Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[a_majoor]

Like most new technologies, BMD will have teething problems. Can you remember using a PC with DOS or Windows 3.1? Computers have benefited from a huge production base and rapid market cycle, while BMD does not (the last actual US system "Safeguard" was deployed and closed down in the 1970s).

BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD. The benefits are huge, the potential payoff is enormous, we are already targets regardless of what we would like to believe, so let's get on with it!

 

[JBP]

What I mentioned in my earlier posts about Canada being a target was not at all meaning we aren't or haven't BEEN a target. What I was saying if you read the posts carefully folks, was that those SPECIFIC bases would be targets especially+add more targets to Canada. That's all.

It would be smarter to buy into a defense system that could at least partially or have a chance of defending us from rogue nukes, but, that would be smart if we had the $ to waste on it... 9 billion surplus but they've already allocated where it's all going and not 0.01 cent is going to the military folks...

It is probably almost guarunteed we'll be joining the BMD program anyway but the whole question is will we be suffering in other areas needlessly because of it when it might not even be that effective etc?

 

[Bert]

The reason to prepare a defense is to protect yourself from a credible threat.  Statistically,
its unlikely any one of the readers tonight will have their houses broken into.  Yet, most
of us will lock the front and back doors just in case. 

Since the beginning of the century, weapon platforms have gotten faster and smarter and
its not likely to stop evolving.  Traditionally, the US and Canada (I should put Japan and
Australia into this because they are considering BMD) have fought against identifiable
enemies.  Rogue states and terrorists will combat their enemies but not necessarily use
the same methods of traditional foes.

Many countries are upgrading and researching military and civilian technologies; note
"weather" satellites by Israel, Iran, and Pakistan, space delivery systems by China,
stealth missiles by Russia, BMD and mach 10 flight by the US, UAV flight by a
militant faction in Lebanon, and so on.  It is a fact military technology will
proliferate and everyone is in the game of offense and defense.

The US may have a good ocean sub-surface defense net and NORAD observes
the sky, the one thing the US cannot handle is a short notice, fast aerial attack,
by unidentified sources.  Actually, no one can.  In a militaristic technologically
advancing world, is this not a valid scenario to consider?

If a enemy missile, projectile, or aircraft enters US airspace at short notice, defensive
measures like naval screens, real time recce, and the scrambling of aircraft takes time.
By creating a BMD, a systematic method and associated weapon platforms are in place
to engage the enemy sooner and further from the target.

I doubt the US will face war with China, Russia, or the EU in an all out nuclear exchange.
It is more likely an enemy that wishes to hurt the US will do so covertly, quickly, for
maximum damage based on what they can do, and cover their tracks.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Would any of you object if I stole a few quotations, here and there, for the purpose of an academic paper?

 

[a_majoor]

What is the topic of your paper?

 

[oyaguy]

Personally, I don't think Canada should join missile defence.
My main reason for not wanting to join missile defence, is because it is dumb.
Let me qualify this "dumb". Missile defence as it stands right now, doesn't work. It is a research project. The fact that they have put in infrastructure for missiles that don't work, is moronic. The fact that they want other countries onboard is dumb too, because they have nothing to sign on for other than missiles that don't work.
Another reason missile defence is dumb, is because they are lavishing money on infrastructure and contracts to house and build anti-B missiles {that don't work} when the Americans should either be spending the money on homeland security, or try to balance their budget.
In reality, the Americans should scale back funding for missile defence and relegate it to what it is, a research project, that will in some future, show results, rather than rushing an immature system to production. Kind of like sending the US troops in Iraq, a new rifle that will jam after every fifth round. Not teething problems, but a system that is totally unprepared for service. This is where missile defence is at the moment. A defence system that can't fufill its objective.
Of course my reason for not wanting Canada to join missile defence is more personal. I hate government waste like this. Even though it is not my government wasting money.
So heck, Canada should join missile defence, because I'm fairly certain Canada doesn't have to contribute monetarily, or even land for anti-b missile sites. The Americans will get off the PM's back, and maybe George W. Bush will reopen the border for beef.

