backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 172 comment(s) - last by mars777.. on Jan 6 at 4:30 AM


Missile Interceptor Fired from Japanese Destroyer  (Source: Reuters)
Japanese destroyer shoots down incoming ballistic missile

Since the Reagan era, the United States has wanted to develop a system that could defeat ballistic missiles in the air before they were able to impact their targets. This concept was part of what was dubbed the “Star Wars” program during Reagan’s tenure.

It has taken many years and lots of effort, but the system Reagan envisioned is now becoming reality. The main difference is that rather than using lasers to intercept ballistic missiles in-flight, other missiles are more commonly used.

Japanese and U.S. officials announced a successful test where a Japanese destroyer, the Kongo, used the Aegis shipboard radar and tracking system and Standard Missile-3 interceptors to destroy an incoming ballistic missile.

Reuters reports that this is the first successful test of a ballistic missile shield by a U.S. ally. This missile detection and defense system will be used to protect Japan and Taiwan from missiles with nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. The system is needed in the area due to the missile tests being performed by North Korea and the growing ballistic missile threat from China.

The test was a joint operation between Japanese and American forces. The simulated ballistic missile was launched from an American missile range in Kauai, Hawaii. The missile fired in the test was of similar size and speed to the missiles known to be in the North Korean arsenal. The interception of the ballistic missile by the SM-3 interceptor missile was made about three minutes after the ballistic missile was fired from the U.S. range at an altitude of about 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean.

Japan’s Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told Reuters, “We are taking one step at a time. Just because it worked [the missile interception] this time doesn't mean we can rely on it 100 percent.”

American armed forces recently outfitted C130 aircraft with high-energy lasers for destroying targets both in the air and on the ground. This laser system in aircraft could be used to defeat ballistic missiles in flight as well when perfected, providing additional support for the land and sea based missile shield.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm still skeptical
By smitty3268 on 1/2/2008 3:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
that this technology can really work.

OK, so we shot down 1 easy to hit missile that we knew was coming on a specific flight path. Can we shoot down something we don't know is coming? Especially if it launches 15 decoys - the last I heard we had no clue about how to handle that situation, we were just trying to hit something first.




RE: I'm still skeptical
By SlyNine on 1/2/2008 4:30:38 AM , Rating: 4
"one step at a time"


RE: I'm still skeptical
By lompocus on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still skeptical
By smitty3268 on 1/2/2008 5:02:16 AM , Rating: 1
Actually I know that it hasn't been tested - at least that's what has been said publically, and given that they've been trumpeting even the smallest steps I think it's likely they aren't secretly way ahead of what they've been saying.

Still, the other poster is right - one step at a time. It's just that there are a lot of steps to go.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By SlyNine on 1/2/2008 8:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know the extent of the testing on different missle defense systems. But their are 3 or is it 4 layers of protection ( not really active yet). Patriot, Thad( somthing like that). Then Ages. They shot a howitzer shell down with a laser. Witch is pretty impressive, and they have those jets with the lasers in them.

I dont think this stuff is to far away from working. But as in anything their will always be a counter. Just as long as we stay one step ahead we will be allright.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/2/2008 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 4
Aegis is the ship based system on most of our cruisers and destroyers. It is completemented by the large intercept radar that just came on line in Alaska, another of which is being built in Europe. There will eventually be spaced based radar also put online in the next few years.

On the interception end we have the Kinetic Hit to Kill missiles based on the west coast of the U.S. as well as several ships in the U.S. (and now Japanese) Navy. There will be interceptor missiles deployed to several European countries as well. Lasers are advancing rapidly and are going to supplement the interceptor missiles we already have. Mounted on 747 Jets, AC-130's, and eventually on Naval ships and/or ground based surface batteries the future is bright indeed for the Star Wars project.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By SlyNine on 1/2/2008 5:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the info. With the laser systems, I wonder if its generating the energy required or is it the materials available holding us back. I've wondered if they were able to do multiple shots in succession with the lasers yet.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By bodar on 1/3/2008 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the future is bright indeed for the Star Wars project.


Sweet, let me know when we've got Mon Calamari cruisers and freighters that do .5 past light speed.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By chick0n on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still skeptical
By mdogs444 on 1/2/2008 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
#1 in what? stupidity ?

GDP, Military Technology, need I go on?
quote:
I guess you've been watching too many Fox news.

As opposed to what? Michael Moore documentaries? BBC?
quote:
Russians already have the technology to take down ANY Defense system. it was a major blow to the US, but of course you dont see the information on your TV, consider how *controlling* US media systems are.

LOL - No it doesn't you idiot. No one has the capability to take down ANY DEFENSE SYSTEM. Russia has several versions of surface to air missle defense systems that are targeted towards short range missles. The reports on them are that there is much left to be desired in terms of effectiveness. The US is developing the most advanced defense system to date based on intercontinental ballistic missles - from surface to air, and attached to ships & submarines.
quote:
US still trying to be #1 ? did they all fail history or something? which empire can last forever ? morons just never learned

That would infer that the US is still not the #1 superpower in the world. If you really think otherwise, you are no more than a looney hater who really needs to get his facts straight instead of making swinging statements that are blatently false.
quote:
Welcome to the real world my friend.

Once you make it to the real world, I will say the same thing to you - but we obviously cannot plan on that anytime soon.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By daniyarm on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 11:13:52 AM , Rating: 4
> "That's the advantage, you don't need 10 different systems for 10 different targets"

If you're trying to suggest in any way that Russian ABM systems are even close to as advanced as US technology, you're seriously mistaken.

> "You can never be the best in everything. "

Tell that to the Romans, circa 100 AD.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By chick0n on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still skeptical
By TomZ on 1/2/2008 1:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
First, Michael isn't employed by DT, AFAIK.

Second, why do you pursue this childish argument? Seriously, arguing about whether the USA is inferior or superior is pointless. Each person will have their own opinion about that.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 1:24:00 PM , Rating: 4
Considering I attended graduate school in Russia, your argument seems rather foolish. If you want to convince anyone that Russian ABM technology is superior to the US, you'll need more than this rather weak poisoning the well argument.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By Ringold on 1/2/2008 3:20:35 PM , Rating: 1
I was just recently out of the US for a couple weeks.

Thank god I'm back. Poverty, social immobility, government corruption, a whole myriad of social injustices, indignities and suffering that are virtually unknown to the average American. Not to mention even for the local "middle class" a quality of life that doesn't begin to even tickle the quality of life available to Americans living in "poverty".

Of course, that wasn't exactly Western Europe, but that is how a little less than half the population outside the US lives. If an American would like Europe or not depends on a) how much arrogance annoys them and b) if they're big-government or small government types, so that's a wash.

As for Eastern Europe or Russia, sorry, rather not visit and thereby condone a state that has journalists executed, or has party-sponsored youth summer camps, as the United Russia party does, that sends tens of thousands of teens off to have fun while being fully indoctrinated with party rhetoric. But hey, it's not under "USA control"!


RE: I'm still skeptical
By NT78stonewobble on 1/3/2008 3:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ah so you will be making a push in the US to get those christian indoctrination summercamps banned too?


RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/3/2008 10:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
In the US, those summer indoctrination camps aren't funded by the federal government.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By mars777 on 1/6/2008 4:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
government corruption, a whole myriad of social injustices


The rest is ok, but these are a well known US problem so you cannot alienate them to other counties.

I'm from Croatia, and we do have government corruption... but never ever would i trade your social laws for ours. Social injustice is what drives the US to progress. If you had social justice you wouldn't be a capitalist country :P


RE: I'm still skeptical
By ninjaquick on 1/2/2008 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, thats why we have B-2 Lancers (stealth bombers in common folk language, or big friigin wings) which have never lost face to any defense system. And F-22s that could go in to russia, bomb them to hell, and get out before they knew what hit the, Russia is a poor country trying to get back to its cold war glory days.

Not to mention the fact that that radar in alaskacan track pretty much every item in the air around the globe. Yeah, cuz we are inferior.

Oh yeah, and we are inferior cuz we have laser missile defense systems and active railguns to boot. Lets not even mention the technology in one of our Nimitz class aircraft carriers. I wonder how many other countries even have ONE aircraft carrier.

Oh and hey, while im at it, ill just point out how inferior our CONSUMER technologies are, I mean, all weve got are Intel, Nvidia, IBM and a host of other inferior tech companies.

Oh yeah, we are SO inferior.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By CascadingDarkness on 1/2/2008 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
I like being an American and I even shook my head at your poor rant.

B-2s are good, and would drop bombs anywhere we wanted, even nukes. I just hope no one sees this as a realistic solution to anything these days.

Nimitz are amazing also, but few countries are large enough, either in manpower or military spending to have floating 5,000 pop cities.

You do neglect to mention that all those consumer technologies are manufactured in China for dirt cheap.

Your argument makes me think of someone who's brain washed, and waves flags in anyone's face. A much more realistic view is that we aren't perfect, but still a damn good country worth believing in.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By mdogs444 on 1/2/2008 4:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do neglect to mention that all those consumer technologies are manufactured in China for dirt cheap.

I think he is just confusing the terms manufactured and invented. Much of the consumer technology of today has been invented in the United States, and modified for manufacturing in China.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By cyclosarin on 1/2/2008 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
B2 Spirit, B1 Lancer aka The BONE.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By Gibby82 on 1/3/2008 6:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you so much clearing that up. I was about to slap somebody. :D


RE: I'm still skeptical
By 1078feba on 1/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still skeptical
By maven81 on 1/3/2008 11:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
wtf do you want, a medal? reading your boring life story is 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Take away that nonsense and your argument boils down to "you're a moron".
Speaks for itself.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By 1078feba on 1/3/2008 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
No, I have plenty of medals.

And what I want back is the 20 minutes I spent trying to get through YOUR incredibly muddled posts.

Post after post after post, you militantly bury your head in the sand. Masher has displayed ungodly amounts of patience with you. It's all well and good to have opinions, but at the very least, try to base those opinions on facts. You completely hijack a thread, which would be excusable if anything you had to say was at least tangential to reality, and when called on it, your tone gets increasingly pissy, like you're the guy who got his arse kicked all over the playground as a kid.

I respect your passion, but try, really hard, to unglue yourself from your emotions and subjectively go back and read what you have posted again. If your parents did any quality work at all in raising you, you'll feel more than just a bit embarrassed...


RE: I'm still skeptical
By 1078feba on 1/3/2008 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
And one other thing. The reason why I typed up all my "boring" experience is to combat that "Americans have no international experience" intellectual claptrap. It's preposterous. I'm tired of it. I have more passports filled up with entry and exit visas than 90 % of Europe. The condescension has got to stop. If all you have to explain your position is emotion, the just shut up.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By maven81 on 1/3/2008 12:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ok here's the deal, and this will be my last post in this thread I promise...

Your post is the definition of irony. It has nothing at all to do with the subject of missile defense, or how it effects geopolitics. It's muddled, tangential, and when called on it you bring in my parents into the equation, which has nothing to do with anything. All it says to me is "masher rules, and everyone that disagrees with him sucks". Moving on...

I've come to the conclusion that Masher, you, and I, clearly don't see the same world. To Masher everything is black and white... good or bad. Countries, actions, people, foreign policies... they are either great, or just plain wrong. There's only 1 side to every story, etc.
The real world is not like that, it's all gray... today's enemies, can be tomorrow's friends, or vice versa. Policies that seem like a good idea at the moment can prove to be a disaster years later. The government doesn't always do the right thing, and doesn't always have your best interest in mind. People that are considered heroes by some may be considered villains by others. If anything, it's this blind faith in having all the right facts that can be considered putting your head in the sand. I respect his opinions. He's clearly a very well educated man. But one that has a very one sided view of the world.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/3/2008 12:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "To Masher everything is black and white... good or bad. "

Talk about a muddled, tangential, and puerily inchoate version of my remarks!

Not everything is black or white. The Soviet Union, however, up to about the mid 1960s, was very black indeed. It was indeed an evil empire, responsible for far more loss of innocent civilian life than even Hitler. Saying "both sides in the cold war" were equal is ignorant beyond belief.

> " today's enemies, can be tomorrow's friends"

That might explain why, despite my opinion of the Soviet Union, I chose to live in and go to school in Russia, eh?


RE: I'm still skeptical
By 1078feba on 1/3/2008 12:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see you calm down a bit.

quote:
Your post is the definition of irony. It has nothing at all to do with the subject of missile defense, or how it effects geopolitics. It's muddled, tangential, and when called on it you bring in my parents into the equation, which has nothing to do with anything.


That term irony, I don't think it means what you think it means.

And my post was never meant to be about missile defense or it's geopolitical repercussions. It was about your total lack of grasp of simple facts. I verbally slapped you upside the head to get your attention to let you know that all your posts say to me is "I am incapable of dispassionate rational thought."

It's not that I see eveything in black and white, though I will grant you that perhaps I lean that way more than you do.

It your refusal to see ANYTHING in black and white.

It most assuredly is NOT "all gray".

Of course there's gray involved. I have been to too many places in this world and seen people that have the same problems we have here in the states and solve them with vastly different means than we do to be that close-minded. But there are times when decisions have to be made, and made on imperfect or incomplete data.

That's just the way life is.

To sit back and armchair-quarterback it is, again, suicidally myopic.

Nice conversing with you...


RE: I'm still skeptical
By Rebel44 on 1/2/2008 11:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
If you mean S-400 - its not been tested against real world targets so its just that russians claim that it can shoot down everything...

Not to mention typical "reliability" of russians weapons.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By JimFear on 1/2/2008 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
"American Technology, Russian Technology...ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!"

:)

Don't forget though, as unreliable as they may be their weapons give you a run for what they're worth. MIG's and SU's are some of the most manouverable jets out there.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By ninjaquick on 1/2/2008 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
tell that to united defense systems. lockheed martin, northrop grumman, intel (main fab in oregon), boeing. The list goes on and on.

Im not really dissing you tho, im just kinda making a point to the ppl who might think ur actually serious.

The migs and SUs are great. but since the decline of the soviet union they have slowly lost ground to the american As and Fs.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By chick0n on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 4
> "still using Magnetic card(Metrocard) in NYC ? In other countries like Hong Kong, they've been using smartchips for over 10 years. wooo I mean, how advance can it be? "

Are you seriously suggesting the US isn't "advanced" because the NYC subway doesn't use smart cards? Are you trying to embarrass yourself?

In any case, you're wrong. NYC adopted the "SmartLink" card a few months ago...and cities like Washington DC have been using them for nearly 10 years.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By mdogs444 on 1/2/2008 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
GDP? that system suck, its just a bogus news to keep the investors happy. Government does it all the time. reminds me of the Phantom console.

The GDP is a measure of how much product is produced in country - in which we have the largest in the world.
quote:
Oh yeah I know 1 more thing that the US can claim themself to be #1, Debt. How much money does this PoS Country owe ? Want me to go on ?

Yes, please do go on. Because the national debt is supposed to be xx% of your GDP. Look at other countries % of debt to GDP - in which several European countries are eaqual - if not more in debt than what they produce. In other words - brush up on your Macroeconomics and government studies before making a stupid statement like that.
quote:
I think I would rather watch Michael Moore's documentaries than watching Fox talk about how wonderful USA is.

Only to further what I said is true.
quote:
he is just point out something that MOST americans refused to accept.

Like what - how good socialized medicine is? What a laugh.
quote:
I dont think US was ever #1. they claim themselfs to be. but not really. they're still afraid of Russians, still afraid of China, and now, EU.

Obviously to you, the military & economic/GDP dominance play no role in that justification.
quote:
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure I got to the real world

Obviously you havent, you aren't even sure about it to begin with.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By ninjaquick on 1/2/2008 3:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah, GDP sucks, that why everyone in the worl has it. Gross Domestic Product. Definetly obsolete. mmhmm


RE: I'm still skeptical
By ninjaquick on 1/2/2008 3:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oh i wanna add so much more. So so much more. Lets not figure in Russias Debts and the fact the chinese are just a passing fad (just you wait and see, if you build an economy on crap, it will be reduced to its foundation. Taiwan is where the $$$ is at (im one of the ppl who believe it deserves to be its own nation)

I remember there was this time where there were this two countries that held all the world's money and power.. hmm, i dont remember who came out on top. Oh i just remembered, The US did. I guess thats why english is the language of international economy, and the dollar is the currency. It sure as hell aint russian, or chinese.

Where do we use M4s? That puzzled me the most. Sorry to break the news, but the US Army and Marines use M-16s, a very high accuracy automatic rifle. You would be suprised at how little they jam in comparison to the AKs, You never hear about AK-47s jamming because the ppl who go to war with them wind up dead before it can happen.

If you really wanna know something less current eventish, compare US and north Vietnamese casualties in the vietnam war. remember, vietnam had the russian made guns, and the Americans had the M16s.

The school bus is waiting for you outside, dont forget your "im a brainwashed noob" lunchbox on the way out.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By CascadingDarkness on 1/2/2008 4:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm unsure how comparing rifles really proves anything. I'll give you that AK is a solid design that one is hard pressed to break. It's also heavy, and not as accurate as CS Source will lead you to believe.

This argument might have score more points around Vietnam era, but these days guns based on original M16 are significantly improved, lighter, and quite accurate. They are also very versatile in equiping, and in close combat.

I'm hoping English is your second language, or you have yet to leave junior high level schooling because your posts are awful. This is just a pure prediction, but I suspect you in fact learned English while playing CS Source where you had AK frenzy drilled into you. Am I right?


RE: I'm still skeptical
By SlyNine on 1/2/2008 5:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was saying that in Vietnam we had a huge Kill ratio advantage vs people with AK's.

The only problem with the M16 and AK there was the fact they were shooting threw tree's , However this is just my precived advantage as I do not really know how effective that was.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By Gibby82 on 1/3/2008 6:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
M4's are commonly used now as they are smaller and offer better maneuverability in close quarters/urban combat. They are also lighter.

M16's are still used however.

Special Forces is going to start using an H&K upgraded version of the M4. It's actually an amazing weapon.

Having fired the M16 and M4 many times, I have nothing but faith in the design. An effective weapon is one the troop has been properly trained to use, and I have no doubt the US military provides excellent training in that regard.

In short, to for anyone to say the M4/M16 is an unreliable weapon just shows their immense lack of knowledge on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47


RE: I'm still skeptical
By fictisiousname on 1/2/2008 9:26:38 AM , Rating: 4
"OK, so we shot down 1 easy to hit missile that we knew was coming on a specific flight path. Can we shoot down something we don't know is coming?"

Yes. Bear in mind that Radar is used to target the incoming missile, which cues the interceptor to be at a certain point in order to be at the same point of the specific flight path as the incoming missile. In reality, it's an extension of the Radar controlled Anti aircraft Guns used to intercept V-2 Rockets. Only the distance and speed of the objects are changed.

"Especially if it launches 15 decoys - the last I heard we had no clue about how to handle that situation, we were just trying to hit something first."

There are at least two systems designed to target missiles while they are in Boost phase, before they can release any decoys. Also, decoys CAN be discriminated against...although there are ways to counteract that as well.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 11:16:09 AM , Rating: 3
> "Especially if it launches 15 decoys - the last I heard we had no clue about how to handle that situation, we were just trying to hit something first"

The US BMDO has already conducted several tests which included decoys. Decoy discrimination is an essential part of the system.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In reality, it's an extension of the Radar controlled Anti aircraft Guns used to intercept V-2 Rockets


I think you mean V-1. Nothing could shoot down a V-2.


RE: I'm still skeptical
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 2:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, one V-2 actually was shot down...but only because it was observed while taking off by an American bomber...a fluke unlikely to be repeated:

http://www.cdiss.co.uk/Documents/Uploaded/Missile%...


Question
By AlexWade on 1/2/2008 11:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe this was answered in the litany of posts. Russia has been pitching a pure living hissy fit about this missile defense shield. Why? Why does Russia care that we are deploying a purely weapon to defend and never to attack? I realize that some of the anti-missile sites are near Russia. But again, why do they care about a defense-only device? I never understood that.




RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 5
Quite simply, because a good deal of Russia's military prestige stands on its ability to destroy any nation on Earth-- including the US-- at a moment's notice. With a working missile defense shield, Russia loses that ability.

The long-standing policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was predicated on holding the lives of innocent civilians hostage for the good behaviour of their leaders. Thank god that era is coming to an end...whether Russia likes it or not.


RE: Question
By Terberculosis on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "I, for one, am ecstatic that the US will no longer be held to anyones standards of good behavior. "

The question isn't whether the US should be held to a standard or not, but what actions should be taken if another country feels the US hasn't met that standard.

The lack of an ABM shield means Russia-- and soon, China-- will be able to annihilate a few million innocent American civilians in retaliation. Maybe you think that's a valid response, but I don't believe it is.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
As has been pointed out to you already, maybe knowing that there will be retaliation is a GOOD thing. It makes you stop and think about what you're doing, and whether you want to deal with the consequences. Russia and China know this as well... so why would they launch an attack knowing the US will launch their own missiles?
Or are you implying that we should have the ability to strike anyone without any fear of retaliation? If so, you're quite a piece of work.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 2:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
> " maybe knowing that there will be retaliation is a GOOD thing"

A responsible, civic-minded leader would never launch nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation, given. However, nations are not always governed by responsible, civic-minded leaders.

> "so why would they launch an attack knowing the US will launch their own missiles?"

Why would Japan launch an attack against Pearl Harbor, knowing the US will retaliate? Why would the Austro-Hungarian empire invade to start WWI, knowing other nations would soon retaliate?

Wars happen. This is simple historical fact. If unstoppable nuclear-tipped ICBMS exist, they will eventually be used in a wartime situation. This is also simple fact. They were *almost* used several times already, despite MAD. The nation that MAD is some sort of perfect, foolproof scenario is fuzzy-headed wishful thinking at its worst.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 3:10:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Don't you see? Because they thought exactly the way you do"

While this is an excellent example of circular logic, you still miss the point. People DO think this way...and they will, regardless of whether or not we build a missile defense shield.

History teaches us one clear lesson. Every military technology is eventually used in battle. To believe this is somehow not true for nuclear ICBMs is childishly silly. They're eventually going to be fired at us and/or our allies. We best be prepared for that day.

> "If two militaries are very evenly matched this deters either side from initiating war "

Unfortunately the word "deter" does not mean "prevent". Historically, thousands upon thousands of conflicts were started by forces that eventually wound up losing the conflict. This is simple, inescapable fact. Governments don't always act rationally...and often, a leader will intentionally act in a manner that runs counter to the best interests of their nation...especially if it benefits them personally.

> "In WW1 this wasn't such an issue because leaders were crazy enough to throw away millions of lives."

Ah, so after thousands of years, people have "wised up", and war is no longer a possibility? Or has there been some sudden genetic shift in our composition?

People today are no different than ever. Wars will still happen. Any nation which forgets that threatens its very existence.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "You also seem to forget that Russia wasn't even planning on building nuclear weapons until the US build them and shoved them in their face"

Oops, nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Nuclear weapons program began in 1943, long before the US tested its first device. One of the Soviet's top military goals, in fact, at the end of WW2 was to seize German materials and scientists associated with both nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

And let's not forget that Germany began its nuclear weapons program in 1939, even before WW2 began. Are you going to blame the US on that one also?

History proves you wrong a thousand times over. Nations will always seek new military technology. Our government has a clear responsibility to defend us against ballistic missiles. Pretending the threat doesn't exist is a very poor way to do that.

> "10 times that a missile shield will make us safer doesn't make it true. It invites other countries to build bigger and better offensive weapons."

If other nations could afford to do so, they might. However, nuclear weapons are vastly expensive. Even if the US wasn't the richest nation on Earth, other nations couldn't afford to throw away thousands of nuclear warheads, merely to have them blocked by what will ultimately be very cheap kinetic-kill vehicles.

The best way to prevent the proliferation of ballstic missiles is to invalidate them. Cheap, widespread ABM technology will do that. Why would any nation spend billions to acquire a weapon system that's easily blocked?

In terms of safety and security, our ABM investment is cheap at ten times the price.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 7:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "Germany had indeed started a program but did not get very far"

You know WHY they didn't get very far? The primary reason was the sabotage efforts of the Allies, which continually stymied the program. One of these, the destruction of the Norwegian heavy water plant, was considered by Britain to be the most important act of sabotage in the entire war.

In any event, the point stands. Blaming world efforts to acquire nuclear weapons on the US is childish dribble, easily disproven by the historical record.

> "Don't forget that at that time all of this stuff was purely theoretical... even the scientists involved had no idea about yield"

Oops, wrong again. Heisenburg was calculating yields in the 1930s, long before the Manhatten Project even got off the ground.

> "Soviet efforts did not begin in earnest until roughly 1945 "

Again, stuff and nonsense. The official program began in 1943, and Stalin was commissioning theoretical work as early as 1939...the same year he learned the Germans had begun.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 9:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "Wrong... the answer was there wasn't much of a program. Research done after the war shows this."

