Is Missile Defence Worth It?

[CDarwin]

The Russians (and Czechs, incidentally) are not only angry over US plans to put ICMB defenses in the Czech Republic, but actually threatening a military response:

 

It said Russia would respond "not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods" if the system was deployed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7496399.stm

 

Specifically, that would probably mean targeting Russia's own weapons at the Eastern European sites. The US claims this is about Iran, but with that country's rather limited inter-continental missile capacity, that seems a bit of a flimsy justification for seriously alienating a country which, it so happens, is probably your best bet for preventing Iran from developing a dangerous nuclear weapons program in the first place.

 

I think this is an excellent example of how bureaucratic inertia shapes national behavior in profound ways. This is Reagan stuff, does anyone even want a strategic defense shield in Eastern Europe any more? Someone might, but you'd certainly never hear about. It's a political non-issue, and yet it might be the most important issue in determining the future course of our relationship with one of the world's fastest rising powers. This is the stuff that people put in history books and no one is talking about it.

 

Of course it cuts both ways. Why are the Russians so worried about their missiles being made inoperable by a strategic defense shield? Soviet paranoia about inevitable capitalist warmongering. Russia has the world's largest stockpile of missiles and rockets, and they fear if all that is made obsolete they'll be put at too great a disadvantage compared to the West. It's all inertia!

Edited July 8, 2008 by CDarwin

[iNow]

The beauty about a missile shield is how well it protects against modern day technologies like suitcase nukes and bacterio/viral agents.

[Phi for All]

We should just use a much cheaper and readily available technology, the good old American universal remote control. Give every US citizen the abort codes fand we'll be destroying nukes while we surf.

[Pangloss]

The Russians (and Czechs, incidentally) are not only angry over US plans to put ICMB defenses in the Czech Republic, but actually threatening a military response:

 

Holy cow!!!! When the heck did THIS happen?! I had no idea we'd invaded the Czech Republic and were installing missile systems there against their will! How come I've not heard about this in the news? Were there any casualties??

 

Probly had something to do with those Czech weapons of mass destruction. Damn that Václav Hussein Klaus! If only he'd submitted to UN mandates demanding inspections! That's okay, though, we can pay for it with all that Czech oil, and we needed another star on the flag to balance out the rows after we annexed Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

 

 

I think this is an excellent example of how bureaucratic inertia shapes national behavior in profound ways. This is Reagan stuff, does anyone even want a strategic defense shield in Eastern Europe any more? Someone might, but you'd certainly never hear about. It's a political non-issue, and yet it might be the most important issue in determining the future course of our relationship with one of the world's fastest rising powers. This is the stuff that people put in history books and no one is talking about it.

 

Yes, well I don't know if it's inertia or just a desire to keep feeding the military-industrial complex with worthless-but-expensive projects. I agree with this sentiment, however. I also think domestic missile interception strategies are not worth the cost, though I might support a limited application of them under the right plan.

 

 

Of course it cuts both ways. Why are the Russians so worried about their missiles being made inoperable by a strategic defense shield? Soviet paranoia about inevitable capitalist warmongering. Russia has the world's largest stockpile of missiles and rockets, and they fear if all that is made obsolete they'll be put at too great a disadvantage compared to the West.

 

This is also a good observation, IMO. These are the boys we have to dance with, though, so we might as well get used to it.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

As I understand it, current missile defense technology has enough trouble hitting a missile in even optimum conditions. The big problem with missile defense is that it prevents the mutually assured destruction scenario. A country with proper missile defense could nuke others and then block their nukes (likewise with smaller missiles. Missile defense could end in war even if that was not the intention of the project.

[ParanoiA]

I'm all for missle defense, any and all defense as long as it is actually defense and screw any country that doesn't like it. Would you respect another country's claims against using a scutum?

 

This is as basic as recognized sovereignty. I would, however, much prefer a proven, working system that doesn't require distributing military infrastructure about the globe - that's military expansion, even though it's a defensive tool. It doesn't sound like a smart system to roll out.

