approach if need be.

They don't require missile defense for this.

[bloodyminded]

The B61 thermonuclear bomb will be able to be deployed from the F-35, so does that make the Canadian purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter an offensive nuclear weapon delivery system?

As I've said, the Americans can already "take care of" the threats the missile defense program is designed to neutralize with a "pro-active" approach if need be.

They don't require missile defense for this.

To my knowledge, you're right. That's why "missile defense" is a propaganda exercise, meant to make everyone say "what's the problem with something as benign as defense?"

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...As I've said, the Americans can already "take care of" the threats the missile defense program is designed to neutralize with a "pro-active" approach if need be.

They don't require missile defense for this.

But that was the case over 50 years ago as well, yet there were still ABM programs like Nike-Zeus...a cure worst than the disease. There are many examples of tactical defense systems already deployed on US platforms because it is technically possible to do so with some level of effectiveness. Layered missile defense systems represent the culmination of such technology and political will and objectives. As with SDI, it is also a bargaining chip for concessions in negotiations (directly and indirectly) related.

[Guest Derek L]

But that was the case over 50 years ago as well, yet there were still ABM programs like Nike-Zeus...a cure worst than the disease. There are many examples of tactical defense systems already deployed on US platforms because it is technically possible to do so with some level of effectiveness. Layered missile defense systems represent the culmination of such technology and political will and objectives. As with SDI, it is also a bargaining chip for concessions in negotiations (directly and indirectly) related.

Exactly, if it renders the Norks & Iranians IRBM/ICBM programs impotent, it's succeeded.

"Peace through strength" & "Peace is our Profession" writ large....

[RNG]

Exactly, if it renders the Norks & Iranians IRBM/ICBM programs impotent, it's succeeded.

"Peace through strength" & "Peace is our Profession" writ large....

The problem with this strategy is that it assumes some degree of rationality will be shown by the enemy. But I really think the rulers of both Iran and N. Korea are bat-shit crazy.

Edited May 19, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

The problem with this strategy is that it assumes some degree of rationality will be shown by the enemy. But I really think the rulers of both Iran and N. Korea are bat-shit crazy.

I agree 100% (and I think Stalin and some of the other hardliners were also), but unlike SDI in the 80s, today’s program is limited in scope (and constrained to modern technology) and already achieving positive results in testing.

As was mentioned by BC-2004, it’s more of a diplomatic tool like SDI in the 80s, but it’s also expected to be effective on a limited scale.

[GostHacked]

Have you ever heard the term ‘Suicide-by-cop’? Ahmadinejad's ( and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the radical clerics) control of Iran is slipping from their control. When one believes that there doing God's work and upon death will enter paradise, I won't discount the possibility of a first strike.

Well, a good deal of our guys claim they are also doing 'god's work', also I need to point out that Iran's leaders are not suicidal. Off their rockers, possibly, but not suicidal.

As for North Korea, their leadership is just bat-shit crazy.

No arguments there, but they are not crazy enough to bring about their complete demise.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, a good deal of our guys claim they are also doing 'god's work', also I need to point out that Iran's leaders are not suicidal. Off their rockers, possibly, but not suicidal.

No arguments there, but they are not crazy enough to bring about their complete demise.

Hitler was, and some in the west thought he was a "reasonable guy" after meeting him in the mid 1930s.....

[Saipan]

What do the American's gain with missle defence?

National Defence.

Also they also want to piss off potential enemy, and it appears they do