Bush & Putin Clash Over Missile Defense

[Pangloss]

Regarding the Soviet Union, isn't it a rather serious piece of semantical parsing to say that they never threatened "the west"? Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yuoslavia, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria... none of these countries WANTED to be ruled by the iron fist of the Soviet Union. They did so at the point of a gun.

 

More to the point, why would the Soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuba if their intent was not to "threaten the west"? Sure you can claim that it was in response to missiles Europeans placed that threatened the Soviet Union, but even so don't you still have to acknowledge that those missiles "threatened the west"? Wasn't that the whole point of having them there?

 

The point is that you can make a case that the Soviets were just responding to US aggression if you like (I don't agree, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion), but you cannot make a legitimate case that they were only innocent pawns in a vast corporate conspiracy. Certainly the military-industrial complex was a factor. But the Soviets knew what they were doing, and history can hold them responsible for their choices too.

 

The world is gray. Not black-and-white. Gray.

[bascule]

I see this as all much ado about nothing. Short of a MIRACL, missile defense is a flawed strategy. This is because missile defense systems are easily defeated by a combination of decoys and Multiple-Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

 

Missile defense is a multibillion dollar boondoggle perpetrated upon the United States by defense contractors and those who would sell themselves out to sell such systems to the public (Reagan, Bush).

 

The simple truth is laser-based systems, which actually have the capacity to target multiple incoming warheads within a short period of time, can be thwarted by covering the warhead with a highly reflective surface. The downside to this approach is reentry is typically enough to compromise the reflectivity of a warhead. In this approach a laser-based system is a gamble, in that you must keep a laser trained on the warhead until reentry has compromised its reflectivity enough for it to absorb energy from a laser beam.

 

"Star Wars"/SDI originally pushed for a network of orbiting solar-powered satellite lasers. This was something of a pipe dream, for multiple reasons: electronic lasers were chosen over chemical lasers, as chemical lasers would require a service mission after firing. The fear was multiple waves of ICBMs could thwart an orbital chemical laser defense system, as the chemical fuel of such lasers could be exhausted.

 

However, electronic lasers are not powerful enough to shoot down warheads in flight. Chemical lasers, such as the MIRACL, are still the only viable approach. Technology is changing this as electronic lasers grow increasingly powerful, but they're not yet powerful enough.

 

Second, such networks were powered by satellite, as other sources of power are not renewable and are thus just as easy to thwart by multiple waves of ICBMs.

 

However, photovoltaic arrays cannot recharge satellites fast enough for this approach to be feasible. Dozens of waves of ICBMs could be launched in the time it takes a satellite to recharge itself via photovoltaic arrays to the point where it can shoot down another ICBM.

 

Given this, America has switched to a system of surface-to-air interceptor missiles. However, this system lacks the response time necessary to deal with a combination of MIRVs and decoys. Like SDI/"Star Wars" the system attempts to provide an illusion of security which is easily compromised by a simple analysis of flaws in the system.

 

I contend that the best approach is a combination of the two systems: ground-based chemical lasers which are easily serviced by personnel manning them, which can target warheads rapidly enough to take out both MIRVs and decoys. This, combined with a satellite-based tracking network (already built) should be sufficient to build a feasible missile defense system.

 

However, previous bias against laser-based systems due to the massive stupidity of the system advanced by the Reagan administration have left lasers like MIRACL in a prototype state. No one wants to seriously propose a national laser-based missile defense system, because thanks to "Star Wars" such a system now sounds fantastic. Instead, we push an antequated system based around interceptor missiles, with the full knowledge that such a system is vulnerable to decoys.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, that's what you call a boondoggle

[ParanoiA]

"Star Wars" worried the hell out of Gorbachev. It's easy to look back now, and judge Reagan from the typical evil republican capitalist blah blah blah argument, but at that time it was very real to people and served a psychological purpose in the arms race with the soviets. I know I read somewhere, that SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back for Gorbachev - according to him anyway. They could keep up with nuclear warheads, but we bluffed them good with SDI.

