Is Missile Defence Worth It?

[Pangloss]

I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand like that, iNow. We're going to have to dig a little deeper.

 

What is the cost of protection of a missile defense system on a per-person basis? I don't know, but it seems worth looking at.

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

Yeah, I'm quite sure the initial results on Kevlar weren't too impressive either. Sorry, it's just meaningless. If missle defense were a static condition, then you'd have a point, but as long as humans can build tools and improve them, then none of the "failure" really means anything.

 

Honestly, this thread feels like a room full of gothic teenagers. "Why even try man? Everything sucks. It will never work. Just a bunch of money for corporations." (try the voice of the south park goth kid).

 

I could say the same thing about alternative fuels. No hydrogen cars. Electric cars are super expensive and can't compete with gas. It will never work. They've been trying solar panels for decades and decades and still they can't come anywhere near oil.

 

But we don't say that about alternative fuels because that's stupid. That assumes a static nature with technology. And technology is not static.

 

This is no different. We need to keep trying, full speed ahead, just like every other really cool idea that pushes human enginuity. Don't be a Negative Nancy.

 

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."

 

Ok, so don't call it a good defense then. Happy now?

 

Seriously though, new stuff always sucks at first. What's new about that? It's easily evaded just like the first submarines were underwater portable graves for the poor suckers inside. Now look at them.

 

I just don't think they should be rolling it out, like it's done. It's anything but done. I'll certainly give you that.

[iNow]

I'd be open to changing my mind if someone provided numbers which inspired confidence. It's just that everything I've seen thus far does the exact opposite.

 

Also, alternative fuels don't tend to get the nationalistic, ego inflated, international war sabres rattling quite like this has.

[Sisyphus]

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.

 

(I'll be largely repeating myself, but I forgive you for not reading my original, very long post.)

 

The thing is, it's not really defensive. In the crazy upside-down world of the nuclear standoff, it's ICBMs which are the defensive weapons. The only value of a nuclear missile is as a deterrent, but it's an extremely effective deterrent. We will not invade a country that credibly threatens to respond with nuclear force. That's why there was no World War III, and that's why nations continually threatened with superior force, such as Iran and North Korea, want nukes so badly.

 

If, on the other hand, you actually use them, they have the exact opposite result: your own immediate guaranteed destruction. This is an inherent part of missile politics, but the "suitcase bomb" is immune, which is why that is the only credible threat.

 

The converse to ICBMS being defensive, of course, is that missile shields are inherently offensive. If they work, then their only realistic effect is to neutralize a defensive weapon. That in itself is not inherently an argument against it, but it should at least be discussed in those terms.

 

Carl Sagan famously compared the nuclear arms race to two men standing waste deep in gasoline, one holding three matches and the other holding five. It's a terrifying situation, but as long as everyone stays even remotely rational, nothing will come of it. An ABM system is based on the premise that one of those men believes he can make himself immune to fire, which changes everything.

[Pangloss]

I wonder how we would feel if the Russians were to build one of their fully-functional ABM systems in Cuba.

[ParanoiA]

Carl Sagan famously compared the nuclear arms race to two men standing waste deep in gasoline, one holding three matches and the other holding five. It's a terrifying situation, but as long as everyone stays even remotely rational, nothing will come of it. An ABM system is based on the premise that one of those men believes he can make himself immune to fire, which changes everything.

 

"...as long as everyone stays even remotely rational..." is the variable there. I'm not convinced that's the case with religious zealotry. I do not trust indoctrinated sheep, and many can be described in such terms. And I'm not necessarily excluding us.

 

It's still a decent point, but I still don't see the sense in throwing our hands up in the air and restricting ourselves for a defeatist agenda. Go ahead and refrain from developing a missle defense system and China will do it instead. Or Iran. Or North Korea. And what do you think the odds are that they will announce it to the world like we did? Or will they play the game smarter and keep it secret? (We can't do that because we'll cry "conspiracy", or connect some developer with stock in defense company "A"... )

 

You are right though, it's not necessarily a defensive only weapon, since it enables the offense of our own warheads. But that also doesn't negate the necessity for it. It still matters. It's as important as any other defensive tool.

 

(I'll be largely repeating myself, but I forgive you for not reading my original, very long post.)

 

Your original, very well laid out and thought out post does not change the basic requirement for any and all defense.

[waitforufo]

I'd be open to changing my mind if someone provided numbers which inspired confidence. It's just that everything I've seen thus far does the exact opposite.

