A Subject Touched On And Not Explored Last Night

[UConn James]

All we got was: Bush supports it, Kerry doesn't (at least not with the current setup or cost).

 

Everything I've read about this, from POLS classes to articles to statements, says this system has cost ~$100B so far and will continue to cost about $10B a year if it's continued. Says a PBS article: "The total cost of developing, building and operating a U.S. antimissile shield could climb to well over a trillion dollars."

 

It's been described as trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet. And the only reason there have been successful tests were that the "warhead" was implanted with a GPS system that the "interceptor" used. Other countries' warheads might not be equipped with this, or be willing to share such information..... [/sarcasm]

 

Never mind that this whole thing does not fit into the new threat. You really think that if the terrorists obtain nuclear material, they're going to send it over in a missile rather than a suicide bomber that sneaks across the border or in a shipping container? And this seems outdated even for conventional country-to-country nuclear war. Why go through the same routine where it can be traced back to you when you can send it in exactly as the terrorists might, and then be able to throw your hands up and say "Not us!"

 

The money and the human effort would be better spent elsewhere in the WoT.

[_BiB_]

All we got was: Bush supports it, Kerry doesn't (at least not with the current setup or cost).

 

Everything I've read about this, from POLS classes to articles to statements, says this system has cost ~$100B so far and will continue to cost about $10B a year if it's continued. Says a PBS article: "The total cost of developing, building and operating a U.S. antimissile shield could climb to well over a trillion dollars."

 

It's been described as trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet. And the only reason there have been successful tests were that the "warhead" was implanted with a GPS system that the "interceptor" used. Other countries' warheads might not be equipped with this, or be willing to share such information..... [/sarcasm]

 

Never mind that this whole thing does not fit into the new threat. You really think that if the terrorists obtain nuclear material, they're going to send it over in a missile rather than a suicide bomber that sneaks across the border or in a shipping container? And this seems outdated even for conventional country-to-country nuclear war. Why go through the same routine where it can be traced back to you when you can send it in exactly as the terrorists might, and then be able to throw your hands up and say "Not us!"

 

The money and the human effort would be better spent elsewhere in the WoT.

52804[/snapback]

 

Tom, you wanna take this one? I might jump the shark.

[Alaska Darin]

All we got was: Bush supports it, Kerry doesn't (at least not with the current setup or cost).

 

Everything I've read about this, from POLS classes to articles to statements, says this system has cost ~$100B so far and will continue to cost about $10B a year if it's continued. Says a PBS article: "The total cost of developing, building and operating a U.S. antimissile shield could climb to well over a trillion dollars."

 

It's been described as trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet. And the only reason there have been successful tests were that the "warhead" was implanted with a GPS system that the "interceptor" used. Other countries' warheads might not be equipped with this, or be willing to share such information..... [/sarcasm]

 

Never mind that this whole thing does not fit into the new threat. You really think that if the terrorists obtain nuclear material, they're going to send it over in a missile rather than a suicide bomber that sneaks across the border or in a shipping container? And this seems outdated even for conventional country-to-country nuclear war. Why go through the same routine where it can be traced back to you when you can send it in exactly as the terrorists might, and then be able to throw your hands up and say "Not us!"

 

The money and the human effort would be better spent elsewhere in the WoT.

52804[/snapback]

Can you spell DPRK? I knew you could.

[Tux of Borg]

This is one of the reasons why I could not vote for Kerry. I support pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. North Korea and Iran are developing long range nuclear weapons. Opening up a dialog between them and threaten them with UN sanctions will not deter them. I rather have this technology in place just in case we do need it.

[UConn James]

Well, I was hoping for discussion of the talking points rather than people saying: 'North Korea --- Be Afraid!!'

 

Yeah, in theory, it'd be nice to have this defense feature. But the reality is that at best, it's doubtful the technology will be developed anywhere in the near future (read: N. Korean gov't will probably self-implode before this happens), if it can be done at all. Diverting resources from where they're needed to piddle with something that will provide no benefit is something this admin. has gotten very good at.

