O/T - National Defense Article at CNN

[marcusm]

Xpav wrote

There is no doubt in my mind that it is possible to hit a piece of incoming metal with a missile. That's refinement of technology.

------------------------------------------

I'm no physician but isn't there a dramatic velocity difference between a SCUD and a ICBM dropping from upper atmosphere?

Maybe if you did some kind of bio neural network with 2-3 k tests? Even if you reached 9% it would only take one warhead to ruin the day.

Marcus

[Darryl]

Xpav, and Marcus M,

So if something is difficult to do, then one shouldn't attempt it, and refine it? No matter how worthwhile it is? Is that the message you're sending?

Here are a few examples of things that were once thought to be impossible.....

-Heavier than air flight

-visitng the moon

-Intercepting a missle with a missle

Have a little faith in the American spirit.

For us there is no such thing as "impossible".

------------------

Darryl

[dumbo]

XPAV: "I don't like Bush because I really don't want conservatives to try and turn the social clock back to the great old times of the 50s. I don't like Gore because I think it'll be more of the same bumbling administration (hopefully minus the cigars) that we've had for the last 8."

I just want to say this is the best summary of just about every body I knows opinion of this years candidates.

Personally I am a big Clinton fan but this is mainly becuase I despise the religious right more than anything else and he pisses them off royally. Also I want to see the religious right punished for scuppering McCains candidacy.

As for the Star Wars program I say go for it ,I beleive all government spending helps the economy on the long run. But make it space based, OK I admit it I just want an increased space program 8) Besides maybe we can design a dual use system that can be used to nuke asteroids if needed. 8)

[Darstand]

The 60 billion-dollar ABM systems better known as the CASH COW! Any American knows that the US government has never made anything on-time and/or underbudget. More that likely the system will cost 2 to 3 times as much. It will also take much longer to build. The money would be far better spent on training, spare parts, and pay raises. However do not doubt that if we wanted to; we could build it!

[This message has been edited by Darstand (edited 07-13-2000).]

[Spook]

As a little "news" update from my earlier comments, Israel has now decided to scrap the development of the "Phalcon" airborne radar aircraft for China.

So whaddya know---Clinton once in a while shows that he can be useful in his subtle arm-twisting.

[XPav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Have a little faith in the American spirit.

For us there is no such thing as "impossible".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If our next president decides to sink billions of dollars into an ABM program, the following will happen:

It will cost more than initial projections will and it will not be as reliable as initial projects say.

More importantly, this paper-thin shield will mainly be an excuse for isolationism and lousy foreign policy.

"Oh, we can piss off <Russia/China/India/Pakistan/France> because we have an ABM system!" will become the saying of the "person on the street."

Technology should never be a substitute for good foreign policy. However, since the end of the Cold War, things in the world have been very, well, murky, and we Americans don't tend to handle shade of grey very well.

The cold war was easy. Soviets (and comrades of) = Bad. Elementary school kids could figure this out, with some tactics nothing more than barely concealed propaganda (remember the Nintendo game Rush'n Attack, anyone?)

We can't figure out this world, think that because we're the #1 country in the world, we don't have to bother with anyone. Hello isolationism! Remember the last time we played that game? Early 1910s and late 1930s. That sure turned out well, didn't it!

[GAZ_NZ]

I dont care about all this as the US already has a small defense weaponary system its wants made bigger.

Its based largey around microwave and laser style weaponary.

TWA 900 whatever it was got vaporised by a small one microave based form a navy test vessal accidently.

Im not trying to scare u all but u are all being manipulated into thinking how wonderful it would be to feel safe from Russia, China etc. They arnt he enemy.

U will figure it out soon enough but the cold war was a hoax as is all this.

The anti missle system is actually an anti ufo system. One day u will understand but in the mean time forget ya troubles and enjoy ya games. This might sound weird but im in touch with the right people here in NZ who are in touch with people all over the globe.

By the year 2025 all should have been revealed. And we will be part of a gaint galactic civilisation.

Ill leave u withb this though as well

WHy is there a US psychops team operating in CNN a 16 man team? Sounds suspect alright

IM a psych grad myself hehe its a joke what they are doing but most dont seem to see it.

Take care all

[Joshik]

Thought this might provide some interesting reading, given the current discussion at hand...