 

Also, alternative fuels don't tend to get the nationalistic, ego inflated, international war sabres rattling quite like this has.

 

iNow, Perhaps you should read post 17 again.

 

Sisyphus, There is some merit to your argument. The difference here being that Iran wants to hold Europe hostage if they strike at Israel. Thats why the US wants to put the shield system in the Czech Republic. With regard to Israel, we can put an Aegis capable ship in Haifa harbor.

[Pangloss]

Let's not go down the old "please re-read" road, if we can help it. Maybe you could go into greater detail about how you feel the technical merits of missile defense from a staging area in the Czech Republic? I'd be interested.

 

Israel already has ballistic missile defense, btw.

[iNow]

Ditto on what Pangloss just said.

[waitforufo]

Let's not go down the old "please re-read" road, if we can help it. Maybe you could go into greater detail about how you feel the technical merits of missile defense from a staging area in the Czech Republic? I'd be interested.

 

Israel already has ballistic missile defense, btw.

 

Pangloss,

My applogies for the "re-read" comment. I was simply trying to be brief. I will refrain from such comments in the future.

 

You also asked;

I wonder how we would feel if the Russians were to build one of their fully-functional ABM systems in Cuba.

 

I don't think we would like that at all. But I don't seem them doing it anytime soon. What purpose would it serve?

 

With regard to the merits of missile defense staged in the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic is centrally located in Europe. It has an eastern mountain range (jeseniky) with elevations over 1000 meters. I'm sure those mountains are full of great locations to place missile defense radars. Such radars could guide SM-3 missiles launched from various sites throughout Europe. The Czech Republic is an ideal location for missile defense radar implements to protect Europe.

[Pangloss]

Well don't take that the wrong way -- "re-read" comments aren't disallowed, and sometimes they're useful when referencing a specific argument or information point that's come up before (especially if you're helpful enough to give a specific post #, which you did). It's just nice when we can expand a discussion instead of repeating things out of annoyance. Thanks.

 

You've added some interesting points here, so you've no need to be frustrated, IMO. This topic hasn't gone as I expected it to at all -- like I said earlier I find myself in agreement with virtually every post in it. Usually when that happens it tells me that I'm about to learn something.

 

So the Czech installation is mainly about protecting Europe? I thought it was to protect the continental US from Iranian ICBM launches?

[waitforufo]

Well don't take that the wrong way -- "re-read" comments aren't disallowed, and sometimes they're useful when referencing a specific argument or information point that's come up before (especially if you're helpful enough to give a specific post #, which you did). It's just nice when we can expand a discussion instead of repeating things out of annoyance. Thanks.

 

You've added some interesting points here, so you've no need to be frustrated, IMO. This topic hasn't gone as I expected it to at all -- like I said earlier I find myself in agreement with virtually every post in it. Usually when that happens it tells me that I'm about to learn something.

 

So the Czech installation is mainly about protecting Europe? I thought it was to protect the continental US from Iranian ICBM launches?

 

No offense taken, I appreciate comments that will improve my posts.

 

I don't think the Czech installation would do much good in protecting the US. Most US aimed ICBM launches would come from Siberia and would go directly over the poll. I don't think the Czech installation would even see them. If they did it would most likely be after they were picked up by radar installations in Alaska and Canada.

 

The system they are proposing would be quite limited and directed a countering the Iranian threat to Europe. As I have said, the Russians could easily overwhelm the proposed system. It would be expensive for the Iranians to produce enough weapons to counter such a system. If they set out on a program to build enough weapons to do so it would be difficult to hide and would provide more time for an international diplomatic response.

 

By the way, the USSR for quite some time in the 50's had only limited ability of directly striking the US. If we struck them, they would retaliate by striking Europe. My opinion is that the US wants to deny Iran this strategy.

[iNow]

That was a good follow-up, thanks.

 

Out of curiosity, you suggest that Iran might strike Europe, yet they've recently been threatening strikes in the Straits of Hormuz, which is one of the main shipping channels of oil as far as I understand it.

 

Would a missile defense shield be able to stop that?

[waitforufo]

We have both Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burke class Aegis equipped ships in the Persian Gulf. So yes, we have missile defenses that can protect the Straits of Hormuz.

