Critics Say US Antimissile Defense Flawed, Dangerous 312
Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times reports that President Obama's plans for reducing America's nuclear arsenal and defeating Iran's missiles rely heavily on a new generation of antimissile defenses which last year he called 'proven and effective.' Now a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics at MIT and Cornell casts doubt on the reliability of the SM-3 rocket-powered interceptor. The Pentagon asserts that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis finds only one or two successful intercepts, for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent. Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed, and while that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. 'The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,' says Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees. In combat, the scientists added, 'the warhead would have not been destroyed, but would have continued toward the target.'"
The antimissile defense might be flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
The antimissile defense might be flawed but that has nothing to do with reducing America's nuclear arsenal. There'll still be enough nuclear weapons available to act as a deterrent. The anti-missile defense system plays a completely different role, that of deflecting attacks, rather than preventing them. You can't deflect attacks with ICBMs, so Obama's plan for reducing the nuclear arsenal doesn't rely on antimissile defense.
The plight of power (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there exist scientist, humanitarians, artisans, and others of the less warring nature, but the fact remains that those in power want to stay in power, and violence tends to work better for them. As long as greed, power, and control are the driving motivations for the more tenacious world leaders, I don't believe we will seem full nuclear weapon non-proliferation, ever.
Re:The plight of power (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe we will seem full nuclear weapon non-proliferation, ever.
Don't be so pessimistic.
We'll see nuclear weapon disappear when we find cheaper, smaller, ways to destroy an attacking country.
No point in keeping the large nuclear complexes if you can have some portable gravity discombobulators hidden in a couple dozen places, ready to pulverize any perceived threat.
If I were you I'd be worried about someone discovering a weapon that can be built with common materials, portable and powerful enough to destroy a country.
Re:M.A.D. All Over Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does PATRIOT stand for? (Score:3, Insightful)
How well does it intercept bombs in standard 40 foot shipping containers? Thats the "delivery vehicle of the future".
The delivery vehicle of the future is wind.
Once we learn to target virii to specific genetic patterns.
I for one.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one am not really at all afraid of someone launching ballistic missiles at us. The fact that it hasn't happened yet gives me some comfort that chances are, humans aren't quite that suicidal as a whole.
What does scare me is some lone crazy group getting ahold of a nuke and sneaking it into a city. Missile defense systems aren't going to do anything to protect us from that.
Just as Matter Of Principal (Score:5, Insightful)
" Now a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics at MIT and Cornell casts doubt on the reliability of the SM-3 rocket-powered interceptor."
Pro-immigration groups publish report citing benefits of illegal immigration.
Anti-gun group publishes report on the danger of guns.
Pro-drug group publish a report down playing down the dangers of drugs
Pro-Democrat group publish report on the short comings of Republicans
Pro-Republican group publish report on the short comings of Democrats
Advocate group publishes report that promotes/detracts from whatever the group promotes/detracts from.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Re:I work on SM3... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're fighting a losing battle here, most people don't realize that in the testing phase of a product that you do intentionally stupid crap to see what kind of tolerances are necessary.
Re:What does PATRIOT stand for? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also better than nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that presumes, of course, a credible threat from a rogue nations with a few missiles. However, given the developments in NK and Iran, that seems to be a somewhat realistic threat that should be looked at.
No, there will likely never be an anti-missile system that could deal with, say, the Russian arsenal. You get tons and tons of missiles and it'll overwhelm the ability to intercept them all, or even a significant number. However that doesn't mean a system couldn't provide a reasonable probability of intercepting a few missiles. No certainty, but some chance is better than no chance.
People also need to remember this isn't pure pie-in-the-sky stuff. The Aegis Combat System is quite capable of anti-missile capabilities. It can track and engage anti-ship missiles quite well. Now of course ICBMs are a whole different problem, not in the least of which because of their speed, but it is the same "track and engage" idea and there is working hardware.
The real question is if it is worth the cost and overall, I think it is. Reason being that I do see the idea of a missile launch from a place like NK as a possibility. Now if that happens, and the missile hits an American city, it is going to be large scale nuclear war. The US will launch a counter attack. The most optimistic scenario would be that the only deaths would be those from the initial attack, and then more or less everyone in the country the US launched at, but it very well might not end there. The US launch might trigger other launches from other countries.
