Is Missile Defence Worth It?

[waitforufo]

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?

 

 

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.

 

If I gave that impression, that was not my intention. (I do however appreciate the humor in which you stated it.)

 

One reason Navy captains get tense in the Straits of Hormuz is that they generally navigate these waters with only their navigation radars turned on. To do otherwise would be a provocative act. Something that might appear to be an act of war.

[Sisyphus]

On a related and fairly hilarious note, it seems the Iranians have been manipulating images of their missile tests, and a widely circulated image today is actually a fake:

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

 

Four missiles instead of three: a 33% bigger saber to rattle?

 

Some New York Times reader comments, from the blog:

 

"One more missle and it could have been an AT&T Wireless Ad for "more bars in more places".”

 

“They also removed the"TONKA" label on the truck out front. The whole thing was a set of model rockets five inches in length, and a wider shot would have revealed a man standing just out of camera range nearly as tall as the smoke.”

 

“I know that these missiles are part of a threat to wipe Israel off the map, but now they've proved that they have the Photoshop capabilities to do it.”

[Phi for All]

On a related and fairly hilarious note, it seems the Iranians have been manipulating images of their missile tests, and a widely circulated image today is actually a fake:

What a hoot! I have to say though, Middle Eastern ingenuity constantly impresses me. Why fire four missiles when you can fire two and pretend to fire the other two? That's cost-effectiveness. A lot like getting your enemy to spend billions while you buy some VHS tapes and flying lessons.

[iNow]

Interesting story on BBC this morning.

 

Tests show US shield 'not needed'

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the results of Iran's missile tests prove that US plans for a defence shield in Europe are unnecessary.

 

Mr Lavrov said the tests confirmed Tehran had missiles with a limited range of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles).

 

The US says it wants shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend it and its allies from rogue states. <more at link>

[Pangloss]

Holy cow, Moscow has achieved one of the great holy grails of science -- how to prove a negative! Amazing!

 

But seriously, he may be right, but it's actually kinda disturbing to see the Beeb doing this kind of press-release reporting. The question with Iranian missiles for the past couple of years is how their solid-state booster tech is coming along. Their main-line rocket (the Shahab 3) uses liquid fuel, but the Iranians were said to be replacing those with solid-state versions with longer range, and even test-fired some missiles with solid state fuel. One rocket, much larger than the Shahab 3, and which has already been fired (earlier this year), appears to have orbital capability, if they can get all the technology working right.

 

If the missiles fired this week were solid state, it might indeed suggest what the Minister says, but this blanket dismissal doesn't tell us much. It's possible his scientists have analyzed all the variables and concluded that Iran just cannot make the technology work.

 

But given the political situation right now (Moscow's stated political position on Czech missile defense), and the fact that this Minister is a political operative, what's much more likely here is that Moscow made a political judgement and ordered him to release that statement.

 

And the Beeb fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

[bombus]

This whole thing is just another way for the arms industry to steal yet more money from US citizens on pointless projects that achieve nothing apart from creating the need for more pointless projects. It's not the Russians who should be complaining - it's you guys!!

[Phi for All]

This whole thing is just another way for the arms industry to steal yet more money from US citizens on pointless projects that achieve nothing apart from creating the need for more pointless projects. It's not the Russians who should be complaining - it's you guys!!

Hey, the arms industry isn't *stealing* from anybody. Our representatives are buying and they're selling.

 

The real problem with the arms industry is we don't know how they go about stimulating the market when business is slow. Peacetime sucks for them. If the seller wants the buyer to increase purchases, the seller needs to control how quickly the buyer depletes his inventory. Everybody else has a plan so what's theirs?

[Pangloss]

Actually most military hardware has a product life cycle that completes regardless of whether it is used or not, it just moves along more quickly in time of war. Training can actually use up equipment almost as efficiently as combat, especially in the case of really large systems like aircraft carriers. Aircraft are a maintenance nightmare all the time. But then of course you have things like bullets that don't expire for a very long time but get used up quickly in wartime.

 

If you get a chance to see a fairly obscure movie with Nicholas Cage called "Lord of War" (penned by the same guy who wrote "Gattaca" and "The Truman Show"), all those AK-47s that appear in that movie are real. The producers went out of their way to make that happen. The director (iirc) tells the story behind that in the commentary track, which is worth a listen. Anyway, that not only goes to show how ubiquitous AK-47s are, it also shows their longevity and the advantage of cheapness in weaponry, which is a lesson that I think the United States can learn now that the Cold War is over.

[bombus]

Hey, the arms industry isn't *stealing* from anybody. Our representatives are buying and they're selling.

 

The real problem with the arms industry is we don't know how they go about stimulating the market when business is slow. Peacetime sucks for them. If the seller wants the buyer to increase purchases, the seller needs to control how quickly the buyer depletes his inventory. Everybody else has a plan so what's theirs?

 

They buy with your money taken in taxes. Agree that peacetime sucks for them, that's why the Cold War was great for them as it was kinda peace, but also war at the same time! That's why the US is working hard to restart the Cold War.

 

Actually most military hardware has a product life cycle that completes regardless of whether it is used or not, it just moves along more quickly in time of war. Training can actually use up equipment almost as efficiently as combat, especially in the case of really large systems like aircraft carriers. Aircraft are a maintenance nightmare all the time. But then of course you have things like bullets that don't expire for a very long time but get used up quickly in wartime.

 

That is quite right! But the need for multi-billion pound nukes, aircraft carriers, jet fighters, round the clock bomber patrols, nuclear subs etc looks a bit shaky without an enemy.

[Phi for All]

They buy with your money taken in taxes.

Again though, that's not stealing. If our elected officials approve an arms purchase, even though it's paid for with taxes, it's not stealing. If anything, we should be keeping a better eye on the officials to make sure what they're buying is worth the money. I still cringe to think we're fighting small terrorist cells with munitions designed for standard military targets.

[bascule]

Again though, that's not stealing. If our elected officials approve an arms purchase, even though it's paid for with taxes, it's not stealing.

 

What if the money goes into the enormous accounting black hole known as the Department of Defense? The DoD still can't account for over $1 trillion dollars worth of spending, and remains the only federal department exempt from auditing.

[Phi for All]

What if the money goes into the enormous accounting black hole known as the Department of Defense?

Yeah, don't you get tired of hearing that their system is incompatible even after they've spent billions to fix it? And the DoD treats it like we should all understand about computer problems. That's like US$500,000,000,000 for each shoulder shrugged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's probably related to their tendency to hide secret projects' budgets in the budgets of other projects, making perfectly legitimate projects go far over budget for no apparent reason.

 

Makes you wonder what all they're working on.

[bascule]

It's probably related to their tendency to hide secret projects' budgets in the budgets of other projects, making perfectly legitimate projects go far over budget for no apparent reason.

 

While I think there's a certain degree of that going on, I'd blame bureaucracy and ineptitude for the majority of it.

[Mr Skeptic]

While I think there's a certain degree of that going on, I'd blame bureaucracy and ineptitude for the majority of it.

 

I'd wager corruption has a fair share of the blame. They do have legitimate reasons for wanting to obfuscate their budget, but part of it would be corruption, wanting unaccountability, etc.