(I think it's from Slate.com)

-Joshik

---------------

The Missile-Defense Test

By William Saletan

(Slate)

Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. PT

This weekend, the Pentagon staged the third test of the National Missile

Defense system it plans to build over the next five years. In the first

and simplest test, the anti-missile struck the target missile after

initially drifting off course toward a decoy. In a second test, the

anti-missile missed. In this week's test, the anti-missile veered out of

control, failed to separate from its booster, and never got near the

target. Did the system fail the test? No, the test failed the system.

Defense Undersecretary Jack Gansler and Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish explained

to reporters how what looked like a failure really wasn't. The

anti-missile might have missed its target, but Gansler, Kadish, and

other advocates of missile defense struck theirs, by planting a dozen

post-test rationalizations in the press. Here's a scorecard of the shots

they fired and the targets they hit.

1. The part that failed wasn't the part we meant to test.

Shots: The failure "happened in an area that has little to do with the

functionality of the key component of the system that we're testing"

(Kadish). "The thing we were hoping to get out of this was much more

information on the interceptor portion of it, which is really the part

that is unique and different about this particular flight vs., say, a

normal booster development or a missile development" (Gansler).

Target struck: "The flaw that doomed the test had nothing to do with the

most sophisticated elements of the system, which are supposed to track

an incoming missile, differentiate it from a limited number of decoys

and intercept it" (New York Times).

2. The part that failed always works, except this time.

Shot: "This test really didn't establish that the program can't work.

The thing that failed in this test is something that we've done hundreds

of times before. * It's not something that technologically we don't know

how to do" (Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.).

Targets struck: "Instead, it was a failure in a well-developed

technology that has been used successfully in rockets that have launched

satellites and missiles for decades" (New York Times). It was a

"catastrophe involving the tried-and-true process of separating a

payload from a booster" (Los Angeles Times).

3. The part that failed was an irrelevant surrogate for a part that we

plan to rely on but haven't tested.

Shots: "The booster we are using is not the booster we intend to use in

the operational system" (Kadish). "That particular booster * is planned

to be used only another three times, and then after that we use the real

booster" (Gansler).

Target struck: "The Pentagon has 16 more flight tests planned, and later

tests will use a different type of rocket than the one used Friday"

(Chicago Tribune).

4. Let's build the part that worked while we try to fix the part that

failed.

Shot: "The decision now [is] relative to trying to build a site at

Shemya [Alaska] for the X-band radar˜which, by the way, the X-band radar

part of it was working. * That's the decision that they're going to be

making, not on whether we're ready to release the missiles. * The

booster is going to be the gating item for the second decision, which is

the one in '01" (Gansler).

Target struck: "Much of the pressure on Clinton to decide this fall

revolves around the need to award contracts for a high-power radar

station. * A prototype radar [in the test] was able to differentiate

between the mock warhead and a decoy balloon" (USA Today).

5. All the parts have worked, though never simultaneously.

Shots: "The rest of the system now has successfully worked twice, the

last two flights, although the interceptor didn't. * So in a sense we've

tested the major elements of this system sufficiently to say that the

design is probably the one that's pretty solid" (Gansler). "I don't

think we should draw conclusions from any one test that are irrevocable.

What we have is a number of tests and legacy tests for all the elements

of the system. When added together, it provides us a great body of

evidence of the capability of the system" (Kadish).

Target struck: "[The] booster rocket * failed to release the 122-pound

'kill vehicle' interceptor. Otherwise, the test went more or less as

planned" (Denver Post).

6. The part we meant to test has worked one out of two times. Not too

shabby.

Shot: "We didn't get to the interceptor on this [test], and the prior

one we had a failure on it," but "certainly on that test that we had the

intercept, it gave us all a lot of confidence that the design we have of

the kill vehicle, which is the key to the system, worked. * So from that

standpoint, a key piece of the puzzle was put into place" (Gansler).

Target struck: "Senior defense officials in the U.S. said scientists

have learned much about the system's feasibility from previous trials,

including the one successful interception in October, and from computer

simulations" (Knight Ridder).

7. Failure is no predictor of failure.

Shots: "If you go back in history to the ICBM development, to the

Safeguard development, there were many successes but also many failures

early in the program" (Kadish). "To ultimately achieve success, one must

experience some failure" (Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.).