A more articulate and knowledgable person on the subject is Fred Kaplan.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106853

 

[Goober]

Personally, I don't think Canada should join missile defence.
My main reason for not wanting to join missile defence, is because it is dumb.
Let me qualify this "dumb". Missile defence as it stands right now, doesn't work. It is a research project...

Thats a little short sighted if you ask me. Kinda like Bill Gates saying computers only need 640k of RAM. When Dr Frederick Banting started to research a cure for diabetes his first experiments were failures, but he kept at it, learning as he was going and adapting his procedures.

 

[a_majoor]

Like most new technologies, BMD will have teething problems. Can you remember using a PC with DOS or Windows 3.1? Computers have benefited from a huge production base and rapid market cycle, while BMD does not (the last actual US system "Safeguard" was deployed and closed down in the 1970s).

BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD. The benefits are huge, the potential payoff is enormous, we are already targets regardless of what we would like to believe, so let's get on with it!

A constellation of early warning, communication, weather and other satellites is perhaps the one thing we could contribute, and will have a huge payoff just by themselves.

 

[oyaguy]

Thats a little short sighted if you ask me. Kinda like Bill Gates saying computers only need 640k of RAM. When Dr Frederick Banting started to research a cure for diabetes his first experiments were failures, but he kept at it, learning as he was going and adapting his procedures.

I have to stop using the word dumb. The idea of Missile Defence, is okay. Make missiles that will shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. Good idea.
Dr. Frederick Banting had a good idea. Find a cure or treatment for diabetes. His research came up with Insulin. His research undoubtedly had problems, but Dr. Banting didn't stop in the middle of his research and tried to take what he had to market as the treatment for diabetes. He kept at his research till he had the solution. Then he took it to market.
Missile Defence, at the moment, cannot fufill its function. The Americans know this, and anyone who has thought of lobbing a nuclear weapon at the US, knows this. There is too much focus, on the idea of missile defence, rather than the nuts and bolts of doing.
This isn't shortsighted, but aknowledging the truth that Missile Defence is a system that isn't suffering from teething problems, but doesn't work at all. This isn't saying don't work on it but make it work, before you deploy it.

 

[karpovage]

Oyaguy. It worked last week. Still a dumb idea?


Successful Test of Patriot, THAAD Radar
November 18, 2004 :: The Missile Defense Agency :: News

The Missile Defense Agency today completed another successful test of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor, at White Sands Missile Range. The test was described as â Å“the most complex flight test scenario to date for PAC-3,â ? with some six missiles in the air at one time. Also of significance is that the test included the use of radar for the separate, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile system. Tests of THAAD are set to resume in 2005.

 

[Disillusioned]

I have to stop using the word dumb. The idea of Missile Defence, is okay. Make missiles that will shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. Good idea.
Dr. Frederick Banting had a good idea. Find a cure or treatment for diabetes. His research came up with Insulin. His research undoubtedly had problems, but Dr. Banting didn't stop in the middle of his research and tried to take what he had to market as the treatment for diabetes. He kept at his research till he had the solution. Then he took it to market.
Missile Defence, at the moment, cannot fufill its function. The Americans know this, and anyone who has thought of lobbing a nuclear weapon at the US, knows this. There is too much focus, on the idea of missile defence, rather than the nuts and bolts of doing.
This isn't shortsighted, but aknowledging the truth that Missile Defence is a system that isn't suffering from teething problems, but doesn't work at all. This isn't saying don't work on it but make it work, before you deploy it.

Make it work? Until Russia or China find a way around it?

Also, how does this protect against a suitcase bomb, multiple warheads, or a killer virus? (It doesn't)

Sounds like a world-destabilizing 1-trillion follr handout to defence contractors to me.

 

[a_majoor]

BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD.

Unless China et al have frictionless economies, they will be trading some capability to gain the ability to circumvent or bypass BMD. If they have to remove one or two warheads per missile in order to deploy countermeasures, that is one or two warheads less for us to worry about. Do they want to build more missiles to swamp the BMD shield, or new generations of missiles with increased range and throw weight to carry all the countermeasures? What capabilities do they sacrifice to do so? The same process applies to diverting resources to supersonic (cavitation) torpedoes, killer virii and the mass vaccination of their own populations or any other system you care to name.

