$92,000,000,000 (that's $92 billion) Missile Defense System still inoperable

[esskreemr]

Another $9,000,000,000 wanted to continue tests.

Many have criticized President Bush for rushing an unproven extraordinarily expensive missile defense system before it was even remotely ready for prime-time. Most people don't seem to have a problem with the actual development of such a system citing the critical need to defend the U.S. from "rogue" nuclear states. Most critics focus on the VERY large price tag for prematurely deploying a system with no proven benefits (other than for those who were rewarded the contracts.

CNN reports:

An independent review, performed this year by experts for the Pentagon Missile Defense Agency, suggested that the rush to deploy the defenses led to inadequate quality control during the tests. The report was posted online by the Center for Defense Information, a defense policy think-tank in Washington.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/11/m....ap/index.html

So, once again, we are going to end up stuck with a hundreds-of-billions price tag (see Iraq War) for an act-first-think-later decision by our current CEO. Let's see $92bil + $9 bil + $200 bil = over $300 billion dollars for Presidential "Pet" Projects with little or no quantifiable gain for the U.S.

[jeff]

Well, what a total surprise this is. Not!

Back in the SDI thread we talked about this: this has been an immense sinkhole of money and attention for a long time with no value. In fact, it makes us less safe, by diverting funding and attention from more realistic threats that can be delivered by hand.

[grotto]

seem less likely that a terrorist group would us a missle when container ships, other shipping means would work just as well without all the control resources needed

just a thought

[scrapinpeg]

Justifiable ire. But is it the President who appropriates such sums? Shouldn't our ire be focused on those more directly responsible?

[Schiavona]

Hey! I'm all for spending tons of money on missle defence. And not just because my wife works for the company that puts up the target missles.......wait a minute, yes it is.

[Inquartata]

We got in trouble by thinking that threats would only come from conventional enemies by traditional means. Then we got 9-11, an untraditional method by an unconventional foe.

Should we now err in the other direction, and expect that we'll ONLY get attacked in such manners, and that your good old-fashioned threats of missile strikes are no longer possible?

Well, I guess we ought to spend those billions saving the world from global warming and the third world from economic distress instead...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

We got in trouble by thinking that threats would only come from conventional enemies by traditional means. Then we got 9-11, an untraditional method by an unconventional foe.

Who was thinking that? Perhaps you missed the posts in the other thread that you've been posting too, we were conducting an annual war game that simulated the very same techniques used in the 9/11 attack. Sounds kind of like watching a Pink Elephant approaching you on the sidewalk, it runs you over and you get up thinking "Wow! I didn't see that coming!"

Should we now err in the other direction, and expect that we'll ONLY get attacked in such manners, and that your good old-fashioned threats of missile strikes are no longer possible?

Should we spend money deploying a system that doesn't work, or spend that money testing it to the point it does work?

Well, I guess we ought to spend those billions saving the world from global warming and the third world from economic distress instead...

Hmmm...that's a very unconventional way to view the fight on terror. Eliminate poverty and hunger, exploitation of other countries...hmmm, that would never fly though.

[grotto]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

We got in trouble by thinking that threats would only come from conventional enemies by traditional means. Then we got 9-11, an untraditional method by an unconventional foe.

Should we now err in the other direction, and expect that we'll ONLY get attacked in such manners, and that your good old-fashioned threats of missile strikes are no longer possible?

Well, I guess we ought to spend those billions saving the world from global warming and the third world from economic distress instead...

no perhaps the $$$$ would be better spent on intelligence, etc. so we might possibly not be caught blind sided rather than pour billions into a system which though very advanced is really a one trick pony. A pony which seems to be dead lame in the stall.

Lets try and get there BEFORE the missiles leave the ground. I think we would have a much better chance for success that way.

just my opinion...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by grotto

no perhaps the $$$$ would be better spent on intelligence, etc. so we might possibly not be caught blind sided rather than pour billions into a system which though very advanced is really a one trick pony.

Well, I suspect that money can more easily "fix" hardware that is nonoperational than it can do so with dysfuntional bureucracies. Quite a bit of resource HAS been expended on reforming the intelligence community already, and to all intents and purposes it has accomplished very little aside from shuffling titles and rearranging offices. The same rivalries and turf wars persist.

However, if they could figure out a way to expand the actual intelligence gathering and assessment capabilities without expanding or empowering the bureaucracies involved, I would agree that this would be a better use for the funds....if it's really necessary to pick one or the other.

Lets try and get there BEFORE the missiles leave the ground.

You mean, the way we thought we were doing in Iraq? Agreed.

Seriously, though---how do we accomplish this with a North Korea or an Iraq? In the case of prevention or early interdiction, not all the factors are within our control. A missile defense system would be...

[grotto]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, I suspect that money can more easily "fix" hardware that is nonoperational than it can do so with dysfuntional bureucracies. Quite a bit of resource HAS been expended on reforming the intelligence community already, and to all intents and purposes it has accomplished very little aside from shuffling titles and rearranging offices. The same rivalries and turf wars persist.

However, if they could figure out a way to expand the actual intelligence gathering and assessment capabilities without expanding or empowering the bureaucracies involved, I would agree that this would be a better use for the funds....if it's really necessary to pick one or the other.

You mean, the way we thought we were doing in Iraq? Agreed.

Seriously, though---how do we accomplish this with a North Korea or an Iraq? In the case of prevention or early interdiction, not all the factors are within our control. A missile defense system would be...

Iraq was ill conceived, poorly executed, and continues to be. I would liken it more to afghanistan (other than the timing)

North Korea or say China is another matter. These scenarios are more standard military. With that I would guess that there would be a few rounds of diplomatic sparring before anyone lit the candles.

I agree about the bureaucracies. I suspect we will never get a real handle until we become as nimble and fluid as our opponents. I don't think the powers that be really understand the psychology (or are ignoring it entirely) of the middle east.

The resources being spent on the intellegence network is being wasted much like the billions on missle defense.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, I suspect that money can more easily "fix" hardware that is nonoperational than it can do so with dysfuntional bureucracies.

So this justifies deploying the nonoperational hardware? Well, it's cheaper to prematurely deploy a nonoperational weapons system and then go back and spend hundreds of billions of dollars patching than it is to adequately test the system and THEN deploy it?

What was the part about the dysfunctional bureaucracies? It didn't make that much sense to me in that context and sounded more like a diversion.

Quite a bit of resource HAS been expended on reforming the intelligence community already, and to all intents and purposes it has accomplished very little aside from shuffling titles and rearranging offices. The same rivalries and turf wars persist.

Again, how does the state of the intelligence community justify the premature deployment of faulty weapon's systems?

However, if they could figure out a way to expand the actual intelligence gathering and assessment capabilities without expanding or empowering the bureaucracies involved, I would agree that this would be a better use for the funds....if it's really necessary to pick one or the other.

Seriously, though---how do we accomplish this with a North Korea or an Iraq? In the case of prevention or early interdiction, not all the factors are within our control. A missile defense system would be...

stupid to deploy without fully SUCCESSFULLYtesting?

I think you're missing the point, or refusing to acknowledge it.

Working missile defense system...Good!
Premature deployment of a nonoperational missile defense system, big waste of money resulting in an actual delay in creating a functioning weapons system...BAD!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Who was thinking that?

That's the impression I took from Grotto's post about terrorists and container ships: that now the threat was from that quarter and the others were of little, or at least less, concern. Perhaps I misinterpreted his point.

Perhaps you missed the posts in the other thread that you've been posting too, we were conducting an annual war game that simulated the very same techniques used in the 9/11 attack.

Probably; I was away last week.

Should we spend money deploying a system that doesn't work, or spend that money testing it to the point it does work?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't feel qualified to make that evaluation....

But I DO feel qualified to look askance at any knee-jerk "It should be stopped immediately" evaluation by others no more in the loop than myself.

Hmmm...that's a very unconventional way to view the fight on terror. Eliminate poverty and hunger, exploitation of other countries...hmmm, that would never fly though.

Or work, either, I suspect.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by grotto

Iraq was ill conceived, poorly executed, and continues to be. I would liken it more to afghanistan (other than the timing)

Perhaps. But Afghanistan wasn't even rumored by weak intelligence to have been developing a nuclear program. Iraq was.