 

And while that's all fascinating technology, it will get better still. Just like embryonic stem cells that haven't produced a single cure, missle defense will also one day start to really take off, even if it looks dismal now. No reason at all not to have faith.

 

And then, keep in mind, Bush also said SDI was intended to counter rogue nations from a missle or two - not dozens of waves of ICBM's. So, much of technology above will work good for that. Sounds to me like Bush is being quite consistent. No reason for the russians or chinese to worry about the effectiveness of MAD.

[bombus]

Regarding the Soviet Union, isn't it a rather serious piece of semantical parsing to say that they never threatened "the west"? Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yuoslavia, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria... none of these countries WANTED to be ruled by the iron fist of the Soviet Union. They did so at the point of a gun.

 

More to the point, why would the Soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuba if their intent was not to "threaten the west"? Sure you can claim that it was in response to missiles Europeans placed that threatened the Soviet Union, but even so don't you still have to acknowledge that those missiles "threatened the west"? Wasn't that the whole point of having them there?

 

The point is that you can make a case that the Soviets were just responding to US aggression if you like (I don't agree, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion), but you cannot make a legitimate case that they were only innocent pawns in a vast corporate conspiracy. Certainly the military-industrial complex was a factor. But the Soviets knew what they were doing, and history can hold them responsible for their choices too.

 

The world is gray. Not black-and-white. Gray.

 

This depends on how you look at the 'Grand Narrative'. To the Soviets, the capitalists (Imperialists) got France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, West Germany etc and formed NATO. The Soviets got Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania etc and formed the Warsaw Pact. To the soviets the capitalist countries were subject to the Imperialists as much as we felt the Eastern European countries were subject to the Communists.

 

Re: who started the cold war. Just one small fact that says a lot. In the early 1950s the US had around 1,000 nukes. The Soviet Union had 1.

 

The Cuban missile crisis was actually done in response to US missiles in Turkey and the following discussions saw the Soviets 'remove' their missiles from Cuba in return for the US removing its missiles from Turkey.

 

My point about the defence shield not working is that if it works that well simple ways around it will be found, like smuggling nukes on to container ships or on the back of trucks! Defece shields are only really any use against countries like Russia. They are no use against 'terrorist' attacks. So, why bother with them to protect us against this supposed threat from Iran?

 

Don't believe the hype!

 

Like I said, if the US were serious about protecting vs attacks from 'rogue states' they'd involve Russia in the defence shield.

[bombus]

I see this as all much ado about nothing. Short of a MIRACL, missile defense is a flawed strategy. This is because missile defense systems are easily defeated by a combination of decoys and Multiple-Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

 

Well said Bascule. It's just about $$$$. It ALWAYS is ultimately.

[Pangloss]

Sure you can claim that it was in response to missiles Europeans placed that threatened the Soviet Union' date=' [b']but even so don't you still have to acknowledge that those missiles "threatened the west"?[/b] Wasn't that the whole point of having them there?

 

The Cuban missile crisis was actually done in response to US missiles in Turkey and the following discussions saw the Soviets 'remove' their missiles from Cuba in return for the US removing its missiles from Turkey.

 

It's almost like we're speaking backwards. (grin) But I'm guessing you just overlooked my point there, so I'll reiterate it in the hopes that you'll catch it and respond.

[CPL.Luke]

bascule if the lazer anti-missle systems ever become powerful enough MIRV's and the like will become useless.

 

 

bombus its interesting you only critisize the west for militarism, when the soviets spent a far larger amount of GNP on military expenses than the US ever did, Just like you overlook the overbearingly large number of military men in the soviet cabinets.

[bascule]

And then, keep in mind, Bush also said SDI

 

SDI is long since defunct (since the Clinton years). It's now the Missile Defense Agency

 

was intended to counter rogue nations from a missle or two - not dozens of waves of ICBM's.