 

I have a strong feeling it's more about "perceived" defense. I conject it's about everyone knowing it's there, rather than actually working or relying on it.

[Sisyphus]

It does certainly mess with MAD, which is why we had the ABM Treaty to begin with. Not only would it have unnecessarily tipped a perfectly functional balance of power, but its development by one side would have created a "now or never" situation in the other.

 

Of course, that was during the Cold War, and many things are different now. Russia really has no rational grounds to object to a friendly nation defending itself, nor to expect even that that nation would take advantage of their new position to launch nuclear strikes on Russia.

 

On the other hand, on an emotional level and in terms of prestige, it's extremely important. Russia is nowhere near the global power the Soviet Union was, but what does remain is the ability to push a button and obliterate entire countries within minutes, which at the end of the day is still the ultimate deterrent against aggression from foreign powers. Being nuclear capable means you don't need the best military to be secure in your sovereignty. That's why countries which are constantly threatened, like, for example, North Korea, Iran, or Israel, understandably feel the need to acquire such a deterrent. Taking that away from Russia is seen as akin to saying "we could destroy you if we wanted," which is taking away from them something very important in addition to being an insult. I'm not saying their anger is justified (particularly since the system, even if it worked perfectly, would be totally insufficient in stopping the full arsenal of Russia). To the contrary, I think they need to grow up. But that doesn't change the situation, and it helps to understand where they're coming from.

 

And so the question, again, is how does an ABM system realistically change the game in today's world. (I'm assuming, here, that the thing actually works, which I understand is highly dubious). Well, it stops "rogue states" from launching missiles at us. But there's no way anyone was going to do that anyway, for several reasons. First, the whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. They're useless if you actually use them, and furthermore will inevitably bring about your own immediate, spectacular obliteration. Any number of Dr. Strangelove quotes could appropriately be cited here. And second, there's no reason that any of these states would even use a missile. It would be far easier and more effective to bring it in Trojan Horse style - no ICBMs to build and hope work, no obvious target for retaliation, etc.

 

Thus, it won't ever actually shoot anything down, and the only effects will be political, not tactical. And so, politically, is it a net gain? Well, Russia, whose cooperation we could sorely use, is furious. They have no right to be, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. So major minus there. On the plus side, nations who were building nukes as deterrents primarily against the United States and its allies might decide not to bother - with missiles. As mentioned earlier, it won't affect the more effective delivery systems. It also won't affect nations for whom the deterrent is from someone else, like Israel, India, or Pakistan. Or potentially even Iran, if they're afraid of Israel as well as the U.S. Politically, I'd say the net result isn't clear, but I'm leaning towards a minus.

 

All that's left to discuss, then, is the economic cost. It's not much compared to the whole U.S. budget, it's true, but it's not exactly trivial either. It is, in one of the more unfortunate traditions of our military, a huge, expensive program that doesn't work right and pisses everyone off. It's classic, self-perpetuating military-industrial complex, the most tenacious virus even in a government full of self-perpetuating waste. The recipients of the pork grow rich and thus influential enough to keep it coming, and anyone who objects has to deal with a powerful lobby, economically addicted constituents, fear-mongering, and slander against their patriotism. I don't think that's the only reason for its existence - surely a lot of people in positions of power honestly believe its important - but it is definitely a major reason, and it gives me a headache to think about.

[waitforufo]

The beauty about a missile shield is how well it protects against modern day technologies like suitcase nukes and bacterio/viral agents.

 

The problem with man portable or even container shippable WMDs is that they leave the control of those that deploy them and they take a long time to arrive at the target. You really have to trust the person that is in control of such a weapon from the time of deployment to detonation. You have to control the people who know that the weapon was deployed at least until it is detonated. If you don't, you just might find the weapon going off in your own back yard.

 

There is a reason why all countries seeking to be in the nuke club are also developing or purchasing missile technology. They do this even though the costs, political and financial, are high.

