Missile defence starts construction in '04

[Dr Mordrid]

Well....

in 7 attempts to intercept an ICBM launched from California the current rocket based system killed 4 of them high over the Pacific. The other 3 failed not due to problems with the kill vehicle but to faulty final stage separations; something like what happened to NK's orbital test.

What's interesting is that the data from the tests indicate that when the warhead is in its final stage of flight the system is even more effective than in the boost or mid-flight stages.

Once that staging problem is taken care of I'd say your statement is foobar.

Also interesting is that many of those European countries that were calling us names for developing these systems and abrogating the ABM treaty are now wanting to be put under its shield once its deployed.

Dr. Mordrid

[RedRed]

OK, lets say that N Korea make a sucessful ICBM..... Doubtful that they will make one, test it and be able to launch the baby, but lets suppose.....

the son of sdi cack that is proposed is, as I pointed out already, 10 missiles (ok to be increased to 20...). Its sucess rate is a little over 50% hit rate. the 1000 KG maximum of your Dong missile, fired from N Korea could, thoeretically contain erhaps 2 warheads. To be reasonably certain that you got the missile (which would have separated by that stage) you would be looking at firing at least 4 missiles... because of firing windows, you would have to fire them at the same time (you cant wait to see if the first hit!).... so lets say by some miricle 4 is enough. What about the next one? and the next one? and the next one? or a cloud of perhaps 10 with only 2 or 3 live (the rest carrying concrete or bios? all of a sudden you are swamped.

MAD, again will prevent ANY country from launching a strike against the US or any nuclear weapon enabled power in that way.

It also assumes that the apogee of the missiles would be over alaska (its where they will be based). Surely from N Korea, the most sensible place is Hawaii? the reason its not is because there is no intention for this to work. It is a plan to maximise the military research and development abilities of the US, at the expense of the taxpayer. 6 Billion dollars requested. Thats hundreds of dollars per person in taxes each year, damaging your economy.

Could you possibly see this as a reaction to potential AMERICAN aggression? The N Koreans have sold weapons to state the US doesnt like, sure, we all know that. The US has called them part of an axis of evil, we all know that too. The US (certainly you personally as well, Doc) has said that once they have dealt with Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Syria, that N Korea is also in its sights.

Any president worth his salt would think VERY carefully once N Korea has a nuke, and could drop it on NY or DC.... N Korea probably now sees that route as the only way it can go to assure that it too doesnt fall under some US hedgemony... - from its perspective.

remember, that with the current hit-rate, one of these ICBM's would require at least 2 anti missiles targetting it. it comes down to straight economics - who can build them /acquire them faster? 10 missiles = 6 billion dollars, maybe by 100 for a discounted price of 50 billion? where does it stop?

[RedRed]

interesting is that many of those European countries that were calling us names for developing these systems and abrogating the ABM treaty are now wanting to be put under its shield once its deployed.

Britian is - but then you are useing them as the freckin front line!

Who else? and who, pray tell, is going to get nuked by who without getting totally twatted in the process?


RedRed

[Dr Mordrid]

A group who doesn't have an address or GPS coordinate. Most of these missiles are intended for use with mobile launchers and could be shipped in a trawler.

You might also find the 2001 report by the IISS/CEPS European Security Forum interesting;

http://www.eusec.org/becher.htm

In addition to the interest in developing the transatlantic relationship and maintaining cooperation with Russia, specific European fields of interest that need intensified attention and discussion in the context of the transition towards US deployment of operational ballistic missile defences include:

Access to missile defence technology and components:

Future efforts to develop European extended air defence against ballistic missiles will require sharing some elements of US missile defences, also including assured direct access to space-based early warning and tracking data. As far as Article IX of the ABM treaty stands against such shared use of non-nuclear ballistic missile defence (BMD) components, it should be in Europe's interest to support an understanding among ABM Treaty parties to change this situation. US negotiators raised this point with their Russian counterparts in Geneva in January 2000.

Abolition of nuclear ABM:

The 1972 ABM Treaty legitimises the possession and use of nuclear weapons for ballistic missile defence and merely limits their deployed numbers. To this day, Moscow is defended with such crude nuclear interceptors against potential missile attacks. Nuclear safety concerns and the devastating consequences of any accidental or intentional use of this neglected class of nuclear weapons in Russia's stockpile demand a revision of the ABM Treaty to ban and dismantle all nuclear-tipped ABMs......

So....if we have it they want it too and if the ABM is "modified" (actually it was executed) then it also brings Russias nuclear tipped ABM missiles under arms control. Sounds like a winner to me.

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

To add a ironic twist to the discussion. Since the US declared it legitimate to attack the Iraq in a pre-emptive strike, couldn't the Iraq legitimately attack the US because of the threatening war? A pre-pre-emptive strike if you want. Same could be legitimately done by NK, since they are (half) officially next in the US line of targets.
Ironic isn't it? The whole pre-emptive strike idea is very dangerous IMO.