North Korea or say China is another matter. These scenarios are more standard military. With that I would guess that there would be a few rounds of diplomatic sparring before anyone lit the candles.

Normally I would agree, but Kim Jong-Il seems a bit dotty, so I'm not sure how predictable his behavior is.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

So this justifies deploying the nonoperational hardware?

Who is making the judgement that it's wholly "nonoperational"? Critics who have quit the program? Not sure that's who I want in charge of making these decisions.

Well, it's cheaper to prematurely deploy a nonoperational weapons system and then go back and spend hundreds of billions of dollars patching than it is to adequately test the system and THEN deploy it?

Well, that's a good point. I suspect the thinking is that it'll exert at least a psychological effect. Perhaps not to the level of deterrence, but the SDI program IS credited with a large role in hastening the fall of the Soviet Union, by convincing them that they'd have to match our spending on a system of their own and/or countermeasures. I'm not privy to the strategic thought on the matter, but that's one possibility of which I can think.

What was the part about the dysfunctional bureaucracies?

Again, a point of Grotto's: spend the money on intelligence services instead of the program. My response is that that might be an even greater waste of the funds, as people and their interactions are a lot less concrete than technology, and their problems less easily visualized and attacked. Taking the Soviet Union as an example again, their industries and sciences were solid, it was the way their political organizations and bureaucracies organized and administered them that proved to be an Augean stable. Reduced to simplest form, it's the difference between turning a screw and trying to understand and motivate the screw-turner: the former is likely to be vastly easier and less expensive.

Premature deployment of a nonoperational missile defense system, big waste of money resulting in an actual delay in creating a functioning weapons system.

How do you arrive at this "resulting"? How does the one lead inevitably to the other?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Who is making the judgement that it's wholly "nonoperational"? Critics who have quit the program? Not sure that's who I want in charge of making these decisions.

The Missile Defense Agency. It's the Federal Agency responsible for overseeing the project.

The results of their last was a failure. The test two months before that was a failure. The system has no demonstrated success in the parameters of having the ability to intercept a missile fired from an unknown locatin. The missile did not even leave the silo. Based on the definition of "nonoperational" as being not in a state of operation, I would say that the MDS is nonoperational assuming that it's operational parameters are to defend the U.S. against a missile attack.

In addition, Congress has a pretty good history of scraping defense projects that don't produce. By deploying the insufficiently tested system and then experiencing consecutive failures during HIGHLY SCRIPTED tests, they are putting the system under the scrutiny of those who would like it to fail.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, I suspect that money can more easily "fix" hardware that is nonoperational than it can do so with dysfuntional bureucracies.

Hoo boy, you sure haven't worked in technology if you can say that! Especially for technologies produced by dysfunctional bureacracies... The graveyards are full of technology projects that failed even after vast sums of money was thrown at them. That's a known recipe for disaster in engineering.

If hardware (and much of SDI is software, not hardware) doesn't work because it needs a little tweaking here and there, then a small amount of money and time is needed to solve it. If the flaw is that its design is incompatible with solving the problem at hand, or the problem is poorly understood or intractable, or the problem has changed to a completely different problem, then all the money in the world won't fix it.

esskreemr states it clearly and correctly: SDI has failed, after many years and billions of dollars, to produce the umbrella is was intended to become. It repeatedly fails simple tests that represent only a fraction of what it would have to do. It is obviously non-operational.

It would be great if SDI worked. However, we've spent years of intellectual effort and fantastic sums of money to produce a system incapable of protecting anything, and without evidence of being able to protect anything in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we've neglected obvious threat vectors that are much easier and less expensive for terrorists and enemy states to use. This is madness.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

It would be great if SDI worked. However, we've spent years of intellectual effort and fantastic sums of money to produce a system incapable of protecting anything, and without evidence of being able to protect anything in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we've neglected obvious threat vectors that are much easier and less expensive for terrorists and enemy states to use. This is madness.

Don't think of it as a security measure, think of it as scientific progress. By the time I die, I hope there will be flying cars and missile defense systems for everyone.