However, if the missile is stopped, well then the possibility exists for a more measured response.
I think that makes it worth it. I don't worry much about nuclear war between large powers. Reason is that the power to make a launch doesn't lie in the hands of one person, and the nations are ruled by sane people. Maybe not nice people, but sane people. They know the consequences, they don't want to see that, the weapons are a last resort kind of deterrent only. However there are places like NK, where a single person rules, and where the sanity of that person is a bit suspect. That is a case where a nuclear launch is a possibility if they obtain the weapons, and they seem to be working on it. That I worry a bit more about.
So to me, it seems worth it over all. Also let's please not pretend like defense R&D is a 100% sunk cost or anything, that we pour money in to the projects and get nothing useful in return. Often, we get technologies that can be used in other devices or the like, both defense and non-defense. Sometimes, we get things with direct major civilian applications.
Please remember that GPS was invented because the military wanted to be able to locate all their vehicles and ships accurately anywhere. That was the motivating factor behind it. However it has proved to be the sole most important invention in civilian navigation since, well, since the sextant probably.
Over all, I think it is worth it and I disagree it is dangerous. Do remember that nuclear bombs are complex, precise devices. You don't have to obliterate one to stop it from exploding, only cause damage to any number of systems and they don't work anymore. Ya the missile might still hit its target but so long as it doesn't trigger the nuclear reaction, the damage will be fairly small scale.
Re:The antimissile defense might be flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. It's just PR to keep John Bombemall and Jane Fretsalot happy. If a President (any President) just reduced the nuclear arsenal, John might think he was a pussweed and Jane might think he wasn't protecting her children. I mean, they think that anyway but they might be annoyed enough to donate to the Other Guy.
But if the President announce that we have a Missile Shield that keeps us safe, then he's a studly manly-man, and he's Thinking of the Children. Even if there's strategic no connection at all between a Missile Defence and a Missile Offence, John and Jane don't know that.
So it really doesn't matter if the Missile Shield works or not, or even if it exists. The President might as well hold up a shiny rock and say that it keeps missiles away, or declare that Chuck Norris has been hired to roundhouse kick incoming missiles right back to Elbonia. Whatever pacifies John and Jane enough to let him cut the nuclear arsenal down from super-mega-overkill to just regular-mega-overkill is a good thing. The ends in this case do justify the means.
Re:What does PATRIOT stand for? (Score:2, Insightful)
They are also an effective deterrent against biological attack, or rather they were until the moron at 1600 Penn Ave announced that we wouldn't use them in response to one.
Honestly? Now that the nuclear threat is off the table suddenly a biological attack on the US would be a viable military strategy?
I mean, basically there's 2 scenario's:
1. An established nation uses biological warfare. In response the US sends the carriers, the marines, the tanks and kicks 7 kinds of living crap out of them. No nation on this planet can go up against the current US armed forces 1v1.
2. A total fucking nutcase in a cave somewhere uses biological warfare. What good is a nuke going to do?
Re:I for one.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
No one has ever smuggled a nuke in to a city yet ever so why worry more about that.
Franky I think to dismiss any of those vectors isn't very bright.
Re:Doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious - for how long are you people going to blame Bush for everything? I ask this in seriousness. When Obama is no longer President, will you blame him for everything that happens with the new President, or will you continue to blame Bush until another Republican gets into office?
I ask this in seriousness, I really want to know.
Probably for a few more decades. I say this in seriousness, I really think he was that bad.
Bush was in power for 8 years, and radically turned America upside down. He turned America into a country that is, as Obama tactfully put it during his Berlin speech, "part of the problem rather than part of the solution" for many Europeans.
Obama has now been in power for not quite the 8 years, and he doesn't have a 9/11 event to push through many changes quickly. (I am not claiming that 9/11 was a setup, but it came in quite convenient for Bush).
Bush gathered a bunch of warmongers around him, and some are still there. He allowed the weapons industry to be stronger (it simply became an even bigger industry with even more lobby powers).
The legacy of Bush will last. He was no good president, but he sure changed a lot.
So, I'll probably be blaming Bush for the next couple of decades for a lot of things... I truly believe he was one of the worst things that ever happened to America.
