defenseless against missiles

[Purple Fencer]

So what does all of this say to the realistic view of missile defense? Certainly we're farther along than when Reagan first started touting it, but is it really effective and/or worth the money to deploy?

There's been an airborne laser in development for years....firing out the nose of a 747...given the nature of a laser beam, interception is much less of an issue...if you can track it, you can hit it...no need to lead. Plus, they can aim at the launch vehicle itself -- again, ideally during the boost phase -- kill the rocket, and the payload's meaningless.

Technical issues abound such as power, number of shots a plane can take, range, etc...but if those can be solved, it'll likely be a more effective and flexible system than an actual missile intercept.

Couple that with existing offensive systems used to attack the launch points (if you can find them), and you could have a good system, especially since some of it's been proven in actual combat (in terms of destroying the target).

I mean really....if you know you have US carriers off your coast, in addition to subs you can't see, long-range heavy bombers, and unmanned droves packing heat, you'd be a damn fool -- or the President of Iran -- to think you could really get away with even blinking at the wrong time.

[Bayou Bum]

So what does all of this say to the realistic view of missile defense? Certainly we're farther along than when Reagan first started touting it, but is it really effective and/or worth the money to deploy?

I don't know how effective it is but I would like to see something even if it is only a chance of intercepting an incoming missile. The problem is, who do you believe. Conservative news stories say Obama is betraying our allies and giving in to Russia. Liberal news stories say the opposite. Allies don't seem to like it and Russia does, both cause concern. Obama knows the facts, but my bias causes me to mistrust him especially since it is reported that others that should know disagree with him. This is where I really wish Obama had more experience. I believe that he is doing what he thinks is best, but I am afraid he is too naive. I just hope it is never needed.

[chase]

Wow! A public Ivy? I went to one of these TOO! In fact Indiana University of PA is one of the top Public Ivy schools in the U.S.! I know this because they put it on their pamphlets!

But Chase, I have to ask... Why would such a solid conservative even think of applying to a publicly funded school? Isn't this public funding nothing more than a slightly veiled socialism? After all, the government is picking the pockets of the rich to fund education for the less deserving in our society who could not otherwise afford this kind of education.

Shouldn't you be looking to completely fund your own education directly from your own pocket so that you will not be a burden on the rest of society?
...Just curious...

1. Not one of the original 8 designated by Moll.

2. I am going there because my family's tax dollars are already funding it. If I'm going to pay for somebody's education it might as well be my own.

3. The rest of society is more of a burden to me than I am to them. Even though my family is middle-class, we are taxed at nearly 40% when it's all said and done. And they're wondering why the middle-class is shrinking?

[chase]

As a brief un-drift:

So over the weekend Iran test fired Shahab-3 missiles and Sajjil rockets, which are medium-range weapons for which the Bush missile defence shield would have been completely useless. The Obama plan shifts focus to sea-based platforms specifically designed to thwart short and medium range missiles, such as the ones that Iran just tested.

Is the policy shift away from ineffective defence against the wrong threat towards a more reliable system that aims to counter the actual existing threat still making the US and our Allies weaker?

At least we can agree on: thread drift=bad!

The problem is that we don't know that the new system is better. That's only an assumption made by those who made the decision. What we do know is that we won the Cold War in part by psyching-out the Russians. We've just lost a big psychological battle.

[tchwojko]

The problem is, who do you believe.

You can use the information available and reason, and make informed decisions. Then you avoid the whole "belief" problem.

[tchwojko]

At least we can agree on: thread drift=bad!

No, I think thread-drift = liberal arts degree.

[prototoast]

2. I am going there because my family's tax dollars are already funding it. If I'm going to pay for somebody's education it might as well be my own.

Sunk cost.

[Bayou Bum]

You can use the information available and reason, and make informed decisions. Then you avoid the whole "belief" problem.

Is that what you use as a substitute for facts? A belief is using the information available and making an informed decision. Maybe that is the problem with most posters here, they think their informed opinions are equivalent to fact.

But if you don't have a top secret clearance and know the capability of the system, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Based on your logic, which is probably why I disagree with you most of the time, I would be for deploying the system and think Obama was a fool for his actions. I know someone who worked on the guidance system, knows the capabilities and claims openly that it is a mistake not to deploy it, and I trust his opinion much more than Obama's political pandering. But I do not know it as fact, and neither do you or anyone else on this board.

[Hauptman]

There's been an airborne laser in development for years....firing out the nose of a 747...given the nature of a laser beam, interception is much less of an issue...if you can track it, you can hit it...no need to lead. Plus, they can aim at the launch vehicle itself -- again, ideally during the boost phase -- kill the rocket, and the payload's meaningless.