[Pangloss]

I don't think they would fire ballistics at ships in the Straits, though. As I understand one doesn't normally fire ballistics at moving targets. The normal approach would be a guided missile or a stand-off weapon like a cruise missile. (Off the top of my head, I believe Iran has both, via China.)

 

Guided and cruise missiles are actually easier to stop, but only if you happen to be the person being fired upon. Defending other ships is a matter of a pre-planning scenario, i.e. you get some forewarning and you guide the presumed targets around. Some good, old, reliable (and surprisingly inexpensive) tech there, but also some real limitations.

 

(Or did you mean like nuking the Strait? I wonder if that's something that could be done to actually damage the shipping channels, or if it would just be a matter of "oh look, we caught 5 ships when it went off".)

[waitforufo]

The Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burke class Aegis equipped ships would just fire SM-2 missiles instead of SM-3 missiles. The Aegis system was originally designed as a fleet defense system. Also, I don't think the Iranians would waste a nuke on the Straits of Hormuz.

[Pangloss]

I may not have been clear -- the warships are perfectly capable of defending themselves. The shipping traffic is another matter. You have to be in position for those intercepts, so if you have no advance intel you're out of luck. And even if you do have intel, there are a lot of ships to cover.

[iNow]

I don't think they would fire ballistics at ships in the Straits, though. As I understand one doesn't normally fire ballistics at moving targets.

 

I concede up front that I may just be reading you wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a missile shield would be used to shoot at moving missiles, not stationary ones.

[Pangloss]

I concede up front that I may just be reading you wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a missile shield would be used to shoot at moving missiles, not stationary ones.

 

Yes, I'm afraid you misunderstood. Don't tell me you never played Harpoon or read Tom Clancy?!

 

Ballistic missiles (ala ICBMs) aren't fired at moving targets, they're fired at great big stationary things, like cities, or, on a smaller scale, Marine barracks. Even the guided ones. They take too long to get there. The ballistic nature gives it a short travel time in the sense of strategic purposes (compared with a bomber, for example), but it's actually a very long time for tactical purposes. If you want to shoot a guy who's standing in front of you, you want to shoot them now, not 15 minutes from now. The greater the standoff, the longer the travel time.

 

You could certainly throw an ICBM with a nuclear payload at the Straits of Hormuz, but who knows what you would hit. Of course, if you have a shipping schedule and the element of surprise, you could certainly make a pretty good guess. But ultimately that's a strategic attack, not a tactical one. You couldn't tactically shut down shipping, but you could scare it away.

 

But the Iranians have perfectly functional tactical weapons, thanks to the Chinese and North Koreans -- cruise missiles. Pretty good ones, too.

 

Unfortunately an anti-ballistic missile system does nothing for us against tactical weapons like cruise missiles. What waitforufo was pointing out, however (in saying they'd just fire SM-2s instead of SM-3s) is that they do have perfectly functional defense systems for that kind of ordnance. He's absolutely right. But it's mostly designed to stop stuff that's coming at you, with very little "theater" capability. If you're 200 miles away and an Iranian fighter shoots a guided missile at a freighter from four or five miles out (or with some of these missiles, even 40 or 50 miles out), the only thing you're going to be doing from 200 miles away is calling Davey Jones to give him a heads-up.

 

However, if you have advance warning (like Carter did when they reflagged Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war) you can moving in close and escort ships around, and THEN the advantage is very much on your side and not the attacker's. Those defense systems are very capable.

 

In short, in tactical surface warfare the Iranians can do some serious damage if they attack somebody by surprise. After that they're deep into "maybe they'll get lucky" territory.

 

Which may well be one of the reasons they want nukes, so they'll have a strategic capability to make up for their lack of tactical capability. But frankly if Europe doesn't want a ballistic missile shield, then damifino why we're forcing one down their throats at my expense. If they want to play Iranian roulette (and probably blame the US if there turns out to be a round in the chamber), it's their right.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Makes much more sense now that I realize you were referring to the missiles themselves and not the shield being proposed to defend against them. Thanks.

[waitforufo]

What waitforufo was pointing out, however (in saying they'd just fire SM-2s instead of SM-3s) is that they do have perfectly functional defense systems for that kind of ordnance. He's absolutely right. But it's mostly designed to stop stuff that's coming at you, with very little "theater" capability. If you're 200 miles away and an Iranian fighter shoots a guided missile at a freighter from four or five miles out (or with some of these missiles, even 40 or 50 miles out), the only thing you're going to be doing from 200 miles away is calling Davey Jones to give him a heads-up.