President Reagan won the Cold War by forcing the USSR into an economic/political/military confrontation that their economy was unable to support. Most totalitarian nations suffer from the same structural defects in their social/economic systems; they are too brittle to swiftly deal with direct challenges. On the other hand, the capitalist American economy grew by 30% during the Reagan years, even while deploying new generations of virtually every class of weapons system and rebuilding their armed forces! The net gain in GDP was equal to the total GDP of West Germany.

Summary: BMD is worth persuing, for its own sake, for the promise of spin-off benefits using associated systems, and the ability to force hostile challenger nations onto the defensive.

 

[NavyGrunt]

Make it work? Until Russia or China find a way around it?

Also, how does this protect against a suitcase bomb, multiple warheads, or a killer virus? (It doesn't)

Sounds like a world-destabilizing 1-trillion follr handout to defence contractors to me.

You have some serious anti-american sentiment you need to work out. Im sorry to say that the world isnt going to disarm , so take your hemp pants and pack er' in. We need to actively pursue countermeasures and defend ourselves. I know what your problem with the shield is- its a joint venture with the americans if it was the Canadian Maple Syrup Defense Shield...you would be all about it- talking about how Canadian researchers "are the bst in the world"......you cant take any cooperation between us and the "rogue nation"(your words not mine).

Sour grapes.

 

[NavyGrunt]

I just went over all your posts- every single one of them is in regards to how you dont like America(except one where you talk about Rick Mercer)....you have no Military experience......and you are a crap disturber.....what exactly is the point of you being here?

 

[Disillusioned]

I just went over all your posts- every single one of them is in regards to how you dont like America(except one where you talk about Rick Mercer)....you have no Military experience......and you are a crap disturber.....what exactly is the point of you being here?

I read. Perhaps you should also read about these issues before you insult me. I like how you avoided my points.

Missile defence is an arms race with no purpose. The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons, and they continue to use illegal depleted uranium in Iraq.

In an arms race, one country invents something, and the other tries to get around it. However, in this case that isn't necessary because Russia or China could easily smuggle in a nuclear bomb in a ship container or suitcase (dirty bomb.)


Here's my "anti-American sentiment" from an American himself:   www.killinghope.org


Here is an article outlining how American physicists at M.I.T. tell the Pentagon that Missile Defence is a dumb waste of money:


www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/techng-2000-june-14/techng3.asp

Here is an excerpt of the article:


Physicists Slam Proposed US Missile Shield
By Olivier Knox


WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US plan for a national missile defense (NMD) to guard against attacks by so-called "rogue states" is short on science and should be shelved, US physicists warned.

Washington insists it needs NMD to protect itself from possible launches from North Korea, Iran, or Iraq. However, a group of scientists warned those nations could thwart the planned system with cheap and simple countermeasures.

Some 35 scientists went to the US Congress to "tell our politicians that the planned national missile defense (NMD) will not work," said Lisbeth Gronlund, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

One of the men in the group, retired missile engineer Roy Danchick, said the Pentagon's own data shows that easily obtainable countermeasures would defeat the NMD being discussed. Danchick warned against "a fatal rush to deploy a system that doesn't work."

"To proceed with this would be a tragic error," said Kurt Gottfried, an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cornell University and the head of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It may never be ready." President Bill Clinton is set to decide later this year whether to deploy the $60 billion system, which could be in place by 2005.

 

[NavyGrunt]

Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.

 

[Disillusioned]

President Reagan won the Cold War by forcing the USSR into an economic/political/military confrontation that their economy was unable to support. Most totalitarian nations suffer from the same structural defects in their social/economic systems; they are too brittle to swiftly deal with direct challenges. On the other hand, the capitalist American economy grew by 30% during the Reagan years, even while deploying new generations of virtually every class of weapons system and rebuilding their armed forces! The net gain in GDP was equal to the total GDP of West Germany.

Summary: BMD is worth persuing, for its own sake, for the promise of spin-off benefits using associated systems, and the ability to force hostile challenger nations onto the defensive.

The American economy is 7 trillion in debt....  

www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

"The estimated population of the United States is 294,913,533
so each citizen's share of this debt is $25,525.24.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.75 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!"


they (the U.S.) are overextending themselves just as the Soviet Union did.......also where are these "aggressive challenger nations?" The soviet Union had a mammoth military, nothing compared to what North Korea, Iran, China or Russia have today.

It is inevitable IMO that the U.S. empire will founder. The question is whether Canada will be sucked away with it, when the Euro becomes the world currency, as it follows Saddam Hussain's example:


www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html

 

[Disillusioned]

Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.

Is there anything you believe? For instance, is the sku blue, or are roses ever red?

Politics is always partially a matter of opinion, but I was only providing sources because I was asked.....but you posted this in the wrong thread.... ???

 

[NavyGrunt]

Right but as has been pointed out in other threads. This isnt politics.ca- and you have no interest in talking about the military but only about your perverted view of American society.

And how is this not the right thread?  Every thread you are involved in is about how you dont like the U.S.

We have a vested interest in defence of our entire continent. Not to mention we should be interested in being a partner with the Americans who are the nation who is most similar to our own. Anytime they fail, we, western society fail.

 

[Ty]

Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist that you've labeled disillusioned as, I seriously have doubts about the legitimacy and requirement of the NMD system.   Please understand that I have no problem with continental defense systems- nor do I have a problem with paying for a portion of the cost.   My main issues are that NMD systems are not required and are not (yet) technically feasible.

To support my points, a 1997 BMDO Report to Congress has stated that until at least the year 2013, almost no country in the world besides the existing nuclear powers will achieve ballistic missile capabilities of threatening the USA- North Korea being the only exception with a reported marginal risk of ability to attack Alaska or Hawaii.   One can make the argument that NMD is a system for the future possibilities of this happening- my rebuttal is that NORAD should then wait until the system is ready in theory before rushing to deployment.

As far as the actual technical capability of the system, it still leaves a lot to be desired.   One caveat one must be aware of when evaluating NMD successfull tests is that the success of these tests is measured against operational objectives.   For example, if the operational goals of a simple missile system was to launch off the ground, fly ten kilometres, descend and detonate- then a test that achieves this is deemed a success- this does not mean the system is capable of this scenario in real world situations in which an enemy might deploy countermeasures against the missile.   The operational guidelines for NMD (from Defense Planing Guidance Update 2002-2007) is to aid in the neutralization of threats from rogue nations stemming from a limited missile attack utilizing unsophisticated countermeasures- and the tests being conducted will be successfully insofar as meeting those guidelines only.

I'm willing to concede that the system may evolve to include technology that allows it to deal with more sophisticated countermeasures in the future- and hypothetically, all countermeasures as a best case scenario.   However, a key operational factor in NMD is that system utilizes hit-to-kill objectives.   That is, through kinetic energy or a controlled detonation, the defensive system will neutralize incoming threats by essentially crashing into them.   This assumes that the attacking country will not utilize a system in which they arm or detonate the device at this point to circumvent the defensive network- accordingly, this system cannot be an adequate defense in the reminal stage of flight but   rather would only be effective in midcourse interecptions at the latest.   This is where the system has the most problems (today) in discerning real threats.   However, the new operations goals state that teh system will be effective in any phase of flight.

To the credit of the programme, several modifications have been made to the operational guidelines to evolve the system closer to one that may be usefull in a practical situation.   However, until   a time at which a defensive system can prove to be usefull in the majority of practical applications, I strongly believe that we should not fund it's construction nor installation.   It's research should be funded if, and only if, technical experts in the field (not politicians) can get together and offer a technical white paper on it's feasibility in  a real world situation and defend that paper successfully.   It may sound academic, but when you have millions of lives (as well as dollars) at stake, it's the basic first step needed.

Some links for your review talking about both sides if the argument:


http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/Conference%202001/panels/physics.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news02/022702kadish.htm