Missile Test Success

[Gadfly]

So the US should have occupied Russia and taught it Economics?  OK, hey it worked for Japan, no?

[Dnil]

hmm ok, so we forced another superpower to our will and made them go capitalist.  Boy talk about the blame game.  How bout russia accepts responsibilty for its own actions.

[Tac]

you people scare the crap outta me. no wonder the world is so fekd up.

"Bush will propose continued development, I'm sure. If Congress approves this proposal, it would hardly be viewed as solely a move by Bush. It would be a decision by 553 representatives of the US citizens, wouldn't it"

Murphy's Law: When many are the cause of a problem, no one is at fault. In cartman's words: "SWEET!"

Gadfly: And in the proccess, almost, just almost destroyed a culture. The assimilation process continues as we speak. Im not anti-american or anti-anyone (im anti-n1k though), yet ironically, the point im trying to make is best said in the words of a native american tribe "Consider the effect your actions will have on the next ten generations". That's one thing the US does not do, it only considers short term solution (of the 4-year kind..upgradable to 8 years if reelected).

I wish the gdamn aliens just invaded already... gaahrhrrr!

[Gadfly]

Tac, I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm dripping from my words, nee?

[Tac]

narf!  

[Eagler]

Yoj
It's a deterent. If the possibility of it working well enough to allow a country to retaliate well enough to eliminate the aggressor, they would be less likely to start something. It's a pretty safe bet the US would NEVER start a nuke fest. Safer bet than most of the other  countries with nukes..

leonid
Wow, I agree we you   We did make the Russian mafia happy though   Didn't they contribute to the DNC in '96?

tac
Yep, it'd take an "Independence Day" scenerio to unite us all, to set aside our differences and fight for a common good. Sad part is, we'd be back at each others throats within a month of the last alien ship biting the dust. I can see it now, the democrats wanting to start a new entitlement program for the surviving aliens & a tax increase to cover it  

[batdog]

Wow... pretty intense emotions here huh? Nobody is going to "win" the "next" global war... and to be honest I really think the missil defense is more aimed at rogue nations w/nuclear capablity perhaps.

 You know what would do the world some damn good...and i mean some real damn good? If the USA and Russia signed a "mutal" defense treaty...hell if Russia joined NATO. I mean to me this would open the doors for all sorts of coorperation.

 Its time to see past the cold war crap we grew up with. Its time to tell the old men w/the red buttons to go blow. Its time to make a world alittle more secure for future generations.

xBAT

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Eagler:
Yoj
It's a deterent. If the possibility of it working well enough to allow a country to retaliate well enough to eliminate the aggressor, they would be less likely to start something. It's a pretty safe bet the US would NEVER start a nuke fest. Safer bet than most of the other  countries with nukes..

I agree that's the intent.  However, if its simply a matter of being able to retaliate, the US can do that now, massively, and there is no sign of us losing that ability in the forseeable future - we don't need a prohibitively expensive and destabilizing new system for that.  

As for the US being the agressor and staying safe behind a defensive shield, again I agree that its "a pretty safe bet" that won't happen.  In the matter of nuclear explosions, who wants to make bets, even "pretty safe" ones?  I know its unlikely, but I'm an American - perhaps my perspective is a tad biased.  Not everyone is as trusting of this country and its motives.  More importantly, American attitudes towards the rest of the world have shifted over a huge range through our history.  There is simply no way to guarantee that we will never again be an agressive, expansionist country.  The future is a long time.  

Personally, I think its a lot of money going into a project that is a bad idea all round.

Yoj

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]

[Toad]

Well, Leonid, you did not disappoint; your record remains intact. There is still apparently no situation or problem for which, by constructing and following a convoluted path of speculation, opinion or outright fantasy, you cannot lay the "blame" on the doorstep of the United States.

I’d love to see the reception that Boroda and his compadres would have prepared for the "political advisors from the West" that "would help to build a democratic system." The Russians have always been so receptive to outsiders, particularly those that arrive with the intent of revamping the Russian political system.  

Glad you didn’t ask me any questions. It would ruin my reputation here if I actually had to participate in long threads on divisive topics.  


Boroda, you think "Yugoslavia is a good example of what could happen"?

So, a centuries old religious/ethnic feud might break out into open warfare with genocidal slaughter of women and children by both sides? This could go on for years before the International community did more than say "tsk, tsk" from the sidelines? Finally, the UN, through a Security Council resolution, could task NATO to implement the military aspects of a negotiated Peace Agreement? Then US would reluctantly join this peacekeeping effort? Later, when one side clearly and violently violated the terms of the Peace Agreement and the killing began again in earnest, the US might join a Nato military action against the aggressors?

