Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Elephants of Missile Defense
In Albania, nearing the end of his six-nation tour of Europe, President George W. Bush hopped out of his limo to have his head rubbed and his cheeks kissed by an adoring crowd in what The New York Times called a "virtual mosh pit" of enthusiasm.Surely, he was delighted and relieved to be warmly welcomed in the mostly Muslim nation. It was a tough week in Europe: the president endured long meetings, pointed criticisms, huge protests, and an upset stomach that took him out of some of the Group of Eight Summit meetings.
Toughest of all perhaps was the sharp war of words with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the weeks leading up to the G8 Summit. At issue: the Bush administration's plan to put nuclear missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. President Putin had repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with encroachment into his territory. At one point he accused the United States of "filling eastern Europe with new weapons." In a risky but very clear show of force, Russia also tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile at the end of May. Of Bush's plans to use European territory to detect and intercept Iranian long-range missiles, Putin said: "we are being told the anti missile system is targeted against something that doesn't exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?... It would be funny if it was not so sad."
Meanwhile, President Bush sought to quell this rhetoric with a one-two punch of reassurance and criticism. He insisted that the proposed system was a "purely defensive measure, aimed not at Russia but at true threats." In Prague, flanked by Czech Republic officials, Bush said: "My message will be 'Vladimir'-I call him Vladimir-'you shouldn't fear missile defense system. As a matter of fact, why don't you cooperate with us on a missile defense system? Why don't you participate with the United States?'" Later that same day, at a conference on democracy, Bush took on Putin's record. "In Russia, reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development."
After all that hot rhetoric, Putin was armed with a smile and a new proposal when he arrived at his private meeting with Bush. There the Russian president offered the U.S. access to the Gabala radar site in Azerbaijan to detect and intercept incoming missiles. He also opened the door to cooperation with the Bush administration, suggesting that the two nations could assess emerging missile threats together, with other European nations weighing in. Finally, in a separate address, he expressed support for U.S. missile interceptor deployment in Iraq, Turkey, and on sea platforms. These judo moves came easily to the Russian president, a sixth degree black belt. A clearly surprised Bush administration promised to follow up with discussions in July.
Many of the discussions since Putin's announcement have focused on the Russian president's diplomatic finesse, his possible reasons for offering the Azerbaijan site, and the feasibility of the proposal-either as an alternative or companion to the Czech and Polish systems. While these questions are important, they cannot be meaningfully discussed without first dealing with at least two of the elephants that crowded the room where Presidents Putin and Bush made nice nice.
Elephant Number One
The U.S. missile defense system continues to present large technological hurdles that the engineers and physicists at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the Missile Defense Agency have been unable to vault despite $53.9 billion invested since 2001.
In April, Henry Obering, the head of the Missile Defense Agency and a retired Air Force Lt. General, boasted to Congress that "since 2001, we have built a record of 26 successful hit-to-kill engagements in 34 attempts." If the Missile Defense Agency were a high school junior, this score of 76% or a C-plus would not be boast-worthy. But MDA has some advantages over the average high school junior. Not only does the agency write and self-administer the exam, but it gets to see the answers and calculate the grade.
Philip Coyle, who served as the director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Clinton Defense Department and is now a senior advisor to the Center for Defense Information, makes the point that the MDA has "done these tests under scripted conditions, where you have information in advance that no enemy would give you." In addition, the tests do not include the low-cost decoys and other counter-measures that a true attacker would use to fool or overwhelm the system.
Thus far, a handful of long-range missile interceptors have been erected at Ft. Greeley, Alaska and Vandenberg Airbase in California. Deployed to counter a North Korean missile attack, these systems remain under development. Amid tight war-time budgets and record deficits, Congress is growing increasingly skeptical of missile defense's promises and alarmed by its costs. Congress has cut funding for the proposed interceptors on Poland and the Czech Republic in legislation up for debate in both the House and Senate.
Elephant Number Two
Even if the technology could work, is missile defense worth the financial or political cost?
There are many ways to counter and dissuade an emerging threat. And missile defense-designed to detect and then intercept a launched long range missile-is the most expensive and the most last minute. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, but it would take them another eight years. That is sufficient time for diplomacy and constructive engagement to bear fruit. The Polish interceptors won't be operational (if they work and if their construction does not spark a new war with Russia) until 2013 at the earliest and will cost an estimated $4 billion.
