champu 1 #26 October 5, 2007 QuoteMaybe in 10-20 years we will be ready with a viable missile defense system, probably laser based, but right now, we are not. I think an event like the moonshot proves a couple things about daunting technological challenges. First, if you throw enough money at the right people, you can accomplish just about anything. Second, the vast majority of the general public prefer to sit on the sidelines, cheer for a while, and then, after a very short period of time, get bored and take the accomplishments of others for granted, sometimes even becoming indignant over their lack of continued satisfaction. While I personally find the missile defense challenge incredibly interesting, I don't work on those programs because I feel there are more important things out there to have the general public take for granted and eventually grow indignant towards me about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #27 October 5, 2007 Quote Maybe in 10-20 years we will be ready with a viable missile defense system, probably laser based, but right now, we are not. That's what we said 20 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #28 October 5, 2007 QuoteQuote Maybe in 10-20 years we will be ready with a viable missile defense system, probably laser based, but right now, we are not. That's what we said 20 years ago. And how long have we been fighting 'the war on cancer'? Nixon launched it in 1971. It's easy -- sometimes so easy -- to criticize missile defense on technical grounds. MDA (nee BMDO) and MIT-Lincoln Labs didn't help with some less than high-integrity appearing behavior, i.e., appearance of fraud. I'm always hesistant to base the argument completely on the technical side, although it can be done effectively, e.g., Ted Postol (former Science Advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations). It's more than acceptance or embracing (!) technical risk. Missile defense is also about deterrence. There were 2 visceral reasons nuclear bombs worked for deterrence: Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Can an unproven -- some would argue unprovable -- capability afford deterrence? If it can work, missile defense is a deterrent for states with ballistic missile capability. That's really a fairly small subset of the threats. Currently, that's Russia, Britain, France, and China. The US insists that missile defense is not directed against Russia or China. 10 years: DPRK - limited likelihood at best; Iran - maybe; Syria - very small probability. Missile defense misses a huge threat space of everybody else and DPRK, Iran, etc using other means, e.g., improvised nuclear devices. There's another issue of threat assessment (probability x consequence) & allocation of resources. In FY07, the DoD's Combatting WMD R&D program had a $16B budget. $11B went to missile defense. The remaining $5B went to R&D for defense against -- biological agents (medical, protection, decon, detection) -- chemical agents (medical, protection, decon, detection), -- radiological agents (medical, protection, decon, detection), -- all non-ballistic missile related nuclear defense R&D, & -- all Cooperative Threat Reduction R&D. [Source: publicly available RDTE-forms submitted to Congress, http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/budget_justification/index.html ] This de facto prioritization is not in line with the President's Strategy for Combatting WMD, the National Security Strategy, or the military strategies. VR/Marg p.s. Mahley & Bolton used the argument that unproven capability could not afford deterrence to argue against and to shut down negotiations a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Conventions (BWC) in July 2001. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #29 October 5, 2007 Quote Yea, but the really tricky part is figuring out how to get Iran to install transponders in their missiles and giving us a heads up on the launch. You do realize that we maintain a global net of sattelites specifically designed to identify and track ballistic missile launches? -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 October 5, 2007 >You do realize that we maintain a global net of sattelites >specifically designed to identify and track ballistic missile launches? Right. And: -setting off one warhead at apogee will blind them pretty effectively -the MIRV's, decoys and upper-stage debris in most launch systems would result in dozens of targets -satellite tracking gets you to within a few hundred yards. You need to be within a few yards to achieve a kinetic kill. And of course none of this is useful in stopping the most effective vehicle, and the one we currently have zero protection against - a shipping container on a boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #31 October 5, 2007 Quote>You do realize that we maintain a global net of sattelites >specifically designed to identify and track ballistic missile launches? Right. And: -setting off one warhead at apogee will blind them pretty effectively I don't think it'd blind them. I'd expect it to outright destroy them. Both the level of emp and its area of effect are supposed to be pretty nasty for (sub)orbital detonations. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #32 October 5, 2007 QuoteHmmmmmmmm my next door neighbor has a gun so he is capable of killing me should we attack first?No, but your chances of successful diplomatic talks are much better if you are carrying at least as big a weapon as he is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 October 5, 2007 QuoteOf course you have problems like what happens out the other end of the laser, since something as wimpy as a mirror won't stop that much power. But...is it mountable on the sharks friggin' HEAD???Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #34 October 5, 2007 Quote Quote Yea, but the really tricky part is figuring out how to get Iran to install transponders in their missiles and giving us a heads up on the launch. You do realize that we maintain a global net of sattelites specifically designed to identify and track ballistic missile launches? -Blind Yes. Seeing and destroying are two different things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #35 October 5, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Yea, but the really tricky part is figuring out how to get Iran to install transponders in their missiles and giving us a heads up on the launch. You do realize that we maintain a global net of sattelites specifically designed to identify and track ballistic missile launches? -Blind Yes. Seeing and destroying are two different things. Never said it was. I was addressing the detection capability the poster seems to have missed. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