Target struck: "All military programs suffer setbacks from time to time,

and the test failure today does not mean that a missile shield can never

be constructed" (New York Times).

8. Since the part that failed prevented us from getting to the part we

meant to test, the test never really happened.

Shot: "Everything appeared to be on track with the launch in the battle

manager type systems, the integrated part of the system, to work right.

* The kill vehicle was waiting for a signal that we had second-stage

separation. We did not receive that signal. Therefore, the timeline shut

down and the kill vehicle did not separate, and therefore, we did not

attempt or have any activity in the intercept phase" (Kadish).

Targets struck: "Key Missile Parts Are Left Untested as Booster Fails"

(New York Times). "[T]he important part of the $100 million test˜homing

in for the collision in space˜was never even attempted * and few of the

critical technologies of the missile exercise were actually tested"

(Times). "[T]he 'kill vehicle'˜a 120-pound package of miniature rocket

motors, computers and sensors˜never got a chance to show whether it can

hunt down an incoming warhead" (Washington Post).

9. There are two possible test outcomes: favorable data or insufficient

data.

Shots: "The question is whether we have enough information on the

terminal phase in order to be able to make an assessment that says we

should go ahead. * I would say we didn't get the data we had hoped to

have. The question of whether it's an absolute need or not is the one

that the Secretary and the President will be deciding" (Gansler). "[Y]ou

can make the case either that we have shown that the design is workable

or that the testing has yet to demonstrate its feasibility" (senior

military officer quoted in the Washington Post).

Targets struck: "You now lack data from two tests on the intercept

phase" (reporter's question at Gansler-Kadish press conference). "The

unexpected malfunctioning of the booster meant that the experiment

produced few meaningful lessons about the weapon's capabilities" (New

York Times). "Critics of the administration's plans * are likely to be

emboldened by the ambiguous results" (Washington Post).

10. There are two possible conclusions: The system works now, or it will

work later.

Shots: "What it tells me is we have more engineering work to do"

(Kadish). "Obviously, this does go to the question of * how far along

the system is" and "whether to proceed with the deployment of the system

or whether to defer that" (National Security Adviser Sandy Berger). "The

technological piece of this is not yet in place" (Kyl). "President

Clinton, notwithstanding this disappointment * ought to decide to at

least keep the process moving forward" (Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.).

Target struck: "t's hard to imagine a commander in chief arguing

against this kind of self-defense when it becomes technically feasible.

But the $100 million miss yesterday raises new doubts about when that

will be" (Washington Post).

11. If the system doesn't work, it's just not big enough.

Shots: "I'm more concerned the president will cut a quick deal for an

inadequate system than I am that we don't have the technological

capability of perfecting the system" (Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.).

"While last night's test is a disappointment, I remain confident that

given the right leadership, America can develop an effective missile

defense system" (George W. Bush). "The technology is ready; it's the

Clinton policy that isn't ready" (Retired Navy Vice Adm. J.D. Williams).

Target struck: "One lesson Pentagon planners and the White House may

draw from the test is that any missile defense system may require a

significantly larger fleet of antimissile rockets than currently

planned" (New York Times).

12. The question is not whether it works, but whether we need it.

Shots: "What we're talking about is how do you deal with an emerging

threat. * The system that is under development * seeks to do that"

(Berger). "It would be irresponsible if we did not do everything we

could to deal with that threat" (Secretary of State Madeleine Albright).

"In view of the potential threat * the United States must press forward

to develop and deploy a missile defense system" (Bush). "We're simply

going to have to continue until we perfect it" (Thompson).

Target struck: "The latest failure * doesn't alter the underlying

reasons to seek such a system" (Washington Post).

[LORD ORION]

Please don't belittle my opinion because I'm a Canadian or a civilian *son of a soldier though, and did my time in Lahr and Ramstein as a kid*

But I'm with JTMauney on this one. One of the real big problems with issues like this is the fact that the domestic political power plays interfere and cloud the true reality of the reasons for implementation of these systems.

Part-1 Nuclear Super Powers

Do you really think that for even an instant that Russia or any other insanely stockpiled MIRV capable country is concerned by ABMs???!!! It's all posturing on the civilian front. The true reality is it wouldn't mean anything to an ICBM capable power if it was their intent to "flatten" North America over a dispute.