[RedRed]

couldnt agree more, Throp.

But Doc

A group who doesn't have an address or GPS coordinate. Most of these missiles are intended for use with mobile launchers and could be shipped in a trawler.

As discussed at least 4 times so far - tis son of SDI signed off in your article WILL NOT protcet ANYONE form Theatre based missiles.

are you trying to tell me that a trawler could land scuds in the south of France to launch an attack on Paris? Balls. Pack your nuke into a container lorry and drive it up to the freaken effeil tower!

you know that

[Dr Mordrid]

Actually it IS effective against theater missiles in the ship launched version (can be fired by Aegis cruisers and other mobile platforms) as will be the ABL and MTHEL.

MTHEL recently simultaneously tracked and shot down in turn 8 missiles of the type being used by Hamas in Lebanon. MTHEL is due to transition from chemical to solid state (electric powered) lasers by 2007.

About that same time a modded HUMVEE will arrive that uses hybrid drive (small gas engine + generator + electric motors=long range) that is set to have a solid state MTHEL mounted on the back along with a generator to power to laser.

In terms of the cost of these systems: their cost will be about 1% of our defense budget. Hardly anything that will break the bank.

As for delivery systems: I wouldn't want to be the a**hole standing for reelection if I chose to protect against trucks and some bozo launched a missile of NK origin from the Med.

You have to defend against both the run and the pass my friend.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian R.]

I find if very disturbing that the malfunction of the most recent tests was of the oldest technologies on the missiles, the stage separation. Doesn't fill me with confidence that they can successfully implement a more advanced technology with the reliability needed.

Missile defense is a pipedream and will be for the near future.

[RedRed]

Doc, this is getting boring.

The 6 billion is for the Anti-missile MISSILE, not the laser-toy.

and no, it still wont come from missile attacks. If Saddam had had his head screwed on , he would have had a couple of nukes built into the foundationions of some apartment block in down-town NY - no need for launchers - you need 5 agents posing as construction workers!

The Mthel toy you are talking about is NOT for theatre nukes. It would also be useless against any stray ICBMs whick made it through son of SDI... its about dumbass katuskas. Theatre nukes are detonated miles from the potential impact site, well byond the range of mthel, or its anticipated sequel. from Grummands own website:

The MTHEL testbed will be used in 2002 in tests against airborne targets that may include artillery shells and mortars, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and air-to-surface munitions.

Read the post arlier, please about the only seaboard defense that would stand a remote chance of sucess. The cost would be astronomical.

RedRed

[Joel]

Read the post arlier, please about the only seaboard defense that would stand a remote chance of sucess. The cost would be astronomical.

Not a problem. We're just going to stop giving out all that foreign aid to countries that are so thankless for it and refunnel that into the program. That should more than pay for it and give us some left over to boot.

Joel

[thop]

how much foreign aid (not counting israel) does the US spend every year?

found it: the US spends 10 Bio. $ (incl. israel) every year, which is 0.1% of its GDP
the military budget is 360 Bio. $ for this year.

i'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

[K6-III]

The US spends 0.1% of its GNP on foreign aid.

Of that foreign aid 90% goes to Israel and Egypt, aid that basically is absolutely mandatory and HAS to be given.

So, in effect, the US gives 0.01% of its GNP to foreign aid. Compare that with Denmark at 1.1%

[GT98]

Originally posted by thop
how much foreign aid (not counting israel) does the US spend every year?

found it: the US spends 10 Bio. $ (incl. israel) every year, which is 0.1% of its GDP
the military budget is 360 Bio. $ for this year.

i'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

Like words you can make numbers reflect your point of view, even if its not correct. Yes the USA spends the most on Defence compaired to other countries, but this is because we are developing the latest and greatest equipment and buying it. Lets take this as an Exp. an M1A2 Abrams tank costs somewhere in the 2-3 million dollar range approxmently, where as you could goto Russia and get a T-90 MBT or the like for under a million no sweat. Just because you spend alot of money doesnt always mean that you'll have the largest Army in world...maybe just the Most effective

[Rags]

Originally posted by thop
how much foreign aid (not counting israel) does the US spend every year?

found it: the US spends 10 Bio. $ (incl. israel) every year, which is 0.1% of its GDP
the military budget is 360 Bio. $ for this year.

i'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

How many dollars in foreign aid does Germany spend?



Oh, and BTW. It's OUR business how we spend OUR money.

We have lots of it and we have every right to protect our people by spending some of it. Without a stable, strong nation we wouldn't continue to thrive.

Rags

[thop]

I wasn't really criticizing how much money the US spends on military stuff. If the government decides to spend 5000 Bio. $ one day, and let everybody starve, then that's their choice

I was only responding to Joel who implied that if the US stops to give foreign aid then the overall budget will suddenly double or sth.

Germany spends ~4.5 Bio $, here is a good overview: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp