Jump to content
Moonlight_Graham

Missle Defense Program...

Recommended Posts

Yea or nay?

 

Can't say i'm 100% educated on the current subject, but not bad. i'm against the militarization of space. It will get the Chinese and Russians in a hissy and start an arms race, or shall i say it already has. If i was Canada i'd try to stay away from this shit.

 

Now, anti-ballistic missles on the ground near important sites i don't really have no problem with. In fact, i was astonished that a plane could crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. You'd think it would have some defenses in place, as well as the White House.

 

The only problem with ground-based missles is that you need a lot of them and you need to basically place them at each site (1 for each nuclear powerplant??), whereas a a single space-based missle system can shoot at many different targets across a country. And ground-based missles aren't nearly as effective (as if any would be that effective anyways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea or nay?

 

Can't say i'm 100% educated on the current subject, but not bad. i'm against the militarization of space. It will get the Chinese and Russians in a hissy and start an arms race, or shall i say it already has. If i was Canada i'd try to stay away from this shit.

 

Now, anti-ballistic missles on the ground near important sites i don't really have no problem with. In fact, i was astonished that a plane could crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. You'd think it would have some defenses in place, as well as the White House.

 

The only problem with ground-based missles is that you need a lot of them and you need to basically place them at each site (1 for each nuclear powerplant??), whereas a a single space-based missle system can shoot at many different targets across a country. And ground-based missles aren't nearly as effective (as if any would be that effective anyways).

There are pros and cons to missle defense, and I am torn by the issue.

 

The only moral use of force is in self-defense, so missle defense is in fact, moral. But is it practical? Would a missle defense system provoke an arms race?

 

You have first strike and second strike capablities in terms of nuclear force. First strike is your ability to launch an offensive attack, attempting to disable your opponents tactical (military) targets. Second strike is the ability for a state to retaliate for a first strike offensive stategically (cities, civilian populations).

 

First strike is easy to calcuate: it is merely the number of weapons you have.

 

Second strike is more difficult, but heavily relies on your ability to hide your weapons. For instance, mobile submarines are effective at hiding nukes.

 

If you increase the second strike ability of your country, other nations may build more advanced weapons to take out military targets, thus you have an arms race. The best situation is when you have two countries that both have the equal ability to destroy each other, or MAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the system is already partially obsolete. A missile developed on Russia, if I remember correctly it's called "Topol-M" ...it's most probably capable of bypassing such countermeasures.

 

This defense system also a very expensive program mind you. Overall it's an obsolete, largely ineffective, overpriced, and useless system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I can see the arguments for missile defense. I must point out, is the point here to protect us from foreign attack, or is the point to get us to poor billions of dollars into US missile companies. Which, lets be honest, are owned by Bush's daddy.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found an article on CNN tonight, I think it's pretty relevent.

 

The Russian military successfully test-fired a mobile version of its top-of-the-line Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile on Friday, officials said.

 

....

 

The Topol-M missiles, capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away, have been in silos since 1998 and about 40 are on duty now, according to military officials.

 

Russian media reports have said the missile lifts off faster than its predecessors and maneuvers in a way that makes it more difficult to spot and intercept. It is also reportedly capable of blasting off even after a nuclear explosion close to its silo.

 

"The missile can penetrate all invented and even yet to be invented missile systems, including those equipped with space-based elements, with high probability," said Yuri Solomonov, who heads the Moscow Institute of Thermal Systems which designed and manufactured the missile.

 

The deployed Topol-Ms have been fitted with single nuclear warheads, but officials have mentioned plans to equip each missile with three individually targeted warheads.

 

President Vladimir Putin has said Russia is developing new strategic nuclear weapons excelling anything which other nations have. Military analysts have said the new weapon would likely be based on the Topol-M.

 

Full Story

 

This goes to show the negative elements to the defense plan. The defense system is outdated this missile will most probably be capable of penetrating it. US sets up a defense, Russia finds the capability to bypass it. It's another arms race starting. Just what we needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its scientifically impossible, so thats a reason for nay if a new arms race, the militarization of space, and wasteful spending on defence instead of affordable housing,health care,etc isnt enough to make you say NO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we could blow up the sun, would we?

 

sometimes i wonder about humanity. i'm surprised we haven't totally screwed ourselves over yet.

wouldn't have to blow it up if we could turn it into a weapon..

