kallend 2,183 #1 May 30, 2007 Well, whoda thunkit? www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18916415/ Throughout recorded history offensive weapons have held the edge over (more expensive) defensive systems.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 May 30, 2007 Do you think that America should throw away all of its defensive weapons, as worthless? Do you think that everything the Russians say is absolutely true? Maybe we should just go ahead and surrender right now? Or do you want us to respond by developing our own more sophisticated offensive weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #3 May 30, 2007 From the article... QuoteRussia announces new multi-warhead missile - Moscow claims ballistic weapon can penetrate any missile defense system This is the third time in as many years I've seen news stories about MIRV development in Russia written as though it were a new technology or idea... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #4 May 30, 2007 QuoteDo you think that America should throw away all of its defensive weapons, as worthless? In the ICBM arena? Do you think any of them really work? QuoteDo you think that everything the Russians say is absolutely true? So the Russians can either be right all of the time or none of the time? QuoteMaybe we should just go ahead and surrender right now? Why? Are they firing ICBM's at us? MAD is the real deterant, and there's still more than enough of that to go around. QuoteOr do you want us to respond by developing our own more sophisticated offensive weapons? In the ICBM arena? Can't we destroy the world enough times over already?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #5 May 30, 2007 QuoteThis is the third time in as many years I've seen news stories about MIRV development in Russia written as though it were a new technology or idea... Yeah, I was wondering about that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 May 30, 2007 QuoteSo the Russians can either be right all of the time or none of the time? Well... again, from the article... Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 May 30, 2007 Quote Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Maybe they've implemented a large number of dummy warheads on it. That was the presumed response had SDI gone anywhere. The more targets, the quicker it would fall apart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #8 May 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Maybe they've implemented a large number of dummy warheads on it. That was the presumed response had SDI gone anywhere. The more targets, the quicker it would fall apart. Dummy warheads are not the only option. Competent rocket scientists have been predicting for a long time that it is easier and cheaper to confuse a missile defense system than to create one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #9 May 30, 2007 QuoteDo you think that America should throw away all of its defensive weapons, as worthless? Only the useless ones. Quote Do you think that everything the Russians say is absolutely true? I think their record is about as good as that of Bush and Cheney. Quote Maybe we should just go ahead and surrender right now? Why - we didn't surrender in the '50s, '60s, 70's, '80s and '90s. Your logic is wierd. Quote Or do you want us to respond by developing our own more sophisticated offensive weapons? Is a response needed at all? We can destroy their country very effectively with what we already have.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #10 May 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Maybe they've implemented a large number of dummy warheads on it. That was the presumed response had SDI gone anywhere. The more targets, the quicker it would fall apart. It all depends on your definition of "future" and on, more generally, your stance regarding how many ways there are to skin a cat. I guess I'm just saying I would never be so bold as to claim I'd thought of everything both present and future. Like I said, maybe something was simply lost in translation. As a side note, however, if the concept of MAD effectively makes nuclear arsenals defensive weapons, what does that make strategic missile defense systems? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #11 May 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Quote"As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ...which is an absurd statement to make. Perhaps something was lost in translation. Maybe they've implemented a large number of dummy warheads on it. That was the presumed response had SDI gone anywhere. The more targets, the quicker it would fall apart. It all depends on your definition of "future" and on, more generally, your stance regarding how many ways there are to skin a cat. I guess I'm just saying I would never be so bold as to claim I'd thought of everything both present and future. Like I said, maybe something was simply lost in translation. As a side note, however, if the concept of MAD effectively makes nuclear arsenals defensive weapons, what does that make strategic missile defense systems? Cannons were far cheaper than castles - castles became obsolete. "Bodkin head" arrows were way cheaper than suits of armor - armored knights became obsolete. Bombers were far cheaper than battleships - battleships became obsolete. MIRVed ICBMs and suitcase nukes are far cheaper than missile defense systems... Bush's missile defense is the 21st Century equivalent of the Maginot Line. Of course, it is enriching the defense contractors, which is probably its primary purpose anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #12 May 30, 2007 Quote I guess I'm just saying I would never be so bold as to claim I'd thought of everything both present and future. Of course. You aren't a politician.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #13 May 30, 2007 After seeing what a bunch of nuts with cutters can do, do you really think that a multibillion missile defense system will make you any safer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #14 May 30, 2007 QuoteCannons were far cheaper than castles - castles became obsolete. "Bodkin head" arrows were way cheaper than suits of armor - armored knights became obsolete. Bombers were far cheaper than battleships - battleships became obsolete. MIRVed ICBMs and suitcase nukes are far cheaper than missile defense systems... Bush's missile defense is the 21st Century equivalent of the Maginot Line. Of course, it is enriching the defense contractors, which is probably its primary purpose anyway. Cannons, arrows, and (to a slightly lesser extent) strategic bombers are themselves obsolete and rather irrelevant at this point as well. If the inventor of bodkin point arrows claimed he'd created something capable of circumventing any existing or future armor systems, it would have been an absurd statement as well. Arms races, for better or for worse, don't have finish lines, even through ink and paper. I apologize if my statements came across as, "we'll just see about that!" bravado, that was not my intent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #15 May 30, 2007 Good job your not at war with Russia then My Dads bigger than your Dad... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #16 May 30, 2007 Quote My Dads bigger than your Dad... Probably. My Dad, if still alive, would be 100 this year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 May 30, 2007 QuoteAs a side note, however, if the concept of MAD effectively makes nuclear arsenals defensive weapons, what does that make strategic missile defense systems? A viable strategic defense is clearly an offensive asset. It allows you to do a first strike, and it allows you to invade a nuclear power without fear that they would escalate up the ladder. But in reality, the chances of it being viable, esp initially, are so low, that it would serve little role but to enrich the companies involved. Given the numerous ways to defeat the concept, it was pitiful to see how poorly the recent tests against a simple missile went. Only by simplifying the criteria could they get a 'success'. In the worst case, SDI is destabilizing. If the Russians had interpretted SDI as a first strike tool that might eventually work, the game theory response is to strike now while you still can. And of course space based systems have no value against any nukes that might come out of the middle east. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #18 May 30, 2007 >In the worst case, SDI is destabilizing. I agree. Indeed, anything other than a nearly perfect SDI system, implemented rapidly and secretly, is destabilizing to some degree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #19 May 30, 2007 Quote>In the worst case, SDI is destabilizing. I agree. Indeed, anything other than a nearly perfect SDI system, implemented rapidly and secretly, is destabilizing to some degree. "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" "It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises."Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #20 May 30, 2007 Quote MIRVed ICBMs and suitcase nukes are far cheaper than missile defense systems... Unless you're on the receiving end of one, then they're pretty darned costly. Your Ostritch defense strategy has never worked. Alternative effective approaches to nations like NK are untennable thanks to years of bitching and backbiting whenever action is taken. Missile defense is about the only politically viable course of action left that actually does anything to address a serious threat, and nobody is selling it as 100% effective or impossible to circumvent, but it is a certainty that you don't accurately know it's full capabilities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #21 May 31, 2007 My concern regarding nuclear weapon delivery methods to this country would probably be distributed, in descending order, over ground/unconventional, traditional ICBM, MIRV-equipped ICBMs, and finally SLBMs. And, like many, this distribution has everything to do with who would employ such methods at this day and age, and little to do with our ability to defend against them. I should also mention my level of apprehension towards any of these is not one I would, by any means, consider "high." (or even "elevated" for those out there using imperial units of "worry") I think there are a number of missile defense applications being pursued that are quite viable. Applications intended to provide better protection to surface ships from cruise missiles, military bases from mortars, towns from small-medium caliber rockets, and non-military aircraft from MANPADS. These kinds of things invariably get lumped together and vilified with every failed terminal-phase ballistic missile interception test, or annual press-release about "New MIRVs!" and I don't think it does them justice. That's the real reason I sigh when someone rolls into a discussion with a, "How about they make a Ryder Rental truck defense shield, hyuk, hyuk." sort of attitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 May 31, 2007 QuoteAlternative effective approaches to nations like NK are untennable thanks to years of bitching and backbiting whenever action is taken. Missile defense is about the only politically viable course of action left that actually does anything to address a serious threat, and nobody is selling it as 100% effective or impossible to circumvent, but it is a certainty that you don't accurately know it's full capabilities. The problem is it's a 10% solution. Given all the other things we could do with billions of dollars, it's stupid to go for that 10%. It's a certainty that we can list many reasons why it won't work. Starting with.... The problem with NK is not that they might launch it - MAD assures us that they won't. It just removes our ability to engage it in conventional warfare without worry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #23 May 31, 2007 Quote"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" "It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises." Also: Stanley Kubrick rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #24 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteAlternative effective approaches to nations like NK are untennable thanks to years of bitching and backbiting whenever action is taken. Missile defense is about the only politically viable course of action left that actually does anything to address a serious threat, and nobody is selling it as 100% effective or impossible to circumvent, but it is a certainty that you don't accurately know it's full capabilities. The problem is it's a 10% solution. Given all the other things we could do with billions of dollars, it's stupid to go for that 10%. It's a certainty that we can list many reasons why it won't work. Starting with.... The problem with NK is not that they might launch it - MAD assures us that they won't. It just removes our ability to engage it in conventional warfare without worry. That depends on what you see as the problem it is trying to address. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 May 31, 2007 QuoteThat depends on what you see as the problem it is trying to address. well, is there *any* problem where it's better than 10% effective? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