 

It's still easily thwarted by decoys

[Sepiraph]

I see this as all much ado about nothing. Short of a MIRACL, missile defense is a flawed strategy. This is because missile defense systems are easily defeated by a combination of decoys and Multiple-Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

 

Missile defense is a multibillion dollar boondoggle perpetrated upon the United States by defense contractors and those who would sell themselves out to sell such systems to the public (Reagan, Bush).

 

The simple truth is laser-based systems, which actually have the capacity to target multiple incoming warheads within a short period of time, can be thwarted by covering the warhead with a highly reflective surface. The downside to this approach is reentry is typically enough to compromise the reflectivity of a warhead. In this approach a laser-based system is a gamble, in that you must keep a laser trained on the warhead until reentry has compromised its reflectivity enough for it to absorb energy from a laser beam.

 

"Star Wars"/SDI originally pushed for a network of orbiting solar-powered satellite lasers. This was something of a pipe dream, for multiple reasons: electronic lasers were chosen over chemical lasers, as chemical lasers would require a service mission after firing. The fear was multiple waves of ICBMs could thwart an orbital chemical laser defense system, as the chemical fuel of such lasers could be exhausted.

 

However, electronic lasers are not powerful enough to shoot down warheads in flight. Chemical lasers, such as the MIRACL, are still the only viable approach. Technology is changing this as electronic lasers grow increasingly powerful, but they're not yet powerful enough.

 

Second, such networks were powered by satellite, as other sources of power are not renewable and are thus just as easy to thwart by multiple waves of ICBMs.

 

However, photovoltaic arrays cannot recharge satellites fast enough for this approach to be feasible. Dozens of waves of ICBMs could be launched in the time it takes a satellite to recharge itself via photovoltaic arrays to the point where it can shoot down another ICBM.

 

Given this, America has switched to a system of surface-to-air interceptor missiles. However, this system lacks the response time necessary to deal with a combination of MIRVs and decoys. Like SDI/"Star Wars" the system attempts to provide an illusion of security which is easily compromised by a simple analysis of flaws in the system.

 

I contend that the best approach is a combination of the two systems: ground-based chemical lasers which are easily serviced by personnel manning them, which can target warheads rapidly enough to take out both MIRVs and decoys. This, combined with a satellite-based tracking network (already built) should be sufficient to build a feasible missile defense system.

 

However, previous bias against laser-based systems due to the massive stupidity of the system advanced by the Reagan administration have left lasers like MIRACL in a prototype state. No one wants to seriously propose a national laser-based missile defense system, because thanks to "Star Wars" such a system now sounds fantastic. Instead, we push an antequated system based around interceptor missiles, with the full knowledge that such a system is vulnerable to decoys.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, that's what you call a boondoggle

 

Well said. It doesn't really matter if their missile defense system is a joke as long as the defense contractors and certain individuals in government would get billions for it.

[fattyjwoods]

why does bush want a missle thingy anyway. we're not at war, are we? and is it really to block some random middle eastern country from firing missiles into europe. its not his busniess anyway. he is the president of america not europe

 

i think putins over-reacting a bit-just a tiny wennie bit cough*alot*

[ParanoiA]

Why would anyone argue in favor of NOT defending yourself? That's weird. That really puzzles me why so many people are in favor of not pursuing defense. Why do we have an army during periods of no war? Why do we have warships at sea during periods of no war? Why do we train constantly during periods of no war? Gee...maybe because you should be prepared?

 

Well said. It doesn't really matter if their missile defense system is a joke as long as the defense contractors and certain individuals in government would get billions for it.

 

Same with embryonic stem cell research huh? Doesn't matter if it's a joke and adult stem cells already enjoy significant success, just as long as certain individuals in government get money to kill unborn babies huh?

