Why Drones Could Be the Future of Missile Defense 167
An anonymous reader writes "With North Korea's failed missile launch Friday, it is clear many nations around the globe are attempting to acquire missiles that can carry larger payloads and go further. Such moves have made the United States and its allies very nervous. Missile defense has been debated since the 1980's with such debate back once again the headlines. Most missile defense platforms have technical issues and are very expensive. One idea: use drones instead. '... a high-speed (~3.5 to 5.0 km/s), two-stage, hit-to-kill interceptor missile, launched from a Predator-type UAV can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase.' Could a Drone really take down a North Korea missile? 'A physics-based simulator can estimate the capabilities of a high-altitude, long endurance UAV-launched boost-phase interceptor (HALE BPI) launched from an altitude of approximately 60,000 feet. Enabled by the revolution in UAVs, this proposed boost-phase interceptor, based on off-the-shelf technology, can be deployed in operationally feasible stations on the periphery of North Korea.'"
SBX-1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) [wikipedia.org] — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/navy-ships-out-radar-system-ahead-of-north-korea-launch/ [cnn.com]
A brief history of SBX-1 — great pictures: http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf [mda.mil]
Summary written by US propagandist (Score:1, Insightful)
Missile defense is an _offensive_ weapon. It takes away the worries of mutually assured destruction.
While the context was tactical nuclear weapons, this statement by George W. Bush makes clear the mindset of those in power in the U.S., "I want nuclear weapons I can use."
What if I told you (Score:4, Insightful)
a guided missile is just a disposable drone?
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:5, Insightful)
The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else.
However, they can't use it because of mutual assured destruction. Or put another way, they can use it, but the retaliation would be too devasting to contemplate.
On the defense side, a missle defense system disables the enemies ability to first strike on us. This is a good thing, and is the defensive aspect to a missile defense system.
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.
That said, we still should participate in the missile defense race, it would be beyond foolish to let our opponents develop missile defense while we have none.
However, the humanist in me would argue that the minute we developed strategic missile defense that we should give it away. The world will be a better place if NOBODY can first strike on anyone.
The world will not be a better place if any nation, including the US, can first strike with impunity.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I understand all too well. The doctrinal notion of MAD, even if absurd, only works when your enemy fears or cares about destruction (as we do).
To paraphrase The Peacemaker, I'm not afraid of the man who wants a hundred nuclear weapons — I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:2, Insightful)
No, It is not defensive when its presence is the only way a nuclear first strike would be contemplated.
nuke = can't use as first strike weapon without risk of destruction of self by retaliatory strike.
"missile defense" = now I can use nuke as first strike weapon without concern of retaliatory strike.
"missile defense" is a first strike weapon
QED
If someone in the US government thinks he can use nukes without consequences of a counter-strike, he might actually vaporize a few million people, set off a chain of events that results in nuclear winter which wipes out many millions more-- even you.
If you are so indoctrinated into "USA USA USA USA..." that you cannot see how this is a bad thing, well there is probably no hope for you, nor point in trying to have a conversation with you.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SBX-1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right.
And you've also demonstrated, even if not your intent, quite well why secrets are necessary, even in open and democratic societies — not to keep them from our own citizens, but to prevent adversaries from understanding our capabilities, techniques, sources, and methods.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:5, Insightful)
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity.
Only if you are sure it is going to work 100% perfectly... Or maybe 98% perfectly if you are willing to accept a few cities and millions of deaths as acceptable losses. Against an opponent with many missiles a missile defence isn't that useful.
Against countries with only a few missiles though it is viable. So given that it would probably be best not to develop missile defence systems because it will only force countries like North Korea to build larger and larger arsenals to defend themselves against the US, while affording the US itself no real protection.
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:5, Insightful)
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.
Nobody wants to risk everything on a worldwide missle defense system that's never been operationally tested. Nobody wants to live in a world where several other continents have been nuked into radioactive ash. Believe me, the people planning and building missle defense systems sincerely hope that they never have to be used. Nobody's imagining it as an enabler for a first-strike capability.
Re:SBX-1 (Score:5, Insightful)
We can hope that those granted the clearance to perform the necessary oversight are honest enough to tell us the truth: Whether or not this missile defense system actually works. Without telling us how or showing us the evidence. I'd have more faith in them if their political lives didn't depend on repeated cash infusions from the very companies that build the stuff that may or may not work.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:2, Insightful)
"The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else."
Not true and it shows your blind spot on the subject. If you only view Russia, a single possible enemy, as the intended target. We are dangerously low, if not below the threshold, of not being able to strike every military target of interest. Just military targets mind you. The reality of today, with many decades of understanding the threat of nuclear weapons many people have built nuclear secure complexes that are large weapon sinks if you want to try and brute force their destruction with nuclear weapons. For starters, you should research Yamantau mountain. Try to figure out how many weapons it would take to penetrate this one facility and guarantee destruction. Now start to multiply by how many such facilities might exist. The last estimate I saw was 200 such facilities in Russia, and that was old. Look at the size of our stockpile. Suddenly it doesn't look so big.
Multiple enemies? We do not have the weapons to do that, sir. You gotta make more, or use conventional stuff. In the reality of nuclear war, without underground production facilities (AFAIK we don't have those) we will be incapable of producing more. You get what you brought, and nothing more (hence the desire for stockpiles).
As for our stockpiles, we have many weapons on standby. The MX system (the best in the US) was dismantled under the Bush administration and is currently in storage an uncomfortable distance from my house (a primary and relatively easy target). We have a sizable Minute Man force, and our subs, 50% of which we keep in port by mindless self directive. Otherwise we depend on our bombers. The deployed forces or could-be-deployed in hours (subs and planes) are sizable, but we're dangerously close to being incapable of MAD, if not already below the threshold, with our principle possible opponent, ignoring other possibilities (like, say, China). Also, if you research the tech and the policies, it also means that most of our primary nuclear weapons are sitting in known locations, an interesting anti-thesis to our reliance on stealth and evasion for many of our expensive and important gear.
Make of it what you will, but, our policy and planning trajectories have been moving away from MAD for a long time now. Does that make nuclear war more likely or less likely?
Re:Parent post written by anti-US propagandist (Score:4, Insightful)
It is all still a waste of money. They are autocracies, the only way to effectively defend against them is to convince 'Dear Leaders' and their cronies that they are number one on the hit parade and they will be targeted and eliminated as the first priority.
'Dear Leader' and his pals do not give a crap about their country or it's citizens they can all burn as long as it feeds the ego and lusts of 'Dear Leader' and his pals.
So all you need to do is convince 'Dear Leader' and his pals, that they will die should they initiate a conflict, no negotiation, no truce, no peace until they personally have been eliminated. Whether by direct conflict or assassination.
The idea that political leaders should be spared from direct personal attack during conflicts is crap. They should be the first on the firing theirs and ours, for their failure to achieve diplomatic resolution and save their citizens lives. Top down attack will see many more diplomatic resolutions and many fewer even zero conflicts.