 

Missile shields just work into the probability game. Let's say your enemy has a missile shield with a 50% probability of shooting down an incoming missile. So how many missiles do you have to shoot to have a 90% probability of hitting the target at least once? One missile 50%, two missiles 75%, three missiles 87.5%, four missiles, 93.75%. That's assuming your missiles never fail during lift off and flight. So let's assume your missiles have 90% success rate. Combining that with a 50 % shoot down rate makes 45% success per shot. Now after 4 shots you have a 91% probability. So you have to shoot 4 missiles to get back to your raw 90% success rate without your enemy having a shield. That costs lots of money.

 

The above should demonstrate why limited capability missile shields are an effective deterrent to countries like Iran and North Korea. But why is Russia concerned? Russia has more than enough missiles to overwhelm any missile shield deployed in the Czech Republic. First, it eliminates all notions of a limited exchange. You have to shoot a lot right from the start. Second, it means you have to maintain a lot of missiles. Third, it makes them look weak.

[iNow]

The success rates of the shields is still enormously dubious, and back to my first point, even if they did work, there are scores of other ways to accomplish the same end without missiles.

 

 

I'll even go so far as to offer my own opinion on this. It's a collossal waste of money, effort, and resources that should be rejected outright by any reasonable and critically thinking human being.

[waitforufo]

The success rates of the shields is still enormously dubious, and back to my first point, even if they did work, there are scores of other ways to accomplish the same end without missiles.

 

 

I'll even go so far as to offer my own opinion on this. It's a collossal waste of money, effort, and resources that should be rejected outright by any reasonable and critically thinking human being.

 

The dubious nature of there success rate can work to increase their deterrent effect. Reasonable and critically thinking human beings? We are talking about Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Raising doubts in the minds of such people is generally a good thing.

[iNow]

The dubious nature of there success rate can work to increase their deterrent effect.

Your statement makes little to no sense whatsoever. You are positing that a faulty defense mechanism, one that has a low probability of successfully achieving its intended goal, is a better deterent than one which works perfectly.

 

I think we can all pretty quickly reject that assertion on its face.

 

 

Reasonable and critically thinking human beings? We are talking about Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Raising doubts in the minds of such people is generally a good thing.

 

Since when are Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the ones deciding to spend US money, effort, and resources on implementing this proposal? It is the people considering such an approach whom were the subject of my comment about reasonable and critical thinking and decision making, not the comically inflated leaders against whom said technology might someday be used.

[waitforufo]

Your statement makes little to no sense whatsoever. You are positing that a faulty defense mechanism, one that has a low probability of successfully achieving its intended goal, is a better deterent than one which works perfectly.

 

I think we can all pretty quickly reject that assertion on its face.

 

 

 

 

Since when are Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the ones deciding to spend US money, effort, and resources on implementing this proposal? It is the people considering such an approach whom were the subject of my comment about reasonable and critical thinking and decision making, not the comically inflated leaders against whom said technology might someday be used.

 

Military strategy always has a psychological component. By dubious nature I meant that your enemy always has to guess at the shields true effectiveness. Even if they monitor your testing, they still don't know. You may have intentionally missed to keep them guessing. You may have created targets that had internal beacons falsely increasing test effectiveness.

 

Enemies that are not reasonable and critically thinking human beings are the ones you have to worry about the most. If building a missile shield deters their actions, the costs may be worth it. How much would it cost to replace Berlin?

 

Again, if it is such a waist of money, why are the Russians worried about it?

[iNow]

Okay, in other words, you totally missed the point of my post.

 

Also, I'm just not willing to spend several billion dollars on what might be classified as a placebo effect.

[Saryctos]

Why is Russia getting so pissed off about this? If there were to be a nuclear exchange I highly doubt the ~10 missiles blocked(best case) would really change much with the other thousands of missiles swinging around the defense.

[DJBruce]

I am all for missile defense shields. It is our countries right to protect it self and so why shouldn't we do so. If Russia's mad then why don't they go build there own shield. Plus nothing will happen at least militarily. It is in neither countries best interest to fight a war.

[Pangloss]

I find myself oddly agreeing with virtually every post in this thread.