Don't be silly. Germany had not just one program, but two simultaneous ones, one ran by the military and another by civilians. Germany was the first nation in the world to generate artificial fission, and, until Allied sabotage shut down their supply of heavy water in 1942, their project actually led the Allied effort.

In any case, you're trying to divert attention from the real issue here, which is your fallacious belief that other nations in the world only developed nuclear weapons in response to the US program. The size of the German program is irrelevant...Germany attempted to develop nuclear weapons long before the US did. This is simple, unavoidable fact. The nuclear arms race was begun by Germany. The fact that they lost that race changes nothing.


RE: Question
By 91TTZ on 1/2/2008 10:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lack of an ABM shield means Russia-- and soon, China-- will be able to annihilate a few million innocent American civilians in retaliation. Maybe you think that's a valid response, but I don't believe it is.


What do you mean by "soon China"?

China has had the ability to nuke us for about 30 years.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 1:24:15 PM , Rating: 1
Even the US military doesn't actually believe that this defense shield could do anything to oppose Russia... Because it's painfully obvious that in the actual event of nuclear war no one would launch just one, or even a dozen missiles, they would launch all of them. And not just from land bases either, but ballistic missile subs that could sneak up to the border and shoot point blank. This so called missile shield can no withstand such an attack, so it's rather amusing that you already concluded MAD is over.

What it is is a slap in the face to Russia. An attempt to tip the balance of power. Of course they aren't thrilled about that. And don't tell me that it's actually designed to protect against some rogue states either... Rogue states don't possess the level of technology needed to get an ICBM over to the US. They don't need to! Making a dirty bomb would be far easier, and way more difficult to counteract. Heck, they could put something in a shipping container and ship it over... No one really inspects those things... but no... we have to build some BS ego stroking technology that serves no purpose.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 1:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "This so called missile shield can no withstand such an attack, so it's rather amusing that you already concluded MAD is over"

I didn't conclude the era is "over", but that it is coming to an end. Which it is. While the *current* US missile shield can in no way prevent a large-scale Russian attack, its easy to see that an expanded system available in a decade or two will be able to.

Why else do you think the Russians oppose it so vehemently, if they didn't realize it would eventually counter their ballistic missile threat?

> "Rogue states don't possess the level of technology needed to get an ICBM over to the US"

Oh really? North Korea already has the ability to reach Alaska....not to mention the thousands of US troops that are stationed in South Korea. US bases are all over the world, and most are well within reach of a rogue state's current or near-future capabilities.

Worse, every year ballistic missile technology becomes more widespread, and both cheaper and easier to acquire for more and more nations. The more nations that get ballistic missiles, the more their neighbors want them too.

Any realistic extrapolation of the future shows that nearly every nation on earth will be able to build long-range ballistic missiles within the next 50 years. Many of those nations will be hostile to the US, and many of them will go through regime changes in a manner that may allow those weapons to be acquired by dissident factions or terrorist elements. A missile defense shield is needed beyond question.

> "Making a dirty bomb would be far easier, and way more difficult to counteract"

This nonsensensical argument has been countered so many times I hate to waste any time on it, but I suppose I must. First of all, so-called "dirty bombs" are a hugely overhyped threat. They're useful for scaring civilians, but they're not going to wipe out a city, much less a whole nation.

Could someone potentially ship a real nuclear weapon to the US without a ballistic missile? Of course. But not only do we have *other* means to protect against that, but those sorts of attacks are slow. They take weeks to plan and execute. A ballistic missile is fast...and, prior to this technology, was 100% unstoppable once lauched.

Had Reagan not had the foresight to initiate the SDI program, we would soon be facing a horrifying future. An ever-increasing group of people would be able to annihilate a large part of the US at the blink of an eye, with absolutely no possibility of stopping it. It was bad enough when only two nations on earth could do this. What do you think it would be like when 50 nations, plus a few well-funded terrorist groups can?

Thankfully we'll never face that future. Technology has stepped in, and will soon render the ICBM impotent.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Question
By mdogs444 on 1/2/2008 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you honestly believe that it's possible to build a system that will destroy thousands of warheads with a 100% chance of success you are delusional. If even 5 warheads out of a thousand get through the defenses the results would still be catastrophic. And even if you could build such a system people would simply find new and creative ways to destroy us.

And if 5 get through, is that not better than letting all 1000 through?
quote:
Because they know it will lead to a brand new arms race and they don't necessarily want to be a part of that? They will need to replace their older ICBMs with more modern ones, and that costs money. Is it so bad to not to want to go there?!! I don't for a second think that this system will make the US invincible. I also don't understand the need to create a very tense situation and mess up years of new found trust.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute here. Are you actually saying that the United States government "trusts" Russia already? You mean the country who (up until the recent election) was headed by an ex-KGB guy? The same country who is helping build and supply the fuel for Iran's Nuclear wishes? And the same country who recently have been reported in dealing with Iran to sell them forms of missle defense? Wow.
quote:
This North Korea crap has been going on for decades. And even if they could reach Alaska (which has little strategic value anyway...) they know full well they would be incinerated if they were to do such a thing. Bases on the other hand are far easier to attack with conventional means, like you know.. explosives....