 

"hey, china.. simmer down, or we'll turn off the sun.."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its scientifically impossible, so thats a reason for nay if a new arms race, the militarization of space, and wasteful spending on defence instead of affordable housing,health care,etc isnt enough to make you say NO

Clearly for the administration, it's not nearly enough reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's funny? The defence missles won't blow up the nuclear warheads, but rather the radioactive material will rain down anyway.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...45_6/?hub=World

 

An attempt to launch an interceptor missile as part of the U.S. missile defence shield failed early Wednesday in the first test of the system in nearly two years.

 

The Missile Defense Agency said the ground-based interceptor automatically shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly" shortly before it was to be launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean.

 

A target missile carrying a mock warhead successfully launched from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. ET.

 

Officials said they would now review the pre-launch data to determine the cause of the shutdown.

 

The missile defence shield was meant to be in operation by the end of 2004.

 

In earlier tests, missile interceptors had a record of five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

 

Wednesday's test had been put off several times because of bad weather, and a malfunction of a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested, The Associated Press reported.

 

Note, that five out of eight record was achieved only because the target missile did not have 1) decoys (which are employed by intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 2) the targets had a homing beacon on them.

 

But going back to this weekend's test, so how much help did the interceptor, the kill vehicle, have in homing in on the target?

 

PHILIP COYLE: The kill vehicle is guided early on by a satellite system and by radars on the ground, and then by a radar beacon, which is actually on the target. This is a necessary thing at this point because we don't have a forward-based radar such as you would have in a real operational situation. But that radar beacon obviously having an active beacon on the target is not something you would have in a realistic war-time situation.

 

MARGARET WARNER: Then how about the balloon dummy, the balloon decoy that was sent up? Did it also have a radar beacon so at least the kill vehicle had to differentiate or did it not?

 

PHILIP COYLE: No, it did not but it's a large balloon, larger than the reentry vehicle target, the supposed enemy target. So it's not a very challenging decoy and doesn't need to be in such early tests

 

So, when it all boils down, the sysyem works provided that the target has a big enough radar signal, and there's clear skies over Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point in the defense systems infancy I don't even understand why the US is even talking to us. It's obvious that the defense system won't even be able to hit a realistic decoy, for at least another few years. Then why do they want to start building stations in Canada. Maybe they should show us some convincing results?

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not good debate to assume that something "will not work in the future". As the technology advances, missle defense will be more of a reality just as other "impossible" technologies were before it.

 

Form your opinions as if it is a possibilty, and perhaps they will carry more water.

Edited by toolboxnj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then comes into play that it's outdated before completion, there would be little or not use for it anyways, it's using money that could be better spent elsewhere, it seems to be fueling another arms race, and so forth.

Yes, I'm sure the American people can use this money more efficiently as well.

 

Let's examine the morality and practicality again.

 

Missle Defense is certainly moral, because states have the right to self-defense. I don't think this is an issue.

 

But, is it practical? There we can explore the questions like "can it work effectivly?" and "will it trigger an arms race?" Everything, though, must be taken into account. The shear opinion that M.D. will not work is not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief that it won't work doesn't come from the technology's unimpressive test results. I realize that the system will probably reach a state of greater functionality that it currently sees. But given how it's supposed to work and its projected capabilities, it wouldn't be able to defend against the latest in ICBM technology. Also a question of triggering another arms race probably fits more under moral questions than practical. If an arms race is triggered, then it is virtually guaranteed to become too outdated for any kind of use after a brief period. Take for example the Cold War, the Western powers were ahead of the USSR in jet technology at the end of World War 2, but by the early 50's the Soviets had taken the lead with the MiG-15 fighter. Less than 15 years later, this fighter was already completely obsolete in almost every way. In less than 15 years, that plane had gone from one of the most advanced production fighters in sky to outdated and ineffective. I think this defense system will follow the same pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States should only consider its self-interest when deploying or creating such a system, not the interest of other countries. Missle defense is not an offensive weapon used to initiate force, but a weapon of defense. It's no moral fault of the United States if Russia and China - for example - trigger an arms race by advancing their own weapons systems. Instead of focusing in on the defensive actions of the United States, focus on the offensive nature of China and Russia if these two countries insist on such an arms race since that is the immorality of it.

 

It would be morally tantamount to calling a gun-carrying woman guilty of killing a man who was about to rape her. Who is at fault for the death: the woman or the rapist?

 

It's happening anyways with Russia's arms sales to China (Sunburn Missles and SU-47 Fighters) in order to place pressure on Taiwan. In 2006, the United States will not be able to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, as it was on several occasions in the past.

 

This is not to say that arms races are good things, because they are not. A truely free nation has no incentive in war-profit any more than it has an interest in earthquake-profit or hurricane-profit (credit von Mises for that one).

Edited by toolboxnj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.