 

The SM-2 (and SM-1 on Perry class frigates) was designed for fleet defense. The primary goal of ships equipped with such missiles is defense of the carrier in the carrier battle group. They can defend ships at quite a distance from themselves but it is a function of type of weapon deployed. Targets at medium to high altitude can be engaged at quite a distance. Sea skimming targets, however can't be seen until they come over the horizon. Then the Aegis equipped ship has to be close to provide defense. In such cases an escort roll is appropriate.

[Pangloss]

No, in all cases escort positioning is necessary. That doesn't mean "between the target and the defender", but fleet defense is still close-in work. You're just not going to sell me that an Aegis cruiser hundreds of miles away is going to defend ships near the Iranian coast from any kind of attack. They'll have to be nearby.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Standard missiles can engage an airborne target over 100 miles away. You can provide air defense support to a carrier battle group (which can be miles across) with just a few cruisers. As for cruise missiles, yes, you have to be in closer, but the easy defense is to shoot down the attack aircraft before they can launch them.

 

Of course, if F-14s were still operational it would just be a matter of running a combat air patrol of F-14s loaded with Phoenix missiles -- Phoenixes have a range of 100 miles and can engage cruise missile targets.

[waitforufo]

I'm just saying "nearby" is relative. A carrier battle group is very large including many ships and boats. Ships are positioned in the battle group to provide defense in a designated area with the primary focus being protecting the capitol ship, the carrier. In such a case you could argue that all ships and boats in the group are escorting the carrier but I don't think that would be the correct term. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

Vital sea lanes can be protected by ships loitering in the nearby area. In such a case the capitol interest is the sea lane. Sea skimming threats however present a unique problem since they cannot be seen until they come over the horizon. To protect a ship in a sea lane against a sea skimming threat, the defender would have to be very nearby. Perhaps less than a mile.

 

The above assumes that only the shipborne radar is used to detect and direct the shipborne missiles. US ships can coordinate radar detection with airborne and other seaborne platforms. Such coordination can permit further standoff with regard to detection and command missile guidance. To my knowledge, standard missiles are semi-active, requiring a shipborne illuminator to light up the target for terminal guidance. Again this would require near proximity but perhaps not as intimate (10 to 20 miles?).

[Pangloss]

Standard missiles can engage an airborne target over 100 miles away.

...

You can provide air defense support to a carrier battle group (which can be miles across) with just a few cruisers. As for cruise missiles, yes, you have to be in closer, but the easy defense is to shoot down the attack aircraft before they can launch them.

 

Well, not to give you a hard time or anything, but that scenario hasn't exactly worked out well for us in the Straits of Hormuz, has it? Guess what US missile is being depicted on this Iranian postage stamp?

 

 

Anyway, again, it's a matter of practicalities. You can't shoot down a missile if it's flight time is shorter than yours and it's insufficiently faster and/or too far away to make up the difference. In any kind of standoff scenario you don't even have time to make the decision to fire. You defend close-up, or you don't defend. There is just no simple, push-button solution to theater defense against tactical missiles.

 

I think waitforufo was (if unintentionally) trying to produce an impression of Americans floating along blissfully down in the Gulf of Oman, casually sipping on a snow cone and keeping one eye on the radar, and oh yeah the Iranians just threw a Silkworm at a Kuwaiti oil tanker as it went by a few hundred yards offshore. He flips a switch, and... ohhhh, too bad, Mahmoud! Spend some real money next time!

 

I'm afraid it's just not like that. There's a reason Navy captains get tense in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

 

Of course, if F-14s were still operational it would just be a matter of running a combat air patrol of F-14s loaded with Phoenix missiles -- Phoenixes have a range of 100 miles and can engage cruise missile targets.

 

Yes, the loss of the F-14 is one of the great tragedies of modern aviation. In fairness, as I understand it, the Phoenix's accuracy was always low at that range, though, and the modern AMRAAM is supposed to actually be a better weapon, even if it doesn't have the same range. And it was notoriously large and ill-maneuverable -- I have a hard time believing it could shoot down a cruise missile. But if you read it I believe you.

 

And I don't know about AMRAAMs and Hornets shooting down cruise missiles; I don't think that's a normal scenario. I could be wrong, but again that's an escort scenario (or at least a mounted theater defense), not a taken-by-surprise defense. Expensive, too, but then I guess that never really enters into the equation with most administrations.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Pangloss