[waitforufo]

Okay, in other words, you totally missed the point of my post.

 

Also, I'm just not willing to spend several billion dollars on what might be classified as a placebo effect.

 

Several billion dollars? Perhaps you should take a look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer This ship comes equipped with the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar and surface to air Standard Missiles in dense packed vertical launch modules. These vertical launch modules can come equipped with the Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3 theater-wide ballistic missile defense system http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html. Publicly, this missile has been tested 5 times against intercontinental ballistic reentry targets with a 5 for 5 kill ratio. So, all you have to do is plop the phase array and support electronics of an existing SPY-1D radar in the Czech Republic and a couple of existing dense pack vertical launch modules equipped with RIM-161 SM-3s and your done. All existing technology.

 

Again the Russians could easily overwhelm such a system, but the Iranians? I think not.

 

One answer to why the Russians don't want such a system on their border is the capability of the SPY-1D radar. That thing can track every satellite orbiting the earth. We would gain intelligence on any object above the radar horizon. They can't like that much.

 

On the other hand, aren’t we friends now?

[iNow]

Several billion dollars? Perhaps you should take a look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

Perhaps you should get a better handle on what we are all here discussing before responding again with a post that has zero relevance:

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-02-missile-defense-talks_N.htm

 

Negotiations over the 10 missile interceptors ran nearly 18 months and were more contentious than the United States had anticipated.

 

The site would be linked to a missile-tracking radar that Washington wants to place in the Czech Republic. The Czech government has agreed in principle to the plan, but parliament's approval still is needed.

 

American officials have been trying to reach a deal with the two countries before Bush leaves office on Jan. 20. The U.S. Defense Department wants to have the Polish and Czech sites in running order by about 2012.

 

The Polish government has been driving a hard bargain, in part because most Poles strongly oppose the base.

 

 

Russian officials have suggested, however, that the next U.S. president may find the system more trouble than it is worth. It would cost many billions of dollars and face years of technical problems.

 

After decades of development, at a cost exceeding $100 billion (euro63.3 billion), the missile defense system now in place in America — mainly at bases in Alaska and California — is unproven and unpopular in Congress. It began as a way to stop long-range missiles launched in a doomsday scenario during the Cold War years when the United States and the Soviet Union targeted each other with thousands of nuclear missiles.

 

 

 

Here's a fun paper for when this was proposed last time. Gives some still applicable insights:

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP16.htm

[Pangloss]

I don't understand. Why wouldn't that have any relevance to the technical issue?

 

The Aegis-Standard system is the ones that shot down that malfunctioning satellite recently, btw. THAT's not relevant, of course, just an interesting example of the system's capabilities.

 

Regarding the politics of the issue, it's worth noting that Russia actually HAS a deployed domestic ballistic missile defense system in operation. As do we. Neither covers more than a fraction of the respective country. But the issue here, as I see it, is really whether the Czech Republic is to be allowed to have one.

[bascule]

Missile defense has come a long way, but I seriously question the ability of any existent missile defense system to track dozens of reentry vehicles, especially if the warhead includes decoys. I don't think the technology is there yet to ward off a bona fide nuclear attack, and I think the sunk cost into missile defense is already enormous.

 

I think the interceptor based systems have potential but are practically worthless at present. Systems based around lasers are completely worthless.

 

Also, even if we had a missile defense system that could handle thousands of decoys, all that would do is motivate a change in delivery strategy. What's to stop a Chinese sub from pulling up to the US coast and firing a nuclear warhead into the heart of LA, New York, or Washington, D.C.? One that flies under the radar, and certainly wouldn't set off any missile defense system designed with ICBMs in mind. Or for that matter, sending a stealth aircraft to drop nuclear bombs...

 

Missile defense is just a deterrent for one particular attack vector, and as the technology stands presently, not a particularly effective or proven one... but one we've sunk an absurd amount of money into.

 

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!