Technical issues abound such as power, number of shots a plane can take, range, etc...but if those can be solved, it'll likely be a more effective and flexible system than an actual missile intercept.

Couple that with existing offensive systems used to attack the launch points (if you can find them), and you could have a good system, especially since some of it's been proven in actual combat (in terms of destroying the target).

I mean really....if you know you have US carriers off your coast, in addition to subs you can't see, long-range heavy bombers, and unmanned droves packing heat, you'd be a damn fool -- or the President of Iran -- to think you could really get away with even blinking at the wrong time.

Some of those tests that I've seen have been very staged. There were none of the expected counter measures involved, there were some failures, and even the successes were sometimes questionable like the time they used basically a homing device to assure the hit.

I still remember the Gulf War when we were trying to stop the Iraqi SCUD missiles; if any get through it's a disaster. Even if our systems have improved so has the missile technology. But is it ready for prime time now or are we still realistically years away.

I'm still very skeptical of us shooting down any but the most primitive missiles in a real life setting.

[lindajdunn]

But if you don't have a top secret clearance and know the capability of the system, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

A top secret clearance is not required to understand the capability of defense systems. A top secret clearance is also no guarantee that one is working with accurate information. Sometimes, especially when multi-million dollar contracts are at stake, people involved at the lower level insure that the results demonstrated match contract requirements even if the capability is not there yet.

This is one reason why the government has contractor oversight but it's still possible for contractors to rig the results and the problem worsened during the last decade of downsizing, privatizing, A-76ing, and outsourcing.

Note that one of the first things Gates did after being re-appointed by Obama was increase contractor oversight.

[Fechter1]

Add in the fact that the delivery vehicles often have multiple decoy warheads that will deploy in an attempt to foil ABM systems and even if you have a decent missle, you now have the headache of trying to decipher which of the 3 or 4 dozen incoming chunks of debris is actually the warhead. Another reason that getting the D@mn thing during launch phase is so much easier...

Ah, but that presents another problem... Staging interceptor missiles close enough to the launch sites, and making sure that these interceptors have the range and speed to actually catch up to an outbound missile. I'm not sure that this would be any easier than trying to intercept during reentry. During Desert Shield, was any attempt made to intercept Iraq's SCUDs at launch? And these are 'only' theater ballistic missiles, slower than ICBMs during reentry...

But as I recall, the Patriots were somewhat less effective at intercepting than we were led to believe.

All this combined makes the Bush missile shield in eastern Europe rather pointless as a defensive installation...

[lindajdunn]

While some things worked well; the results were disappointing and lessons were learned that were, hopefully, applied to these and other projects.

At that time, my husband and I were both working at a government facility that was later privatized under BRAC during the Clinton years.

One of the problems, of course, is that good projects are often killed because they're not in the right congressional districts and bad projects are often continued because they are in the right congressional districts or they're spread about the country such that it's impossible to kill them.

The V-22 Osprey, imho, is a good example of this. I believe there were subcontractors in 48 states. It was killed and revived so many times...

I trust Gates more than I would most to make the correct decisions on what does and does not need to be cut. However, we'll always have the problem of GIGO in communication of what is cost-effective and what is not. I'd seen too many people lie to keep projects alive. People will do that when their careers are on the line.

[lindajdunn]

There's been an airborne laser in development for years....firing out the nose of a 747...given the nature of a laser beam, interception is much less of an issue...if you can track it, you can hit it...no need to lead. Plus, they can aim at the launch vehicle itself -- again, ideally during the boost phase -- kill the rocket, and the payload's meaningless.

How many people here have seen the film, REAL GENIUS? If you haven't, you should.

[Purple Fencer]

During Desert Shield, was any attempt made to intercept Iraq's SCUDs at launch?

IF the launchers were found, they were attacked....but they were designed to be mobile to prevent this...and to a large degree they were effective (otherwise there wouldn't have been so many launches)....plus the Iraqis put out decoy trucks.

But as I recall, the Patriots were somewhat less effective at intercepting than we were led to believe.

Patriot was originally designed as an anti-aircraft missile...it was doing a job it was not designed for in Desert Storm. It has since been upgraded for the anti-missile role.

But yeah....not as effective as pitched during the war...the successful attack on the US barracks was an unfortunate example of that.

[fencerchica]

The V-22 Osprey, imho, is a good example of this. I believe there were subcontractors in 48 states. It was killed and revived so many times...