Why devote so much money to a system that is guaranteed to do two things: alienate and threaten European allies, enrage and provoke Russia, and encourage Iran to accelerate its progress by any means necessary.
It is unlikely that the Bush administration will wholly and heartily embrace Putin's Gabala offer when they meet again in Maine next month. But the Azeri base option opens the door to further discussion about why the Kremlin sees Washington's plans for missile defense systems in Eastern Europe as such a threat. Russia views the systems as having less to do with countering nuclear proliferation in Tehran and more to do with sidelining Russia as a major power. It's a good thing the Bush compound in Kennebunkport is extensive, because that is a third elephant they'll have to accommodate.
Joseph Nye, a professor of international relations at Harvard, outlines a different path in a recent Boston Globe op-ed. He envisions a sensible deal where "we would delay our plans for missile defense in Eastern Europe while the Russians would agree to back stronger sanctions against Iran," which he says would be "our best shot at blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions without compromising our immediate security."
The $60 billion that the world's richest industrialized nations just pledged to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa is only a bit more than the $53 billion the United States has devoted to the techno-dream of missile defense in the past six years. It would require a radical reversal of Washington's priorities to ensure that the warm welcome President Bush enjoyed in Albania would be replicated in Angola or Zambia.
FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior research associate at the New School's World Policy Institute.
Copyright © 2007, Institute for Policy Studies
34 Comments so far
Show AllAh yes, the "free market" at work once again. Lockheed and Boeing cashing in on public tax dollars. The executives who make millions, and the employers who make comfortable livings at our WMD factories are the ones with the "W" stickers still on the backs of their luxury SUVs. They also are the sort of people who call into the right-wing talk shows and talk about how liberals are "too soft" on "securing" the US. The issue isn't "security," it's "securities" as the military industrial mob family is heavily invested in the stocks of their companies. Stocks, like Lockheed's, which have shot up since the beginning of Gulf Slaughter II.
On the issue of the weaponization of space and related issues, here's an informative site.
http://www.space4peace.org Bruce Gagnon, a veteran himself, is doing amazing work. I found a CD of a talk he gave. Very ominous stuff that needs a broader audience.
Most of the hype about the "Star Wars" Missile Defense was quite extensively debunked during the Gipper's reign.
Decoys flooding the defenses, etc - it's all been discussed - to death I had hoped - in the eighties.
I came across this some time ago, and was wondering if it might present a more positive view for people to adopt on "Star Wars":
http://masalai.free.fr/Outer-Space-Neutralization-Treaty.html
One thing this person does mention, that may be worth picking up and running with, is that testing these weapons in outer space leaves behind space debris, which could damage spacecraft the way the Columbia Space Shuttle was damaged by foam breaking off during launch.
Ming:
I just caught your post as I was retiring for the night. And I just had to say you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and add a further 2cents of mine to the one above.
Tracking one primitive ICBM of the 60's variety is hard enough if even possible considering the number of trajectories it can start with or be flying in. To do that for an array of 100 multiple- warhead, multiple decoy, multi-entry ICBMS and IRBMS(submarine launched), with the more sophisticated evasive tecnologies that you have pointed out makes my mind boggle at the permutaions and combinations that have to be worked out without even an iota of error to guide thousands ABMS SIMULTANEOUSLY to their target. Dream on "Pent-a-gone".
There is no deterrence against Nuclear War except complete disarmament by all parties in the world or MAD.
A further point is that no single country is ever going to be able to achieve interstellar travel by itself with trillions being wasted in arms and wars. Weaponization of space is costly and useless as it will iteself be sustained by MAD AND extremely costly and complex systems place all over the world and in orbit, with incredible amounts of redundancy to overcome the the problems of sabotage you mention. And as we know from complexity theory, very complex systems collapse from their own complexity unless they have a self-organizing core.
Many astro-physicists who are looking for life in space despair that we must be alone as nobody is trying to contact us. I almost died laughing when I first heard such hubris filled pronouncements. For any life form that has achieved interstaller travel starting from a planet like ours would have long abandoned war and started sharing resources; and if they ever came upon a primitive, killing planet such as ours, they would avoid us like the plague.
aymon,
There's another aspect to this issue and that is the various nuclear powers out there aren't going to content themselves with their current missile projection technologies. While someone like the US is puttering along trying to develop the capability to shoot just one ICBM down under realistic conditions, the other parties will take advantage of increasingly sophisticated technological developments to improve their own offensive capabilities. The promoters of missile defense like to hypothesize about wonderful, future technological breakthroughs that will make such a system a success, but they neglect to take into account the wonderful, future capabilities that their potential adversaries may have at their disposal. Imagine trying to climb Mt. Everest if the peak could move steadily up at the same time.