[Phi for All]

I think missile defense systems are the Holy Grail of the defense contractors. The basic theory is so overwhelmingly attractive that we'll ignore the lack of accountability, decades of failure and the cost overruns that get hidden due to contractors using planning methodology that doesn't match time and dollars spent to actual work done.

[Skye]

The Russians are just pissed about the US encroaching on their sphere of influence. Same old games.

[ParanoiA]

The success rates of the shields is still enormously dubious, and back to my first point, even if they did work, there are scores of other ways to accomplish the same end without missiles.

 

So why wear kevlar when they can shoot you in the head? Why bother with armor when they can use armor peircing rounds? Why protect yourself with a gas mask when they can set you on fire? We can do this all day long.

 

All defense is good defense. Each defensive method adds to the total defense. That simple.

 

Missle defense is absolutely awesome and necessary. Full speed ahead. Kevlar might appear fairly worthless absent all of the other defensive technologies with it - like tanks, armor and so forth. Missle defense is one kind of defense. Of course there's a hundred ways around it - as is with a tank or any other device outfitted with defensive tools. Nothing new, and we don't rationalize doing away with tanks because they're not 100%.

 

I've not heard a good reason yet not to do this. I just keep hearing "it doesn't work now". Or, "it's a money pit". Hello...uh, I thought human lives were priceless. We should chase every defensive strategy out there and shooting bullets with other bullets does work. We'll just keep getting better and better at it too. I like it when my country blows military money on defensive stuff, rather than offensive stuff. That's more like it. That's exactly what I want to see.

 

Missile defense is just a deterrent for one particular attack vector, and as the technology stands presently, not a particularly effective or proven one... but one we've sunk an absurd amount of money into.

 

I don't know how absurd it is to sink money in it. Gorbachev admitted it broke their back in the arms race. And is it better to sink money into more machines they can use to invade other countries or to sink it in defensive machines? Maybe that's a false dichotomy, but I advocate total military hegemony, only I prefer a defensive focus.

Edited July 9, 2008 by ParanoiA

[waitforufo]

Missile defense has come a long way, but I seriously question the ability of any existent missile defense system to track dozens of reentry vehicles, especially if the warhead includes decoys. I don't think the technology is there yet to ward off a bona fide nuclear attack, and I think the sunk cost into missile defense is already enormous.

 

I think the interceptor based systems have potential but are practically worthless at present. Systems based around lasers are completely worthless.

 

Also, even if we had a missile defense system that could handle thousands of decoys, all that would do is motivate a change in delivery strategy. What's to stop a Chinese sub from pulling up to the US coast and firing a nuclear warhead into the heart of LA, New York, or Washington, D.C.? One that flies under the radar, and certainly wouldn't set off any missile defense system designed with ICBMs in mind. Or for that matter, sending a stealth aircraft to drop nuclear bombs...

 

Missile defense is just a deterrent for one particular attack vector, and as the technology stands presently, not a particularly effective or proven one... but one we've sunk an absurd amount of money into.

 

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!

 

Bascule,

I agree with your entire post, except that we are not deploying the system against the Russians. The point of deploying the system is to deter the Iranians. It increases their cost of deploying an effective offensive nuke missile system.

 

With regard to the money spent to date on missile shields, well those are sunk costs. Currently we have a system that would be effective against the Iranians. Why not deploy it?

[iNow]

So why wear kevlar when they can shoot you in the head? Why bother with armor when they can use armor peircing rounds? Why protect yourself with a gas mask when they can set you on fire? We can do this all day long.

I urge you to compare the statistics on success and the overall cost between those items like kevlar vests and the statistics on success and overall cost of missile defense shields.

 

We should then return to this discussion to talk of the scope of protection, and the number of potential threats from which each system provides protection.

 

Kevlar protects from shootings, stabbings, explosions, heat, all manner of things, just check out DuPont's page on this.

 

Missile defense shield? Maybe up to 17 ICBMs that don't use decoys and that rely on a 1960s era attack profile.

 

 

All defense is good defense.

I understand that your point is "every little bit helps," but I cannot accept that a broken system that costs billions of dollars and which is easily evaded be called a "good defense."