 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...issile_usa_dc_2
quote:
U.S. Missile Shield Won't Work: Scientist Group
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said on Thursday.
A technical analysis found "no basis for believing the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack," the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a 76-page report titled Technical Realities.
The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Missile Defense Agency rejected the report.
"It will provide a defense against incoming missiles for the first time in this country's history," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman.
The Pentagon's initial deployment involves 10 interceptor missiles in silos in Alaska and California. It is designed to protect all 50 U.S. states against a limited strike from North Korean missiles that could be tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.
Boeing Co. is assembling the shield, which would use the interceptors to launch "kill vehicles" meant to pulverize targets in the mid-course of their flight paths, outside the Earth's atmosphere. Using infrared sensors, the vehicles would search the chill of space for the warheads. So far, the interceptors have scored hits five times in eight highly controlled tests.
The Missile Defense Agency "appears to be picking numbers out of thin air," the report said of past Pentagon assertions of a high probability of shooting down targets.
"There is no data to justify such an assumption," added the scientists' group, which is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Its findings dovetailed with an audit last month by Congress's General Accounting Office (news - web sites) that said the system's effectiveness would be "largely unproven" when the initial capability goes on alert.
DANGEROUS POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Even unsophisticated countermeasures that could be mounted by countries such as North Korea (news - web sites) remain an unsolved problem for midcourse defenses against long-range missiles, the scientists' report said.
Balloon decoys could be given the same infrared signature as a warhead by painting their surfaces, it said. The project could also be confused by sealing the warhead in a large balloon so the kill vehicle could not determine its exact location or tethering several balloons to it.
Overstating the defensive capabilities of the ground-based defense is dangerous, the group said.
"If the president is told that the system could reliably defend against a North Korean ballistic missile attack, he might be willing to accept more risks when making policy and military decisions," the report said.
"All indications are that it would not work," added Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist who is a co-author of the report and co-director of the group's global security program.
"And the administration's statements that it will be highly effective are irresponsible nonsense," she added in a telephone interview.
Overall, the Pentagon estimates it will need $53 billion in the next five years to develop, field and upgrade a multilayered shield also involving systems based at sea, aboard modified Boeing 747 aircraft and in space.
|
Of all the wastes of my money, this has to rank up there as the most infuriating. The Pentagon has its fingers in its ears and is just going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
$53 billion could be spent on some things that are actually, you know, useful. And that actually work. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
$53 billion is a pittance compared to the amount that's wasted on other things. Not that that excuses this of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
I wonder if anyone has considered that an offensive technology (Because that's what it is) only serves to encourage nuclear arms races. |
That's the downside, but let's go through how realistic that is. I don't think we are building enough assets to defend against the bigger arsenals out there. Russia could overload even an enormous system. China might have to up the number of missiles, but not by much. They know this system isn't aimed at them, and even if it were, they could easily overcome it.
The upside is that potential nuclear states will see that it's no longer enough to make one or two nukes to be a nuclear power. Building and maintaining more than a handful of nukes is very expensive and has a large signature (easier for our intelligence to pick up). We're simply attempting to raise some reasonable barriers to entry into the nuke club.
Even if the missile defense doesn't work 100%, then the barriers to entry will be raised. In the future, it might indeed work 100%, so a country is going to have to factor that into its trade-off of nukes vs. no nukes.
Edit: One of the positives of a modest missile defense system is that we can be more proactive in helping people out on civil nuclear electricity, since there would be a bigger margin of safety. Right now, we have to sort of say that we aren't going to fulfill the spirit of the Nonproliferation Treaty. So the carrot of the NPT is enhanced considerably.
Last edited by DanS on 13-05-2004 at 21:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Boris has the GAUL |
 Attachment: asterix.gif
This has been downloaded 259 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
There were also tests done under realistic conditions. The tests were successful about 50% of the time, IIRC.
Whether it is 50%, 20% or 60%, some success is better than none. It shows the technology is possible. And I don't know about you, if a nuclear missile were heading towards my city, I'd prefer even 10% chance over 0%. Not building a missile defense guarantees a 0% chance of survival. |
You assume that anybody dumb enough to flip a ballistic missile at us is also dumb enough to only flip one at a given target area. That violates ballistic missle doctrine established on both sides of the cold war.
You also assume that anyone with the ability, the materiel, and the intent to nuke us would still use a ballistic missile, as opposed to buying any one of dozens of ex-Soviet SSGN's, including some of the old conventional powered ones, or using short range missiles, or using air-launched medium range missiles. None of those systems are even addressed by the so-called missle shield.
The futility of the missile shield isn't whether or not it would work, it's the fact that it is far cheaper and faster to reconfigure an offensive nuclear threat than it is to deploy a defensive system that's only capable of handling one type of threat.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2004 20:55
|