Besides, what's going to defend a system as complex as a missile defense network from attack or sabotage? Are the missile interceptors also going to shoot down whatever array of missiles that are thrown at them, or are they going to require large military presences to guarantee their safety against conventional and unconventional attacks? I suspect the missile defense venture is more an excuse to militarize space (the excuse being to safeguard vital satellites; witness the recent Chinese anti-satellite exercise) and to justify the placement of conventional military forces in an increasing number of foreign countries. That's the real rat Russia, China, et. al. are smelling in this enterprise.
dixie:
You took the words out of my mouth. As a mathematician, I know your source knows whereof he/she speaks. "Star Wars" is good Hollywod, and RR bought into it because he was a Hollywood delusional, just as all neo-cons and their kings like bush and dick are.
The science of OPTIMALLY tracking probalistic,dynamic sysytems is called "Stochastic Optimal Control Systems". To find optimal tracking for a multi-warhead with multiple decoys requires formulation in terms of simultaneous partial differntial equations with continuous stochastic disturbances. The mathematics for these does not yet exist to be solvable in closed form. Thus huge commputers are needed just to simulate and solve toy problems approximately by numerical methods. The rate of errors in computation for most known methods is so rapid and exponential, that even solving these in a hundred years is a pipe dream.
If it were even remotely possible , then all the geniuses at the Pentagon would quit their jobs and make billions tracking the stock market as the principles are the same. Why would they be working for peanuts and also in an endeavour that would cause death and destruction since MAD would become useless and they would be dead within 24 hours of start of nuclear war with Russia.
"Missile defence" is all fantasy stuff that the military industrial complex is selling to a terror-stricken, deluded public to fleece them of hundreds of billionds of dollars a year for the next 20 years until some mathematician proves the impossibility of solving these equations within the life span of the Universe.
Putin must be laughing his head off that Bush-Chenney are bankrupting America whilr Mother Russia is hauling in the lucre from its oil.
Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Its cheaper and at least has some use.
Albania is the only Islamic nation on earth that will warmly welcome Bush. The rest hold protests and I don't blame them!
One can only wonder whether this is an example of rigid thinking based on old cold war perceptions or is this an example of rigid thinking based on new cold war fantasies. Bush could have changed the world after 9/11 as everyone was clearly in support of America. Instead Bush chose a unilateral arrogance which devolved into a world wide alienation and in many cases antagonism for america. Bush rolls back the clock and the cold war returns? Is it believable taken on face value? An expensive come on to keep up the hype about iran? Or as Puton believes a feint towards Iran and a cold war move against Russia. Why now? To install the system before he leaves office when saner minds would cancel it. Good old Bush, good old cold war? Bush seeks a backward step, why are we not surprised.
Bush says "why don't you cooperate with us on a missile defense system". I believe Russia did offer to create a system but it was rejected outright by BushCo. Western news censored the following Putin conference but here is a quote from Putin himself:
"This applies to the missile defence system. But not just the missile defence system itself. Since if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the U.S. nuclear capability.
I draw your attention and that of your readers to the fact that, for the first time in history — and I want to emphasize this — there are elements of the U.S. nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security."
Everybody knows that the missile system is an extremely aggressive and divisive move against the rising economic power of Russia but it looks like Putin is now playing chess with Bush. How good is Bush at chess I wonder?
The expression "like a bull in a china shop" could well be modified to "like a Bush in a china shop"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17855.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm
Welcome to the 'United States of America, Incorportated'.
Frida's argument is weakened by her claim that missle defense is technologically impossible. Claims that ICBMs will not hit their targets, that the B2 bombers will not fly or that a missle defense system is impossible, are just irrational hysteria. All of these systems were and are technically feasible.
The interesting development that she brings up is that a missile defense system can be shared. It will be interesting to see how Bush responds now that Putin has called his bluff.
a close relative is a top research engineer at one of the large military/industrial corporations. He has said repeatedly that "star wars" (which is what this anti ballistic missile system is) will not work and may probably never work because we do not at this point in time have the scientific knowledge to make it work. The problem is not only attempting to "hit a speeding bullet with another speeding bullet" (which is the essence of star wars) but on top of that, the system must be able to determine which of the several "missiles" on the radar screen is the true missile and which ones are the decoys. There has never been a test that succeeds in this, and at this point scientists do not know how to devise a mathematical formula to accomplish this. We have been pouring billions down a rat hole for years and apparently intend to continue to do so. Putin is not stupid. He knows this missile system doesn't work, so he's not worried about that, he's worried about the political implications of the US geting a foothold with bases in his back yard.
We really need to be clear about the missile defense system - it simply does not work and very possibly will never work - at least not until we are much more advanced in our scientific abilities than we are now. (Give it a 100 years, maybe?)
If Bush's desire is to start another cold war before he leaves office and give a lasting gift to the defense contractors then his actions make perfect sense.
It does not really matter whether the missile system works or not it has done its job marvelously already. Also this would tend to tie up funding that Putin could use for social and financial gains in the wider market.
The dollar is slipping as the reserve currency already dumped to some degree by nations trading in oil and china and Russia are now moving to change the whole reserve currency paradigm.
So in this context it makes sense for the missile system to be used to provoke more spending by Russia to improve its arms and thereby limit its ability to effect the changes in the global market.
I think Putin is aware of this and will make life more difficult for European countries and increase pressure on Bush in this way. I do not think there will be an open conflict just a low intensity war and since China is a partner with Russia and holds our manufacturing and Research facilities on their soil in additional to a trillion or so in debt there is a lot of leverage to brought to bear.
And I think that we have the short stick in terms of the chess players. Putin knows these games by heart and Bush well there you are.
I'd like to make two points. First, isn't it amazing the cost and length of so-called defense measures when it was simple tools like box cutters that brought the planes down that caused the 911 tragedy. GENIUS can make use of anything, and genius is not necessarily going to use or need whatever this missile shield purports to protect against.
Second point, as an avid reader of metaphysical and esoteric materials, I found some fascinating points made in "NOTES FROM THE COSMOS" by Gordon Michael Scallion. He is a clairvoyant and believes not only that there was life on Mars (recent satellite photos suggesting waterways supports this view), but he explained that the intelligent life on that planet became very committed to space defense and their greatest engineers built a missile shield around the planet. It stayed stable for more than one generation, but as the planet's beings began to question the need for it, those who were not educated in the complex manner in which it was built ended up destroying the planet in their attempt to take it down. We can accept this as a cautionary tale in which case it supports the adage, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." The US has become a sicko society in ways that extend beyond the topic in Moore's important new film. Our lack of investment in HUMANITY in favor of these disgusting weapon systems will be the thing that takes us down as a society. Already the US debt, the threat of diminishing oil, the state of the nation in terms of its equivalent moral civil war AND its infrastructure, added to a substantial karmic debt to other nations taken together do not paint a pretty or SECURE picture for our future. I think Putin is playing chess all right, he sees where the US is headed. He can effectively play the ultimate time-card: Patience!
Are they also developing a "missile shield" that will intercept IED and suicide bombers? That is the one I would invest in. Of course, most of those are probably built from the munitions which went missing from stockpiles being "guarded" by U.S. or Coalition soldiers early in the occupation. Why does that never come up in any of these discussions about the source of these weapons of "mass" destruction, 2 or 3 or 4 at a time? Is 3,500+ dead U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians considered a mass? WAR DOES NOT WORK, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL!
Peace,
st john
"Why devote so much money to a system that is guaranteed to do two things: alienate and threaten European allies, enrage and provoke Russia, and encourage Iran to accelerate its progress by any means necessary."
For the MONEY, of course!
The missle defense system has been evaluated by many people and found to be feasible. There is a lot of argument over the best way to implement it. Never the less, the testing to date indicates that, using current technolgy, you can hit a bullet with a bullet.
In April, Henry Obering, the head of the Missile Defense Agency and a retired Air Force Lt. General, boasted to Congress that "since 2001, we have built a record of 26 successful hit-to-kill engagements in 34 attempts."
76% is actually pretty good for a system still in development.
Denying reality hasn't worked well for BushCo. Why, in the name of peace, do we want to deny the reality? A missile defense system can be made to work.
DavidJames, perhaps you missed the above from me(st john)
"Are they also developing a "missile shield" that will intercept IED and suicide bombers? That is the one I would invest in. Of course, most of those are probably built from the munitions which went missing from stockpiles being "guarded" by U.S. or Coalition soldiers early in the occupation. Why does that never come up in any of these discussions about the source of these weapons of "mass" destruction, 2 or 3 or 4 at a time? Is 3,500+ dead U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians considered a mass? WAR DOES NOT WORK, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL!
Peace,
st john"
What good is a missile shield when none of our "declared enemies" (we declared them; they didn't declare us) even has a missile capability and won't in any forseeable future? Are we arming against Israel, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Germany or even China(where are we going to deply our missile shield? Japan? South Vietnam (or is it Vietnam)? Taiwan? How many missiles will we have to build to make this a viable defense weapon? Hundreds? Thousands? Who is paying for it? The wealthy whose taxes have been reduced to almost nothing? They are the ones who are benefitting, yet they are asking they not be taxed so much. And, the defense contractors are getting rich off these insane programs that do nothing to advance civilizaton in any meaningful way. Obviously, if the U.S. is building weapons of mass destruction, whether defensive or offensive, then anyone feeling threatened who has not developed a consciousness beyond pure them and us mentality, will feel obligated to meet the challenge posed by the U.S. missile shield, and try to produce their own "defensive" weapons. It is INSANITY!!!!!
"A missile defense system can be made to work." RIIIIGGHHT!
Pardon my tone, but at times I lose that loving feeling, and resort to my own form of insanity.
Peace,
st john
What do you do when your next-door neighbour is a delusional paranoid with a gun?
DavidJames:
"76% is actually pretty good for a system still in development." Unlike other participants on this thread, I am on your side. "All of these systems were and are technically feasible."
I strongly believe that even 99% is achivable. The only problem I have with remaining 1% will bring probability of survival of our species to even lesser value.
So, I wonder what all those huge profits from the Missile Defense Agency will do for remaining cocroches?
st john,
Missile technology is getting easier and easier to develop. It is prudent to develop defenses against an attack with a few missiles. Check out this gapminder animated chart of some UN statistics.
http://tools.google.com/gapminder
You can change the y-axis to show percentage of the country's budget spent on defense. There are a number of countries that spend just as large a percentage of their budget on "defense" as the US does and we have a lot to defend. China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran all have missile capability, some are nuclear.
Good rhetoric about the IEDs and suicide bombers by the way. However the discussion is about the missile defense system. A missile defense system is primarily intended for defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
If peace is your goal perhaps there is a place for a shared missile defense system. $11 billion a year is a pretty good deal compared to the boondoggle in Iraq.
Regarding the missile defense interceptors hitting their targets(working), even now one of the last places in the world you would want to be, was in something the interceptor was locked onto. They do not call it terminal guidance for nothing.
Peace
DavidJames June 23rd, 2007 9:48 pm
Thanks for the response and information. I may be living in a different reality, and I hope that I am. There is no security in building weapons, for the tendency is that they will be used. The more there are, the more opportunity for their use. What could we do with $11 billion a year, especially if it were contributed equally by all partisans? I believe that people and governments attack each other out of a belief in scarcity--the belief that there is not enough to go around, so we have to get ours before they take it from us. This is not true, but it is the predominant belief shared by most of the people of the world. I could offer a list of books and resources which completely negate the validity of this belief. However, since the belief is so deep seated, it will require more than logical arguments to displace it. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, most people will not get off the false security of their beliefs because they equate what they believe with who they are, and to give up who you are is like death. The Ego will do whatever it has to do to survive, including killing and destroying the perceived destroyer of its existence. To change your environment, you must change who you believe you are. The change is an inner, spiritual change, not one of controlling the external environment you perceive is outside of you. You want peace? Be Peace. You want security from outer attack? Be secure within yourself. People do not attack what is not threatening to them. Who you are and who you believe yourself to be speaks so loudly that your words are drowned out by your psychic energy. I guess this is a bit longwinded, but the message is that Violence does Not repel Violence; it Attracts it. Check out the Law of Attraction. It is real.
Peace,
st john
Aymon is 100% correct in his assessment of the uselessness of missile defense. The system can simply be overwhelmed with large amounts of relatively cheap(compared to the defending missile) ICBM's, and could also be undermined by placing a nuke or two in cargo containers destined for the US. The 'successful' testing is rigged, with the enemy missiles having homing beacons and ideal weather conditions during testing. Computer malfunctions or miscalculations, the enormity and complexity of the software programs needed for any chance of partial success, and unknown battlefield conditions make missile defense a mutibillion dollar boondoggle or windfall for the war profiteers.
Wow, great cosmic chess game here guys! Aymon, your knowledge of math stuns me, and I salute you for it, brother. Word is aliens HAVE already quarantined this primitive planetary sphere, probably sending their own color coded alerts out once Bush was installed as prez to the US(SR)
St John: You approach this discussion from a sound and sane metaphyiscal place and I want to say you have shared a most eloquent and informed argument that I totally agree with. I hope posters will re-read what you said, it's the big key.
Siouxrose June 24th, 2007 12:37 pm
Thanks for the support and suggestion that people re-read the message. There is a book that was first published in 1986, New Teachings from an Awakening Humanity, by The Christ, that exactly describes what is happening and what will happen in the very near future, including a discussion of our space weapons and the intervention of other dimensional aliens to prevent the further contamination of the rest of the Universe. This may sound very far out, but anyone who has gone deeper than 3rd dimensional and 5-sensory inquiry will understand what is being discussed. For those who are authentically committed to Peace and Planetary Healing will also be interested in participating on July 17th, 11:11AM GMT. Go to www.firethegrid.com for a complete description and what is to be done on that date. Share it with all you know.
Peace,
st john
Those who cling to the fable that somehow America can be made "Safe", by the investment of a never ending expenditure of billions of dollars for a seriously flawed Missile "Pretense" System, are blinded by the Reagan myopia of foisting this ludicrous system upon America. As successful as have been America's "War on Drugs", and the highly unsuccessful attempts to secure our borders, both of these programs chances of success are worlds ahead of the Missile System, which has yet to have one actual successful intercept under realistic conditions. My former career was in Air Defense, and I can safely say that to date the offense maintains such a significant advantage over any defensive deployment, that the only success will be for the executives and stock holders of those companies contracted to develop this system. The claim of 76% success is based upon practicing as if we were attempting to intercept Air China's 11 PM departure from Shanghai, rather than any actual unannounced attack. To continue the delusion that deploying interceptors will somehow make America "Safe", does a serious disservice to the necessity for vital funds that would be better spent upon health, education, and the very real serious problems facing our country.
The biggest elephant of missile defense is that if some large terrorist organization or country develops a nuclear warhead and wants to use it against the U.S., they won't use an ICBM. ICBM's are expensive and unreliable, and their origin can be detected. For one thousandth the cost, a private yacht can be purchased. A nuclear warhead can be placed on board, and the yacht sailed into any major city harbor and moored there. The resulting nuclear blast, while not covering quite as broad an area as a blast at altitude, would be followed by a tidal wave, and the yacht would be totally vaporized, destroying all evidence of the perpetrator. Thus, no retaliation would be possible. One needn't be a rocket scientist to realize that this is a fatal flaw with missile defenses, even if they were technologically feasible.
DavidJames "The missle defense system has been evaluated by many people and found to be feasible."
The missle defense system has also been analyzed by even more people and found to be hopelessly flawed. If you want to understand why people think that it might be made to work, follow the money. Like global warming where all the nonscience science is coming from the petroleum and coal industries, so here all the "science" for a Star Wars project is coming from the military/industrial complex who would benefit financially.
As for the argument that we are making the Russians divert resources to overcome our defense capabilities, what is it costing them and what is it costing us? We spend as much as the rest of the world put together on the military. Think of where we could be if we hadn't diverted all those resources into something so nonproductive. NCLB would be fully funded. Medicare would be fully funded, maybe even replaced by a single payer system. Our public health system would be up and running well instead of the moribund carcass that it is. The state college system could offer places to everyone qualified regardless of their financial situation....Now what was that about this being a weapon AGAINST our enemies?! Sounds more like something Dr. Kevorkian cooked up for the US.
Even if the missile defense could work all it does is change the target to high altitude atomic explosions. How in the world would that be safer than the missile hitting the target?
The logical response to missile defense is lots of missiles. Blowing up lots of atomic weapons in the high atmosphere sounds just like a Reagan and Bu$h the inferior plan for defense.
Siuoxrose, thanks as always sister-in-LIGHT:
sailinlove, that analogy with Air China and missle tracking is priceless. Just an animation of that alone will de-delude a lot of people who have a natural inclination to believe "authority" without thinking.
