Russia, NATO, Missle Defence and the CFE

bush_cheney2004 · May 1, 2007

We've had missle defense for years now, short and meduim range anti missles have been deployed for more than ten years now, and they do work...and most nations have them already... the problem that the US is having now is with thier long range inceptor. and it's only a matter of time before they build one that is sucessful...

Missile defense is even older than that. Nike-Zeus, Sentinel, HAWK, and Safeguard (Sprint-Spartan) are but a few of the US ABM systems that began development over 50 years ago.

marcinmoka · May 1, 2007

And not to mention the ubiquitous Patriot system designed to intercept tactical BM's.

And these are employed by Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

M.Dancer · May 1, 2007

And not to mention the ubiquitous Patriot system designed to intercept tactical BM's.

Best not to mention it because the Patriot was not designed to interecpt missiles but aircraft. And considering it's terrible success rate (at intercepts, not sales) this is not a surprise....

It was in the aftermath of the night of January 25, 1991 that the decision was made to change the Patriots' mode of operation. Seven al-Hussein missiles were fired at Israel that night -- six at Metropolitan Tel Aviv and one at Haifa. When the missiles broke up, the Patriot batteries, radar identified each of them as three or four separate targets. Patriot missiles were fired at a good many of these "targets," and in fact no fewer than 27 Patriots were launched that night against the seven al-Husseins. Not a single al-Hussein warhead was hit. Worse, Patriot missiles hit the ground and caused property damage.
All told, four Patriot missiles struck the ground in Israel during the war. It turned out that in those missiles the "safe and arm" mechanism, which is responsible for self-destruct, was defective. The path of these missiles is clearly visible in ABC-TV video recordings. Following the discovery of this problem it was decided to not allow the Patriot batteries to give a launch order that would lead to an intercept at low altitudes.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407r.htm

Army Guy · May 1, 2007

Well, Myata not withstanding, the makers of the Patriot would want you to believe it works (it was designed afterall, not for missiles but for anti aircraft)
...during Desrt Storm the patriot for all its bluster and PR accounted for hardly any true interceptions...I say true because the PR side were counting interceptions that made you really stretch the definition. If the patriot even crossed the flight path of a scud, they called it an interception.....if it detonated near a scud .....it was an interception........

The Patriot has under gone alot of changes since Desert storm, in fact the US along with the Israelis have done alot of R&D and have greatly improved the entire system.

patriot mis

arrow

THAAD

....but now the russians have tested ICBMs that can effect mid flight course corrections which rendewrs obsolete any defense that uses a terminal trajectory

Yes it presents a problem for the long range system, however the mid, and short range systems are not terminal guided, and can change courses as the target does, and have proven very effective again'st A/C and missles. The problem being is you have to be in range to hit it, hence why the US still has fighters in a ready stance on runways, and still patrols with Aegis naval ves.

The long range system if perfected would be cheaper in the long run, and would free up assets being used as med and short range.

myata · May 1, 2007

Yeigh, yeigh, yeigh

and a nuke is really nothing more but a very big bomb

and an assault rifle just a modified musketon

and it's simply a coincidence what these systems are appearing just in time that the new world powers are coming into play (e.g. India, China) that aren't immediately subservient to US interests.

and they ain't any threat to anybody even if they line your borders and eventually grow in numbers and technical ability

and the US won't ever think of threatening anybody with (or, God forbid, actually using) their own huge arsenal of nukes now that they consider themselves protected against retaliation.

You've got to really believe what you're saying.

marcinmoka · May 1, 2007

M.Dancer. A lot can happen over 20 years, or even 15, especially in terms of technology.

Myata. I take it chess is not your game?

Sulaco · May 1, 2007

Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive capabilities? How exactly would one "use" a defence shield "against" someone? If by "use", you mean "stop missiles from hitting", is this something you have a problem with?

You really need it laid out plain and simple, Scott. Huge nuke arsenal combined with perception of invincibility (whether real or imaginary) could create a very strong temptation to use that power for the best of humanity. To liberate us from all that stands between this miserable state and eternal bliss. By dropping a few nukes here and there. To me it looks like too much temptation. Definitely the recent actions of US administration have shown that they aren't up to the challenge. I.e couldn't and shouldn't be entrusted with such power.

The missile shield is not targetted at Russia or China. An ability to intercept high tech missiles would be a nice side benefit but the real issue is with the low tech prolifirators. The problem with MAD is that it works well on great powers but is of limited utility when the nuclear power is small and especially when it is irrational. These small nations understand the moral issues that the west would have with using nukes while they themselves are less likely to have such qualms. They also are more likely to assume that if they use nukes in a limitted manner they will not suffer a counterstrike. Whether that is true or not is not the issue. Their perception is more likely to be that they could escape a counterstrike. If you will - any nuclear exchange involving the great powers has to be to the hilt. It's always going to be all or nothing. But a small power may imagine that limitted strategic or tactical employment of its nukes will leave the great powers that might retaliate scared that retaliation will bring on a full exchange. A small power might be inclined to think that a great power, especially the US, will be able to absorb a limitted nuclear strike, that it will calculate costs of retaliating (potential of an all out exhcnage with other great powers) will far outweigh the benefits (punishment of the small state). Again whether the small pwoer is right or wrong in its analysis is irrelevant. You don't want them to even think they can employ nukes successfully or without retaliation

Take North Korea for example - it is:

1) far more likely to use nukes as blackmail.