I had some tangential involvement with CV-22. It gets a bad rep due to the stability issues encountered early in the project (as in, during early flight tests a decade ago) but currently is a fantastic, rugged platform ideally suited to counterinsurgency warfare. The squadrons that've been equipped with them rave about them. I support the F-22 program as well and I notice it seems like the same people who oppose F-22 because IMHO they're falling into the trap of always expecting to fight the previous war, and only the previous war, also oppose the V-22! It doesn't make sense to me.

[tchwojko]

Is that what you use as a substitute for facts? A belief is using the information available and making an informed decision. Maybe that is the problem with most posters here, they think their informed opinions are equivalent to fact.

But if you don't have a top secret clearance and know the capability of the system, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Based on your logic, which is probably why I disagree with you most of the time, I would be for deploying the system and think Obama was a fool for his actions. I know someone who worked on the guidance system, knows the capabilities and claims openly that it is a mistake not to deploy it, and I trust his opinion much more than Obama's political pandering. But I do not know it as fact, and neither do you or anyone else on this board.

You certainly put a lot of words into my mouth. I'd rather you responded to what I actually said, instead of what you believe I think. (That darn "belief" thing getting in the way again.)

[davesaint]

Ah, but that presents another problem... Staging interceptor missiles close enough to the launch sites, and making sure that these interceptors have the range and speed to actually catch up to an outbound missile. I'm not sure that this would be any easier than trying to intercept during reentry. During Desert Shield, was any attempt made to intercept Iraq's SCUDs at launch? And these are 'only' theater ballistic missiles, slower than ICBMs during reentry...

But as I recall, the Patriots were somewhat less effective at intercepting than we were led to believe.

All this combined makes the Bush missile shield in eastern Europe rather pointless as a defensive installation...

Actually if you read on the concepts of anti-ballistic missle defense, it is much easier to hit a missle during it's "boost phase" than after the warhead separates from the rocket. This is due to the predictability of the missiles trajectory during it's boost phase. This is especially true with more modern missles that have warheads that can even maneuver a bit.


Thus if you are going to use and ABM system, it is much better to have a system you can deploy near the missle threats, than for you to wait until the warhead is crashing down upon your head.


Dave

[lindajdunn]

I had some tangential involvement with CV-22. It gets a bad rep due to the stability issues encountered early in the project (as in, during early flight tests a decade ago) but currently is a fantastic, rugged platform ideally suited to counterinsurgency warfare. The squadrons that've been equipped with them rave about them. I support the F-22 program as well and I notice it seems like the same people who oppose F-22 because IMHO they're falling into the trap of always expecting to fight the previous war, and only the previous war, also oppose the V-22! It doesn't make sense to me.

My very small, short-term involvement was during the mid-90s and (strictly IMHO) it had some major issues at that time that were due more to politics than engineering.

[Fechter1]

Actually if you read on the concepts of anti-ballistic missle defense, it is much easier to hit a missle during it's "boost phase" than after the warhead separates from the rocket. This is due to the predictability of the missiles trajectory during it's boost phase. This is especially true with more modern missles that have warheads that can even maneuver a bit.


Thus if you are going to use and ABM system, it is much better to have a system you can deploy near the missle threats, than for you to wait until the warhead is crashing down upon your head.


Dave

Right, that's exactly what we're talking about. Which makes the proposed missile shield in eastern Europe somewhat less than an effective defense.
The difficulty is getting a capable interceptor vehicle close enough to the launch site to have a chance at interception during boost phase. You'd fast detection as well as a fast interceptor, able to catch up to the outbound ballistic from possibly hundreds of miles out, less if you're fortunate enough to be able to base the interceptor in the path of the ballistic. In the case of a ballistic threat to Europe from Iran, that'd mean eastern Turkey, or southern Russia (which had been proposed by Russia, but nixed by the GWB admin).

IF the launchers were found, they were attacked....but they were designed to be mobile to prevent this...and to a large degree they were effective (otherwise there wouldn't have been so many launches)....plus the Iraqis put out decoy trucks.
<snip>

That's not intercepting during boost, that's launch prevention. To my knowledge no boost phase interception was attempted during DS.
But thanks for bringing up what is likely the best defense against ballistic missiles, launch prevention. However, it requires either an act of war to prevent launch by force, or diplomacy (and likely some compromise).

[chase]

I trust Gates more than I would most to make the correct decisions on what does and does not need to be cut. However, we'll always have the problem of GIGO in communication of what is cost-effective and what is not. I'd seen too many people lie to keep projects alive. People will do that when their careers are on the line.

Why do you trust him? It seems suspicious that someone from the Bush administration would serve under the guy who's entire being is "anti-Bush." He's obviously just pandering to whoever will give him power and saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.