 

Pulling out of the ABMT is one of the most irresponsible things we could do. Simply sets the stage for a spiraling nuclear chaos.

 

"Jump the shark." Heh heh.

[_BiB_]

Yeah, you don't see that one get used too much anymore. My answer probably would go about 15 paragraphs. Just a short thought to toss out. Don't China and Russia have a couple-three missiles too?

[Alaska Darin]

Well, I was hoping for discussion of the talking points rather than people saying: 'North Korea --- Be Afraid!!'

 

Yeah, in theory, it'd be nice to have this defense feature. But the reality is that at best, it's doubtful the technology will be developed anywhere in the near future (read: N. Korean gov't will probably self-implode before this happens), if it can be done at all. Diverting resources from where they're needed to piddle with something that will provide no benefit is something this admin. has gotten very good at.

 

Pulling out of the ABMT is one of the most irresponsible things we could do. Simply sets the stage for a spiraling nuclear chaos.

 

"Jump the shark." Heh heh.

53003[/snapback]

Well, NK's government hasn't self imploded yet and rumors are they can reach Alaska right now.

 

Your last paragraph was also the same argument the left used to use against Ronald Reagan when he wouldn't give in to Soviet demands on Star Wars. It was a reach then and it's a reach now.

 

I'll agree with you that the program is far too expensive an endeavor. I've said that in the past. That's one of the asides to giving the government over $2,000,000,000,000.00 a year to spend. They have to spend it somehow.

[DC Tom]

Well, I was hoping for discussion of the talking points rather than people saying: 'North Korea --- Be Afraid!!'

53003[/snapback]

 

Find a globe, draw the great-circle ballistic routes from North Korea to the West Coast, then note wher the ABMs are deployed. THEN read the news articles from yesterday about the deployment of three Aegis ships to the Sea of Japan for missile defense work. Then tell me again it's not about North Korea, and it doesn't meet the "current threat'.

 

Fact is...I've discussed this ad infinitum already. I just don't want to re-type it. I've got maybe a dozen posts on the subject if you want to look them up (and if they're still here on the new server). The short version is: I support the principle of the ABM system, but think the deployment is premature. I think the premature deployment is a partly a function of a policy of linking anti-proliferation closely to anti-terrorism (too closely in my opinion), partly a PR exercise to counter the preceived threat of the DPRK nuclear program, and partly an actual attempt to construct some defense against the DPRK nuclear program.

 

I think the testing isn't misrepresenting the system, it's just incomplete (all testing done so far is equivalent to unit testing...a test is designed to validate a specific functional area of the entire system, like mid-course guidance, and is scripted for such. If such a test fails to intercept a target, it's still a successful test if the mid-course guidance works...but from the non-scientific view it's considered unsuccessful because it "didn't work". The problem isn't that the testing misrepresents the functionality of the system...the media actually misrepresents the purpose of the testing. The REAL problem is that the testing's incomplete. The system being deployed is a prototype that's being deployed before it's completely validated, on the principle that it's "better than nothing" (which it probably is).

 

But before you go criticizing it (and to a great degree, I agree with you), you have some misconceptions about the program (and the testing in particular) you might want to clear up... (No insult intended...though I'm sure some will be taken. C'est la vie.)

[/dev/null]

The money and the human effort would be better spent elsewhere in the WoT.

52804[/snapback]

 

to put your criticism of star wars in context...

I find your lack of faith disturbing

[UConn James]

Find a globe, draw the great-circle ballistic routes from North Korea to the West Coast, then note wher the ABMs are deployed.  THEN read the news articles from yesterday about the deployment of three Aegis ships to the Sea of Japan for missile defense work.  Then tell me again it's not about North Korea, and it doesn't meet the "current threat'.

 

Fact is...I've discussed this ad infinitum already.  I just don't want to re-type it.    I've got maybe a dozen posts on the subject if you want to look them up (and if they're still here on the new server).  The short version is: I support the principle of the ABM system, but think the deployment is premature.  I think the premature deployment is a partly a function of a policy of linking anti-proliferation closely to anti-terrorism (too closely in my opinion), partly a PR exercise to counter the preceived threat of the DPRK nuclear program, and partly an actual attempt to construct some defense against the DPRK nuclear program.