The cold hard fact is that a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere would create enough EMI to make a 100% ABM defence unrealistic. So frankly, anything you hear from politics concerning "The Russians or Super Power X" are concerned by these ABM developments are utter crap with a political agenda.

Part II- Rogue Cruise Missles

This system would be effective only for eliminating threats of dubious quality. AKA Chinese and 3rd World tactical *hehe, the official word for "short range" * nuclear missles.

In other words, it's designed to protect positions in global hot spots where a nuclear cruise missle may be employed in a conflict.

So here's the question you have to ask yourselves.

If you pay close attention to the political chunder heads you voted into power *I admit they run the coutry great, but you have to admit they are utterly incompetent when it comes to defence* it would be painfully obvious they are unwilling to use nuclear weapons unless North America is attacked or their is a nuclear exchange with a NATO member in good standing *Come on, if someone took a nuke potshot at France, would the US really retailate with nuclear force hehe?*

Rogue nations know this.... or may even think this (in case I'm wrong and the US would use nulcear power on a nation that fired a nuclear cruie missle at a troop position, but given how geographically close all those militant US hating nations are, I doubt they would risk it, especially since their would be civilian casualties by the US attack, and in rebuttal, the small nation could say it employed nukes on military targets only, which is another gloabal political powerplay of its own)

So think for a second, if US forces were about to remove some insane militant from power, and he had the chance to prevent this with a tac nuke, would he use it? Maybe, maybe not.... but the point is, if he does, that's gonna be a pretty embarrasing blow.

Forget all the political rhetoric that would insue about "We could have been prepared". Your real concern would be how the other militant nations would be watching. "Wow, Nation X nuked a US ground force and didn't get flattened"

Enter the ABM. It makes employing a tac nuke by a rogue nation a dangerous gamble. More then likely they would second guess the idea, which is exactly what you want. It's not wether the nuke is shot down or the ABM fails that is important, it's wether the Nation has the balls to fire a Tac Nuke. Another dicator bitch slapped by the US wouldn't be anything too dangerous, but a nuke fired by a rogue nation would bring the world into a far more dangerous tension.

Part3- Quick Final Argument

I think I've covered most of the reasons for and why Nuclear super powers wouldn;t really care.

This leaves us developing nuclear super powers such as China.

I'll make it real easy for you. *NewsFlash* Their nuclear arsenal is going to proliefrate reguardless, every country in history has done it, the ABMs simply give them a mock reason for it. Heh, this is probably better then a nuke attack itself by these nations. The chunder heads in office will have a field day with "Cold War part II" and "Brinkmanship-The return". Why is this bad for the scared, finger pointing, clueless civilians in the US? Because the contry will be pratically paralyzed with defensive indecision as this rogue nations meet their agendas in their global locations. Sweet Jesus, people make it sound like the motivation for all countries everywhere is to get the capability to enter into a mutually destructive nuclear war with the US.

Wake Up Please

-Orion

Edit Note: Yeah yeah, my spelling sucks, Im at work and will correct it later. Thank you for your concern.

[This message has been edited by LORD ORION (edited 07-14-2000).]

[Spook]

I just noticed that this is your first post, Orion. Welcome to the CM Forum club.

Your last paragraph was one of my earlier points too. I think it's fair game to debate on the ABM system regarding its planning, cost, and technical merits, but like you, I don't think that ABM alone is suddenly going to reinstigate a new nuclear arms race. For China, India, and Pakistan, it's already happening anyway.

[LORD ORION]

Thank you Spook. I'm glad I found this place. It has a more mature and seasoned flavor, comapred to...oh what... pretty much any other mainstream gaming forum?

Strangely though, I admit it is rather odd that my 1st post is in response to somthing off topic.

Though I did play both demo missions before I posted

As you mention, those merits are worth debating, however, my nutshell summary is not overly concerned as to wether it works or not, but more concerned if it can make a rogue nation "choose" not to fire a dated nuke at an american troop position. To me, XX billion is money well spent if it prevents some crack pot from using a nuke in a tactical situation, as this is a scarry situation reguarless if the nukes detoantes or not. This is the 1st step to the path of Nuclear Armageddon, the willingness to fire a nuke, reguardless of its effectivness.

Of course, technically, I'm not an American tax payer, but I honestly wouldn't complain about implementation if I was

-Orion