Little strategic value? Oil pipeline perhaps? Bases are harder to attack w/ explosives - because you'd need to get close enough to do that. Now a days - good luck with that.
quote:
Reagan was a warmongering idiot.

Thats a pretty stupid statement. Ronald Reagan has notoriously been ranked high on past presidential approval ratings, and is one of the US's most influencial leaders of recent times. It was him who crushed the Soviet Union in the Cold War - without actually going to war...sounds like a War Mongerer to me. Not only besides that, but he is also referred to as one of the most fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible presidents of all time.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 3
> "If the 5 happen to say take out DC and the entire government then I'd say the country would have no choice but to lay down it's arms"

Did you really say that? Thankfully, we'd do no such thing. Contingency plans for the destruction of DC and a substantial part of the civilian government have long existed.

> "Like that will have any significant impact on the military!"

This is getting worse and worse. Do you not realize that oil is one of the most critical logistical assets for the US military...or any other for that matter? And let's not forget the fact that without diesel fuel, most of the US population begins to starve to death within a few days time.

Seriously, learn a little history. One of the primary military goals of WW2 was to acquire and maintain control of strategic oil resources, and deny the enemy the same. Military machines run on oil, even today.

> "And [Reagan] didn't crush the soviet union, Gorbachev did"

Even Gorbachev himself admits that Reagan's ratcheting up of US military spending-- and Soviet efforts to match-- are one of the primary factors which led to the downfall of the USSR.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you really say that? Thankfully, we'd do no such thing. Contingency plans for the destruction of DC and a substantial part of the civilian government have long existed.


Sure, during the cold war they did. These days? I believe some of the bunkers that were built are no longer operational, but Ringold's scenario below does ring true.

quote:
This is getting worse and worse. Do you not realize that oil is one of the most critical logistical assets for the US military


Don't be silly. I was refering specifically to Alaska here. Of course oil is required for the military, but take away Alaska and it's not like the military ceases to function. In a hypothetical war situation, I bet it would have a pretty small effect, as there's still the gulf of mexico, texas itself, not to mention all the imported oil. Wiping out Alaska certainly would not be a decisive blow that would get anyone to surrender...

quote:
Even Gorbachev himself admits that Reagan's ratcheting up of US military spending-- and Soviet efforts to match-- are one of the primary factors which led to the downfall of the USSR.


I don't recall him saying that, but even if he did it doesn't change the fact that the USSR was hopeless even without reagan. Though don't forget that it lasted longer then Reagan's presidency. And had Gorbachev been supplanted in that coup, could have lasted a few years longer still...


RE: Question
By Ringold on 1/2/2008 3:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the 5 happen to say take out DC and the entire government then I'd say the country would have no choice but to lay down it's arms.


At no time is the entire civilian leadership in a single location known to anybody. The worst that could happen, a successful strike during a State of the Union address, would still leave the executive branch with a clear line of succession -- though it would be somewhat reminiscent of Battlestar Galactica, where the Secretary of Education could end up with the job.

Furthermore, even if they did, the military would quite happily continue to kick ass regardless of the condition of the White House.

quote:
By republicans sure. And he didn't crush the soviet union, Gorbachev did, and his predecessors set the stage for it. They could not sustain the status quo, reagan or no reagan.


Thankfully for Reagan acolytes, he was not a one-trick pony, such as successfully restraining the size of government during a time where other developed nations saw the size of theirs surge.

You also complete ignored, probably quite intentionally, the not insignificant number of "Reagan Democrats"; ie, Southern Democrats of a more traditional small-government stock, not entirely unlike I suppose Lieberman, a Democrat who wants to be a Democrat but has been left behind in the center as the party surges left.

At least, he used to be a Democrat. He apparently wasn't Bolshevik enough, so he got kicked out of the little leftist sand box.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 2:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "a system that will destroy thousands of warheads with a 100% chance of success..."

A 100% chance of success isn't required. From a perspective of saving lives, every single missile that's shot down is a success, no matter how many get through.

From a political/military perspective, a 100% success rate isn't required either. Russia would certainly never expend its entire, exhorbitantly expensive ICBM fleet of thousands of warheads, simply on the hopes that 5 or so might get through. Certainly not when the US would retain its own fleet.

> "even if you could build such a system people would simply find new and creative ways to destroy us."

Another example of fallacious thinking, equivalent to a housewife saying "why should I clean the house, when it'll just get dirty again?"

Face facts. People around the world are going to think up new and creative ways to destroy us whether or not we build this defense shield. The plain truth is that ICBMs already exist, and are a clear threat to our safety.

> "I don't for a second think that this system will make the US invincible. "

Invincible? No, of course not. It'll simply mean our children can go to sleep at night, knowing they can't be annihilated at a moment's notice by some dictator halfway around the globe.

> "even if [North Korea] could reach Alaska (which has little strategic value anyway..."

Don't be obtuse. North Korea can reach Alaska today. As their technology improves, they'll soon be able to reach California, and then the entire nation.