Re:Doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem with MAD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just as Matter Of Principal (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlation != Causation
(Now the head of some guy in another article is going to blow)
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it isn't always:
Sometimes its:
Publisher of report that promotes/detracts from something get's tagged as belonging to a group that promotes/detracts from that something.
It is in fact a very common tactic to "paint" your critics of belonging to a group with an agenda as a means of devaluating their comments.
Of course, around here in /. we're all well aware of all the dirty psychological tricks employed in this kind of speach and will not fall for them .... right!????
Re:It's also better than nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are underestimating the rationality of North Korea and Iran. Kim Jong-Il is well aware of the consequences of his actions, and won't launch against anyone any time soon -- his main target would probably be South Korea anyway, and if he wanted to he could level Seoul with ballistic conventional weaponry before they could do anything about it.
Iran is not actually governed by Ahmadinejad; he's a figurehead. In any event, the logic of the situation suggests that Iran absolutely should want nukes -- but primarily as a deterrent against the other nuclear powers in its neighborhood (Israel) and the West (US). MAD not only discourages nuclear war, but conventional war as well. Getting nukes would greatly increase Iran's security and regional importance, if it can get through the dangerous phase where it looks like it might have nukes.
However, you're right that there's a credible threat of nuclear attack from a non-state actor. Thing is it won't come from an ICBM, it'll come in a suitcase, or in the back of a truck.
Re:Missiles are the least of your worries (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anyone else can destroy a major city, but that is going to bring retribution of a biblical scale from the entire rest of the world if the true source of the attack can be determined."
Common thinking, and I disagree with it completely. It's a bit similar to "pound you in the ass prison" arguments, it's mostly just macho posturing.
Example: Group of 50 terrorists launch a nuke from the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan (population 7 million, and directly on the border with India). We annihilate the whole region in response. Really?
Re:It is the same difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Ask the Greeks how great deficit spending to bloat up the nanny state and prop up social programs is working out.
Re:Doing it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Frankly I think this Obama is correct in this case but FREAKING STOP MAKING EXCUSES.
Obama has had the biggest majority in congress of any president in my life time and I am pretty dang old by slashdot standards.
You are making excuse on top of excuse. Heck I don't think Obama is a terrible president I just think a good section of his supporters are mindless zombies.
I think that if you every took a hard look that both Clinton and Bush Jr. made many mistakes. Clinton IMHO was a terrible president that got so lucky that the disasters he caused started in the last month of so of his term in office. But sometimes you get lucky. Obama except for his disaster of a policy on manned space flight isn't doing all that terrible IMHO. However your blaming Bush for Obama's decisions is JUST STUPID AND FRIGHTENING!
If you think this program is stupid an wasteful that BLAME OBAMA because he is supporting it!
He had no trouble trying to kill Ares so this project should be a walk in a park to kill. Even the contracters could just make more SM2s and PAC-3s and be happy.
I think that in this case President Obama is correct in keeping this program going. But bloody hell get your head out of our butt and stop trying ti shift blame.
What is wrong in the contry in part is that people have forgotten how it is supposed to work.
You and I are President Obama's BOSS. He serves us and we can fire him! If he is doing something you don't like SPEAK OUT AND DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES!
In this case I think his doing the right thing so I give him credit for it. When he does things I do not agree with he gets the blame.
Dictators have supporters. Presidents have voters.
So stop being a whinny fanboi and stand up.
You can blame none of Obama decisions on Bush. They are all his decisions.
Re:What does PATRIOT stand for? (Score:2, Insightful)
Once we learn to target virii to specific genetic patterns.
We should learn to spell "viruses" correctly first.
"Moron." (Score:4, Insightful)
moron at 1600 Penn Ave announced that we wouldn't use them in response to one.
Wow. Someone else a "moron" because they've figured out (a) that, as Robert Gates says, "there's no credible scenario where a chemical weapon could have the kind of consequences that would warrant a nuclear response" AND we have a conventional arsenal that's enough of a threat by itself and (b) there's potential in offering even rogue states carrots as well as sticks and (c) if for some reason we're wrong about (a), it's not as if we couldn't reconsider?
Go on. Tell us who you consider "smart."
Also, maybe let us know what you think about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_n_531455.html?ref=fb&src=sp [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Kimball-Thielmann [armscontrol.org]