Ming, the analogy with a constantly moving Mt Everest summit is both very clever and funny. Combined with sailInlove's analogy, it would also provide the correct metaphor for the never ending (and in my judgement, widening) gap between offence and defence.
Peaceguy7, that yacht example shows the uselessness of any defence agianst a determined enemy with nuclear or other WMD capability. Although DavidJames seems to be sold on the hype of 76% success and seems to believe that a 100% successful "ICBM" defence is possible(if it were possible, but which I have argued above that mathematically it is not, and professor truth and Ming have confirmed being mathematicians themselves it seems), most "terrorist" attacks, just like the improvisation of IED's, would use exactly the improvised methods you suggest. That is, there is no fail safe defence against all the destructive weapons now available to humankind.
This is where St John's vision is correct: If you want peace, you must be peace. Today, America is not peace but perpetual war and so it will attract perpetual war to itself. With the wealth that the Universe has endowed America, it could, if a large mass of its people were just slightly less innumerate and less ignorant about other human beings and not opting for war like Easter Islanders cutting down the last tree, then it could use its wealth for the greatest benefit to its own people and billions around the world. This is not airy-fairy, do good thinking, but something that a "thinking" capitalist (if there exists such a creature) would endorse. For assume that 3 billion people are brought out of poverty into "middle class" and become productive by a 20 year "Marshall" plan that would in reality cost less than the war on Iraq has cost and will cost. Then you have 3 billion grateful "consumers", a capitalist's wet dream.
But at the same time an ethos of overconsumption has to be eliminated. It costs 25 acres of human footprint to keep each American in his/her overconsumption state when the world can only sustain at most about five acres of footprint and still maintain a very decent standard of living. These are publicly available figures. My calculations show even less is needed for habitat, and vast tracts of land could be left as virgin forest absorbing green house gases if the destruction of war was not taking place.
So one does not need any outside intelligence to come and save us. The overview knowledge is available and understandable by a Grade 8 kid. So America, please get your thinking and education up to at least grade 8. You have very little time before an Easter Island type collapse engulfs you.
Here is a message from a source of LIGHT:
WHY DO YOU FIGHT AMONG YOURSELVES? IS NOT MY EARTH SPACIOUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?
"The Missile Defense System" has been shown to be feasible by many people, in many non-profit technical monitoring organizations in our country. Draper Labs, Lincoln Labs, Aerospace Corporation, SAIC, Rand and many more.
The MDA testing(testing that is audited and peer reviewed) is showing that a bullet can be hit with a smart bullet. Smart bullets, i.e. terminally guided missiles have been and continue to be very effective at hitting targets regardless of the stochastic(random) manuevers that are attempted by the target.
It is the target tracking, actually multi-target tracking that is the real problem. Here is a Amazon.com link to a Rand report on the target tracking aspect:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-7744390-0681705?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Estimation+and+Prediction+of+Ballistic+Missile+Trajectories&Go.x=6&Go.y=12&Go=Go
Nothing that cannot be done here!
Note about stochastic diffential equations: There are many algorithmic methods for solving stochastic differential equations and as expected the many people that can program computers to solve them, are making a lot of money with hedge funds.
:)
DavidJames June 24th, 2007 10:43 pm
So, David, you are opting for war as the only way to "protect" America? (Is that the United States of America, or would it work for All the America's?) I think we are on two completely different wave lengths. Missile Defense is assuming that war and violence are inevitable and that they can be controlled by producing stronger, more deadly and sophisticated weapons systems.
I am saying that war and violence are not options, at all. Peace is not possible from war-like thinking. We either live together in harmony and cooperation, or we kill ourselves and all that is in our path to "security", for what?
To all who are reading this message: please go to www.firethegrid.com and choose how you want to participate in this global peace "action". This will make nuclear weapons and all forms of offensive and defensive weapons obsolete, in a moment.
Peace,
st john
The Militarization of Science and Space
by Noam Chomsky
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/182/
DavidJames,
You are the perfect citizen from the military's perspective. Your intelligence does not interfere with your gullibility. And there is not a hint of moral concern showing through in you love of killing toys and toys that encourage killing.
A missle defense site that is not on U.S. soil will be useless, as it will be the first military target to be destroyed with short range missles, which it cannot defend against. Then the long range ICBMs will be launched. Seems like common sense.