 

 

----------------

 

I remember several people in this thread arguing in favor of embryonic stem cell research, even though after decades of research...not a freaking thing has come of it. Yet they still support it - and rightly so.

 

So what happened to that logic when we turn to SDI? Suddenly, if no big pay off on the outset, and we're calling it a joke and dismissing it...WTF? How about a little consistency? Gee...this couldn't have anything to do with GWB does it? Of course not...if Clinton pursued it, everyone would still crap all over the idea I'm sure...yeah right..

 

I've brought this point up 3 times now and no one has taken it on. I can only assume none of you have an adequate response. So, why the inconsistency? How can you be in favor of as-of-yet fruitless research in one area, but against it in another? If there's a logical hole there, I'm not seeing it.

[ParanoiA]

It's still easily thwarted by decoys

 

Yeah, you're right. Why build tanks? It's easily thwarted with bigger ammo. Why build planes? They're easily thwarted with a handful of idiots with box knives.

 

Just because it can be thwarted - today anyway - doesn't mean you just give up. Isn't that a little childish?

 

What is it about american technology, R&D, that would suggest to anyone on the face of this earth that we can't master missile defense?

[Pangloss]

the soviets spent a far larger amount of GNP on military expenses than the US ever did

 

Interesting, I didn't know that. Makes sense, though.

[Pangloss]

Why would anyone argue in favor of NOT defending yourself? That's weird. That really puzzles me why so many people are in favor of not pursuing defense.

 

Logical fallacy. Just because someone's not in favor of missile defense doesn't mean they're not in favor of defense in general. The arguments *I* see in this thread focus on the accuracy of the system and the influence of the military-industrial complex on good government, not questioning the need for strong national defense.

 

Wouldn't YOU be opposed to spending billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work? Have you never ranted about government waste? I find THAT weird. No, actually, it's just downright unlikely. The more likely explanation is that, unlike that other government waste, you simply don't see these missile defense systems as flawed.

 

So isn't the onus on you to explain to us why they're not flawed, and provide evidence to that effect?

[ParanoiA]

Logical fallacy. Just because someone's not in favor of missile defense doesn't mean they're not in favor of defense in general. The arguments *I* see in this thread focus on the accuracy of the system and the influence of the military-industrial complex on good government, not questioning the need for strong national defense.

 

Then let me clarify by saying physical defense. How else do you stop an ICBM, physically? No one has an answer for that, just repeated rationalizations that we don't need to physically defend ourselves from ICBM's. That's about as senseless as dissolving the military because no one is invading, or will likely invade.

 

But your last sentence explains alot actually. Perhaps many of you are too focused on who's making money, too absorbed with resisting the capitalist defense industry - rather than focusing on the potential good. Maybe they are making money hand over fist, taking advantage - but that doesn't change the obvious need for missile defense. I'm more concerned with saving lives than who's running away with the money.

 

Wouldn't YOU be opposed to spending billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work? Have you never ranted about government waste? I find THAT weird. No, actually, it's just downright unlikely. The more likely explanation is that, unlike that other government waste, you simply don't see these missile defense systems as flawed.

 

It's not that I don't see it as flawed, it's that I see it as necessary to pursue. If our military totally sucked and anybody could beat us up, I would STILL contend we need to spend money on it and continue to make it better. It doesn't matter that we aren't good at shooting bullets with other bullets yet, it matters to keep trying anyway. Besides, we're actually not bad at it. Patriot missiles were pretty sweet huh? And doesn't the navy utilize the same idea of shooting a projectile with a projectile also?

 

It's these very obvious, fundamental points that have me suspicious of the motives of those who oppose missile defense. I just see repititious, weak arguments about how much it sucks right now and how much we think it's going to suck in the future. Even though that hasn't stopped us from promoting AIDS and cancer research, embryonic stem cells, or weather forecasting.

 

So isn't the onus on you to explain to us why they're not flawed, and provide evidence to that effect?