2) far more likely to use nukes for limitted strategic or tactical reasons

3) in my opinion the pattern is that it is much more likely to be reckless.

A missile defense shield changes the arithmetic in dealing with these small nations. It is their nuclear forces that become neutralized. And that is where the shield is really directed.

One more point - small powers can be used by great powers. North Koreas nuke force can be used in proxy by the state it serves as client to. Chine might, at some point, push for a limitted nuclear exchange. At worst china sees North Korea flattened. It is unlikely US would carry out a full exchange. A missile shield will limit the ability of great powers to use small powers as nuclear proxies.

I cannot stress this enough - the real worry in the nuclear arms race is not the great power, it is the small irrational state acting as client fo great power or even worse, on its own.

This is where you, and Morris Dancer go wrong.

M.Dancer · May 1, 2007

This is where you, and Morris Dancer go wrong.

Okay.....

1)The missile shield is not targetted at Russia or China

Quite right, in fact, the shield isn't targetted at all. A shield designed to protect US cities from rogue states will have little value for Seuol......and a nation acting as a proxy or seeking regional power and doesn't fear MAD won't worry if 9 out of 10 (such optimism!) warhead are magically intercepted.....

...whats's more a nation not up to developing a delivery system that can evade counter measure will simply load the bugger on a freighter and sail the package into Tokyo bay......

Spending an inordinate amount of time and money on ballistic missile defense is like French Knights trying to come up with better armour to counter the long bow.....

Sulaco · May 1, 2007

This is where you, and Morris Dancer go wrong.

Okay.....

1)The missile shield is not targetted at Russia or China

Quite right, in fact, the shield isn't targetted at all. A shield designed to protect US cities from rogue states will have little value for Seuol......and a nation acting as a proxy or seeking regional power and doesn't fear MAD won't worry if 9 out of 10 (such optimism!) warhead are magically intercepted.....

...whats's more a nation not up to developing a delivery system that can evade counter measure will simply load the bugger on a freighter and sail the package into Tokyo bay......

Spending an inordinate amount of time and money on ballistic missile defense is like French Knights trying to come up with better armour to counter the long bow.....

Cost benefit ratio change immensly for great powers acting through proxies and rogue regimes.

The argument that because you cannot defend against every emthod of delivery you should defend against none is ridiculous on the face of it. Same as arguing that there is no point of developing body armour if someone will always have weapons that will penetrate it? Or mroe on point with your analogy - what would ahve french knights gained from developing better armour - higher survivability for its charges.

By your argument armour development should have frozen at the time the English slaughtered the French.

M.Dancer · May 1, 2007

By your argument armour development should have frozen at the time the English slaughtered the French.

Pretty much did after that point.

marcinmoka · May 1, 2007

Quite right, in fact, the shield isn't targetted at all. A shield designed to protect US cities from rogue states will have little value for Seuol.

What does Seuol ( I garner you mean Seoul) have to do with ICBM's? Were you refering to Pyong Yang perhaps? Or Seoul since they would be a victim of agression? But should that Kim Jong Il decide to the threaten Seoul, he would do so through conventional means since there is enough fire power to flatten it.

I doubt he would "waste" a nuclear weapon S. Korea.

Pretty much did after that point.

I rest my case.

ScottSA · May 1, 2007

By your argument armour development should have frozen at the time the English slaughtered the French.

Pretty much did after that point.

Actually, no. After Agincourt armour underwent its final and greatest technological leap in becoming both lighter and stronger. Not entirely because of Agincourt. but in aid of mobiolity

M.Dancer · May 1, 2007

Quite right, in fact, the shield isn't targetted at all. A shield designed to protect US cities from rogue states will have little value for Seuol.

What does Seuol ( I garner you mean Seoul) have to do with ICBM's?

I was refering to Sully's post

Take North Korea for example - it is:
1) far more likely to use nukes as blackmail.

2) far more likely to use nukes for limitted strategic or tactical reasons

3) in my opinion the pattern is that it is much more likely to be reckless.

A missile defense shield changes the arithmetic in dealing with these small nations. It is their nuclear forces that become neutralized. And that is where the shield is really directed

myata · May 1, 2007

Right. And if we won't find a way (and fast) to have the players locked up safely where they can play all they want - but away from any kind of a real world weapon, they'll yet see this planet blown up.