 

I think the testing isn't misrepresenting the system, it's just incomplete (all testing done so far is equivalent to unit testing...a test is designed to validate a specific functional area of the entire system, like mid-course guidance, and is scripted for such.  If such a test fails to intercept a target, it's still a successful test if the mid-course guidance works...but from the non-scientific view it's considered unsuccessful because it "didn't work".  The problem isn't that the testing misrepresents the functionality of the system...the media actually misrepresents the purpose of the testing.  The REAL problem is that the testing's incomplete.  The system being deployed is a prototype that's being deployed before it's completely validated, on the principle that it's "better than nothing" (which it probably is). 

 

But before you go criticizing it (and to a great degree, I agree with you), you have some misconceptions about the program (and the testing in particular) you might want to clear up...  (No insult intended...though I'm sure some will be taken.  C'est la vie.)

53156[/snapback]

 

I don't take insult with a logical argument. I started the thread to discuss the issue. Thanks for your input.

 

I realize that the "current threat" only means that it's the old threat of country-country war plus the new threat of individuals w/in countries attacking other countries. However, I think the new threat trumps the old slightly. MAD would dictate that NK knows if it sends off a nuke to Alaska (who really cares about AK tho? ) they will be blasted into the Crustaceous Era, no matter who the president is. And if NK is such a big threat, why did we start a war of choice in Iraq so we'd potentially have wars on multiple fronts? If you look through history, that has done in many great civilizations and some not-great ones too The "Axis of Evil" comment was sheer stupidity b/c whatever chance we had for diplomacy was thrown out in one sentence. .

 

"Star Wars" deployment put the cart before the horse. Would you say this is similar to NASA sending up Hubble knowing it wasn't up to snuff, then did some fairly risky spacewalks to do the replacement work? Hubble didn't cost $1 trillion, tho, and provided immediate benefits. Chalk that up to gov't spending rules. I understand the concept of testing new technology. And like you write, a test that looks like a failure can actually provide useful information or confirm that an aspect of the system worked. But it's going on 20 years with this stuff, and there is a track record of projects continued long after their worth has been shown to be nil simply b/c some senator has clout and it's built in their state (See: Osprey, Rosen Hawks (my brother was in two tailspins at Drum before the pilots somehow got control) as only the most recent). Not saying that the theory isn't desirable but the costs... the costs. Both monetary and human.

 

And something that gives me the red ass is there was a test scheduled for this month that is now being postponed until after the election. For someone who's so interested in our nation's security as the No. 1 priority that sure smacks of a political move. If you're going to push for something, you'd better be prepared to take the bad with the good rather than defer to a more convenient time.

[Tux of Borg]

There are a lot of different issues here. Our current administration does a piss poor job of working with other countries. I support military action in Iraq, but agree that we went about it the wrong way. I feel that the UN dropped the ball on DPRK and Iraq. Both countries like to play games and don't follow the rules of the international community. I don't feel that having cameras in your nuclear facilities, or to have weapons inspectors in your country is too much to ask. However, if we're not willing to send in the bombers, then our rules are worthless.

 

Today there is a handful of countries with nuclear capabilities. How many will there be in 20 years? Who's our friend today is our enemy tomorrow. Is star wars a waste of money? Perhaps, but developing Anti-Ballistic Missile technology makes since in the long term. Talking about government waste can go on for ever. I think that homeland security is coming along as fast as it can. It's not perfect but its not an easy task. Our military is well equipped despite what Mr. Kerry wants you to believe. So as far as the war in terror, not sure where else you would like to spend the money. I think homeland security and the war on terror, is one of the few areas President Bush has done well in.

[nobody]

It's not an issue that the general American cares about that much so it is not brought up much.

 

Politicians only talk about things that the marketers say will sell.

 

I'm waiting for product placements to start popping up in the debates.