 

If my contention was that it isn't flawed, then sure. But that's not my perogative. I don't care if all we have is blue prints and a team of monkeys in a lab, we need to pursue it, period. Shooting down ICBM's is extremely important - well shooting down any moving object of any size is extremely important.

 

Iran is nuclear. So is Pakistan and India. This club will only grow, not shrink. And none of them like us very much. We need to get good at this.

[bascule]

What is it about american technology, R&D, that would suggest to anyone on the face of this earth that we can't master missile defense?

 

The problem, like most defense contracts, is the pushing of a highly expensive, impractical system at the behest of a contractor, without proper performance benchmarks or addressing practical concerns. It's a boondoggle.

 

The same thing is happening with the Future Combat System and Information Warrior projects.

 

Did I mention the DoD has spent $3 trillion it can't even account for?

 

I'm not saying that missile defense is an insurmountable challenge, but after some 25 years of research we have very little to show for it.

 

I don't think interceptor missiles are a viable approach, due to the decoy problem. That's why in my previous approach I suggested the use of megawatt chemical lasers.

[bombus]

It's almost like we're speaking backwards. (grin) But I'm guessing you just overlooked my point there, so I'll reiterate it in the hopes that you'll catch it and respond.

 

Obviously Soviet nukes threatened the west once built, but my point was that the whole Russian threat was STARTED by the West so that the arms manufacturers could make loadsa money. Once the USA had lots of nukes Russia felt so under threat it made lots of nukes too, and so began the arms race...

[bombus]

Yeah, you're right. Why build tanks? It's easily thwarted with bigger ammo. Why build planes? They're easily thwarted with a handful of idiots with box knives.

 

Just because it can be thwarted - today anyway - doesn't mean you just give up. Isn't that a little childish?

 

What is it about american technology, R&D, that would suggest to anyone on the face of this earth that we can't master missile defense?

 

Anti tank weapons were produced to counter tanks, just like plate mail was produced to counter maces, and maces to counter chain mail etc.

 

The difference here is that we are inventing the counter measure BEFORE the weapon! Thusly the enemy doesn't bother making (or deploying) the weapon in such a way that it can be countered by the defence system. I.e., If you can't lob a missile at them 'cos they have a missile defence shield, deploy your nuke in some other way...

 

However, I don't actually think any of these countries are a threat unless we try to mess them about. Mmmm, having said that I suppose they WILL be a threat because it's obvious we DO intend to mess them about!!

[bombus]

Well said. It doesn't really matter if their missile defense system is a joke as long as the defense contractors and certain individuals in government would get billions for it.

 

Exactly!!

[Pangloss]

Obviously Soviet nukes threatened the west once built, but my point was that the whole Russian threat was STARTED by the West so that the arms manufacturers could make loadsa money. Once the USA had lots of nukes Russia felt so under threat it made lots of nukes too, and so began the arms race...

 

Fair enough, I'll give you credit for consistency, and agree to disagree on that point.

 

But why is it that whenever the US starts something, it justifies another country's retaliatory action, but whenever THEY start something, we're supposed to just sit back and take it?

[Pangloss]

Well gosh darnit, bascule stole the main thrust of my argument. (But at least I got to use the new icon!)

 

Then let me clarify by saying physical defense. How else do you stop an ICBM, physically? No one has an answer for that, just repeated rationalizations that we don't need to physically defend ourselves from ICBM's.

 

The question is why are we paying for something that doesn't stop ICBMs either. No one has an answer for that, just repeated rationalizations that we have to physically defend ourselves from ICBM's.

 

You wanna hold up a trillion dollar umbrella and pray it doesn't rain, go right ahead and try. Just don't expect me to sit quietly while you take the money from my pocket to do so.

 

 

That's about as senseless as dissolving the military because no one is invading, or will likely invade.

 

This is the false analogy I mentioned earlier. You need to stop using this persistent straw man. Seriously. It's really undermining your argument.