And, of course, Kim Jong-Il has *already* been selling missile technology to other nations. Do you really think he won't export Taepodong 3?

> "Bases on the other hand are far easier to attack with conventional means, like you know.. explosives...."

Err, a nuclear warhead IS an explosive device. An enormously large and compact one. That's why they're so useful. You can't build a truck large enough to carry 100,000 tons of TNT, now can you?


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "And no I don't think Kim Jong-Il will start selling his top of the line ICBMs to people"

Oops, Jong-Il has *already* been proven to be doing this:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546

> "so you went from neutralizing all ICBMs everywhere...to stopping most ICBMs and saving lives..."

No. My original statement was that the US missile shield is on the verge of ending the MAD era. A statement which is true, and one which hasn't changed in the least.

A missile shield that stops the vast majority of a largescale enemy attack is not only well worth every penny, it is capable of effectively neutralizing the geopolitical effects of that assault.

> "So you actually believe that all out nuclear war is survivable?! wow..."

Must you really descend into puerile hyperbole? An attack on the US in which only 5 missiles actually reach their target (your original statement) is most assuredly survivable.

> "The point is, don't create the mess, and you won't have to clean it up afterwards."

In case you haven't noticed, the "mess" is already created. Russia already possesses a nuclear fleet capable of annihilating the US, and dozens of other nations are working on building or acquiring ballistic missile technology. They're going to do so whether or not we deploy an ABS shield, a fact you continue to ignore.

> "I guess that living in NYC I should be going to sleep every night in fear that someone will drop a nuke on my doorstep?"

For much of hte cold war, many people in NYC did indeed live in that fear. And a very real fear it was. And that was when just one nation could strike the city. What will it be like when 50 countries and a few terrorist groups can?


RE: Question
By cyclosarin on 1/2/2008 6:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you actually believe that all out nuclear war is survivable?! wow...


It is. Very easy to do so actually. If you have a couple of dosimeters I can tell you exactly how long you would need to be sheltered after peak fallout too. The cool thing about nuclear war, is that it is quite literally a science.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "[it] brought the country arguably even closer to annihilation in the 80s then it did during the cuban missile crisis"

Honestly, do you really want to go on record with such silliness? The situation in the early 1980s wasn't even in the same order of magnitude as the Cuban Missle Crisis, a fact proven not only by western documents, but declassified Soviet archives revealed after the fall of the USSR.

> "Reagan was a warmongering idiot"

An idiot who, as another poster points out, ended the Cold War without firing a shot.

Clinton, on the other hand, initiated military strikes and/or full-scale invasions in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Haiti, and a few other places. But those were all in the name of peace, right?


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly, do you really want to go on record with such silliness? The situation in the early 1980s wasn't even in the same order of magnitude as the Cuban Missle Crisis


Correct, but for all the wrong reasons... in '62 Krustchev was actually bluffing... I believe the total number of missiles he had was not much more then a dozen, and maybe less. Hell the whole point of them placing missiles in cuba in the first place was to balance out the US numerical advantage.
In the 80s the soviet nuclear arsenal was at it's peak! Had Reagan mumbled more crap about the evil empire and pissed them off enough, who knows what would have happened.

quote:
An idiot who, as another poster points out, ended the Cold War without firing a shot.

See above. He did no such thing... all the credit for that should go to Gorbatchev.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Had Reagan mumbled more crap about the evil empire and pissed them off enough, who knows what would have happened."

Wow. According to all your other posts, MAD was a perfect scenario, in which no side would possibly use their weapons. Now you're trying to convince us a few idle remarks by one person could lead to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians.

Perhaps that missile shield isn't such a bad idea after all, eh?

> "all the credit for that should go to Gorbatchev. "

Gorbachev was desperately trying to hold the USSR together, which explains why he held a union-wide referendum on the very issue in early 1991, and campaigned widely in support of it. Gorbachev himself admits that Soviet responses to US military spending increases were a primary factor in the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.


RE: Question
By maven81 on 1/2/2008 5:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow. According to all your other posts, MAD was a perfect scenario, in which no side would possibly use their weapons. Now you're trying to convince us a few idle remarks by one person could lead to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians.


Way to miss the point...
Reagan is the one that destabilized MAD... Up until he came along, the system seemed to be working fine. Suddenly he starts an arms race, insults the other side, and makes MAD uncertain... If you don't see that this created a more dangerous situation, well this whole debate is pointless.

quote:
Gorbachev was desperately trying to hold the USSR together


Don't make me laugh... his policy of openness completely destabilized the regime... decades of pent up frustration started to surface, and this time there was no iron hand in charge to shut up the public sentiment. Once the public realized that they were more or less free to think, say and do what they wanted to, the government lost control over them... and even the military when ordered to shoot at the protesters decided to join them. There was nothing he could have done at that point to keep it together.
For someone that claims to have actually lived there, you sure seem to know very little.


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 5:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "Reagan is the one that destabilized MAD."

This isn't true at all, sorry. Declassified documents show the Soviets were not even remotely consider an attack.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB203/inde...

Their only response was to increase their own military spending...a result that led to their own downfall and a massive increase in the security of the US.

Th