It might very well be that this particular system at this particular time does not represent any seriour threat to anybody. But developing a technology untimately capable at diminishing the effect of AMD will have a huge effect on the balance of power in the world. It's complete naiviette to imagine that soothing words will make anybody ignore this threat. And the responsibility for the result would be solely with those who started it rolling.

marcinmoka · May 1, 2007

But developing a technology untimately capable at diminishing the effect of AMD will have a huge effect on the balance of power in the world

But that's the point of AMD. There are only about 5 other nations capable of overcoming AMD either through technology, or sheer numbers, or both (the 4 other SC members plus Japan, which dosen't actually have nukes), and only one nation really has the proven capability to do so (Russia but they will not share for it would threaten their own regional supremacy)

The very point of AMD is that rogue states such as Iran and N.Korea could not conceivably get up and build a system any time soon, no matter how much they want.

Whereas if the US were to skip on AMD, other nations would still be seeking to develop their own technology, and that would have a huge effect on the balance of power.

myata · May 2, 2007

Whereas if the US were to skip on AMD, other nations would still be seeking to develop their own technology, and that would have a huge effect on the balance of power.

Any evidence for that, so far? Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space. Who exactly do you have in mind with that "their own technology"?

Sulaco · May 2, 2007

Whereas if the US were to skip on AMD, other nations would still be seeking to develop their own technology, and that would have a huge effect on the balance of power.

Any evidence for that, so far? Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space. Who exactly do you have in mind with that "their own technology"?

So one day I invited my younger brother to race. Now he was 7 years younger but old enough where I had stopped letting him beat me. No way he could out-run me. He told me he had no intent to seek victory. Then he told me that, all in all, things would be ebtter if our feet were cut off.

Or something like that. Parable is failing.

Of course Russia and Chine will say this. At this moment they would not be able to keep up. Not sure why the US should not move forward with protecting itself from rogue states nonetheless.

bush_cheney2004 · May 2, 2007

Any evidence for that, so far? Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space. Who exactly do you have in mind with that "their own technology"?

Actions speak louder than words:

...But Dvorkin drew attention to past Soviet-era space weapons. “One might remember Soviet anti-satellite spacecraft that were capable to close in on unfriendly satellites and kill them,” he said. These were space-to-space combat systems, operating from orbit — unlike other anti-satellite weapons, such as a U.S. system that involved basing a missile on Earth and firing it into space. The Soviet system, considered a genuine space weapon, had the potential to operate anywhere in near-Earth space that its booster rockets could send it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8089747/

ScottSA · May 2, 2007

Any evidence for that, so far? Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space. Who exactly do you have in mind with that "their own technology"?

Actions speak louder than words:

...But Dvorkin drew attention to past Soviet-era space weapons. “One might remember Soviet anti-satellite spacecraft that were capable to close in on unfriendly satellites and kill them,” he said. These were space-to-space combat systems, operating from orbit — unlike other anti-satellite weapons, such as a U.S. system that involved basing a missile on Earth and firing it into space. The Soviet system, considered a genuine space weapon, had the potential to operate anywhere in near-Earth space that its booster rockets could send it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8089747/

Yes, but you have to understand...anything the US does is evil and everything anyone else does is sweetness and light.

myata · May 2, 2007

Now, is that best a Google can find for you? A renegade expert talking about something that was "capable of" destroying a satellite - while were actually live tests performed by both US and China more recently.

Or maybe there's a difference between a research project in the unknown state of development vs deployment of live combat ready weapons? Or perhaps the project itself was triggered by US withdrawal from AMD treaty?

No matter the talk, the fact remains: US is the only country on this planet pressing the missile defense agenda. The others will have no choice but to react in the fashion that they find feasible. There's high chance that this will lead to a new arms race in space. For which, if it actually happens, the US should take all blame.

bush_cheney2004 · May 2, 2007

Sorry, but dem be the facts. Your statement was patently false. 'Blame' is best left to the peanut gallery, and equally as valuable.

marcinmoka · May 2, 2007

Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space

Fingers crossed behind their back. Of course they want them, this is just a diplomatic manner of saying "we cannot afford them.......just yet.....but the moment we can, we will, regardless of what other nations have to say".

It has been said that diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a manner that they will look forward to their journey.

Remember, China also states that it is based on fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, universal voting rights....

May I remind you, China also recently, and unexpectedly, destroyed an orbiting satellite to test a ground based system for spatial combat.

margrace · May 2, 2007

Why would we expect China and Russia to act any differently than the US of A. Why would you expect them to be such good people when our neighbours continually break ever rule in the book.

myata · May 2, 2007

May I remind you, China also recently, and unexpectedly, destroyed an orbiting satellite to test a ground based system for spatial combat.

Didn't it like happen in response to US pushing its MD? As a signal that if they (US) continue, the others will start taking notes? To which US responded with a usual lecture on peace and democracy? Or maybe your logic works like: "I know that you'll hit me back if I hit you so I'll have to hit you before you hit me" kind of thing?

To B-C:

Same for the US professions on peace and democracy. They aren't worth the bytes they're carried in and only work on those who are fatally challenged in ability to put two and two together.