 

 

But your last sentence explains alot actually. Perhaps many of you are too focused on who's making money, too absorbed with resisting the capitalist defense industry - rather than focusing on the potential good.

 

This is another rude straw man, twisting the questioning of whether the system is worth the money into "too focused on who's making the money". You're leaping to some really unproductive and inaccurate conclusions in this thread.

 

 

I'm more concerned with saving lives than who's running away with the money.

 

The implication being that none of us care about saving lives. THIS close to straw man #3.

 

 

It's not that I don't see it as flawed, it's that I see it as necessary to pursue.

 

Oh my god, finally an argument!

 

Sure it is. Let's keep pursuing missile defense concepts. I'll happily keep paying for that research, because thus far SDI has lead to all kinds of fantastic advancements. All I'm asking for you to do is not roll out a system that doesn't work. (Unless I'm just flat wrong about it not working. I've invited you to explore that but so far you've declined, just insisting that we need missile defense. Hey, I got a missile defense system for ya. Do you have a paypal account?)

[ParanoiA]

This is another rude straw man, twisting the questioning of whether the system is worth the money into "too focused on who's making the money". You're leaping to some really unproductive and inaccurate conclusions in this thread.

 

I meant to include a question mark at the end of that to indicate speculation. I was speculating that perhaps interest in missile defense is low because of an aversion to runaway defense spending. It was not a conclusion, sorry.

 

The implication being that none of us care about saving lives. THIS close to straw man #3.

 

Well, the implication was that you don't care about saving lives AS MUCH as you care about resisting the defense spending - but that only applies if you had verified my previous speculation that I flubbed up into a conclusion. Man, when I screw up...

 

Sure it is. Let's keep pursuing missile defense concepts. I'll happily keep paying for that research, because thus far SDI has lead to all kinds of fantastic advancements. All I'm asking for you to do is not roll out a system that doesn't work.

 

I'll agree with that in terms of the current rolled out system. But I didn't think they were done coming up with ideas, which is where my arguments lie. Missile defense as a concept, is what I'm arguing for. I don't have an opinion on the various systems because I'm not qualified to have one. That's why I've declined your invitation to preach, essentially, ignorance on missile defense success.

[bombus]

But why is it that whenever the US starts something, it justifies another country's retaliatory action, but whenever THEY start something, we're supposed to just sit back and take it?[/

QUOTE]

 

I don't think that's really the case, but I think the reason that it seems like that is because most of our 'problems' that we have with other countries is usually a result of Western interference in the first place - Iran being a most excellent example.

 

The thing is, weaker countries don't pick fights for the hell of it. There's usually a good reason behind their stance.

[ParanoiA]

However, I don't actually think any of these countries are a threat unless we try to mess them about. Mmmm, having said that I suppose they WILL be a threat because it's obvious we DO intend to mess them about!!

 

Maybe not, if we can get Ron Paul elected...I like that guy so far.

[Pangloss]

I don't think that's really the case, but I think the reason that it seems like that is because most of our 'problems' that we have with other countries is usually a result of Western interference in the first place - Iran being a most excellent example.

 

In my opinion Iran is responsible for its current position. Not the West. I agree that "meddling" has taken place, but you keep making excuses for everyone except the US. Isn't that a rather obvious violation of Occam's Razor, if nothing else? Not to mention a common far left tactic.

 

The thing is, weaker countries don't pick fights for the hell of it. There's usually a good reason behind their stance.

 

Well at least you included the world "usually". But boy does this say a lot about your predisposition to prejudge any and all US actions on any issue.

 

This seems like a good time to point out one of my favorite positions: That if you are a partisan, your vote doesn't count. All it does is offset a partisan from the other side. If your mind is closed, what's the point in either (a) voting, or (b) debating? Aren't you just setting yourself up to fail 50% of the time?

 

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. (shrug)