You fear this happening to Russia? Why?


Yoj, yes, the history of the human race shows that there are just some technological hurdles that we cannot and never will be able to clear. We’ll never have a man walk on the moon, for instance. The challenges are just too great…oops…

Well, we’ll never get an orbiting telescope up; the challenges are just too great. If we did, having to repair it with a whole revised lens system while it orbited would present challenges that are just too great….oops.

Well, we’ll never be able to build an International Space Station in orbit, the challenges are just too great…oops.

"If it is not 100% successful, its completely worthless."

There’s the flaw in your argument. 99% would make it extremely worthwhile. Even 75% would make it incredibly valuable. 50% would be much better than nothing at all. It would be completely worthless from the POV of those who live in or near the cities that were destroyed, of course. It would be absolutely priceless to those who live in or near the cities that were saved.

There’s a lot of information about this that simply isn’t available yet. Until it is, no intelligent decision can be made as yet.

I’m reminded of a friend of mine that was working on an advanced air-to-air missile for the military. The military wanted a 100% reliable, fool proof missile with a PK of 100% in every situation. His company commented that they could probably get pretty close to what the military was asking for. However, the missile was going to cost about 2X as the target it was meant to shoot down. In other words, we’d be using $60 million missiles to shoot down $30 million airplanes.

This system may prove to be unworkable or economically out of the question. However, it may work and it may turn out to be affordable and relatively cheap when one considers the cost of ignoring the threat. That’s what research does in the end; it answer questions like these.

Tac, life’s not so easy when you can’t just lay the blame on one bogeyman, is it? Should be an interesting debate, with the House and Senate so closely split.

Don’t be scared; we’ve built a pretty nice country using this system for the last 200+ years. Oh, BTW, the aliens are already here (wonder why they came with such a scary system). The "Bush bogeyman" is proposing giving 3 million of them residency. Of course, that will have to go through Congress too.  

[mietla]

remember that MAD work only if you assume a rational attacker. Give the nuke to Bin Ladin and see whether he cares about the consenquences. I'm not even sure whether chicomms would think twice. In cases like this, you just have to take it on a chin, downtown DC or out in space, your choice... (difficult choice come to think of it), without a possibility to retaliate.

On the other hand, it is a valid argument that this kind of defense it totally ineffective against the most probable form of attack, a suitcase nuke.

[Toad]

Unilaterally disregarding? Dishonor the treaty? Total disregard for international treaties?

Do a little research guys...BEFORE you hurl the invective.  


 http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS

Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
 
Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.


2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

Dishonor? Disregard? LOL. It's IN the treaty, approved by both sides. Stow the inflammatory, ill-informed rhetoric.

Common sense, without the hysteria, calls for renegotiation and possibly even cooperation on this project.

Don't believe me... ask Yakovenko!

(CNN) "Alexander Yakovenko, spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry said Russia is open "for an early and substantive dialogue with the U.S. on the START [treaty] and ABM problems" and other strategic issues on the basis of understandings reached by the Russian and U.S. presidents at their recent meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia."

US intent?

(CNN) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a small group of reporters in his Pentagon office Wednesday the U.S. will "sit down with the Russians in a way that's rational, and professional, and we don't intend to violate the treaty."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a small group of reporters in his Pentagon office Wednesday the U.S. will "sit down with the Russians in a way that's rational, and professional, and we don't intend to violate the treaty.

Rumsfeld expressed confidence that an agreement will be worked out with Russia before then, but said if all efforts at reaching an understanding fail, the United States always has the option of opting out under the terms of the treaty, which would abrogate, but not violate the treaty.

This will eventually be settled in a mutually agreeable fashion. In the meantime, research hurts no one and it's quite a different matter than deployment.

Breathe deep...relax.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Boroda]

Miko, one little question: how many Jews survived nazi occupation in Latvia?

Only 18. Eighteen.

Keep telling fairy tales about "good nazies". Remeber that joke - good coffins for good ones, bad coffins for bad ones.

As for Ukrainian "partizans" - is "OYH" ("OUN") wat you mean? Or the famous Stepan Bendera's "freedom fighters"?

I bet you remember the date when evil Russians, armed with babooshkas, balalaikas and samovars occupied poor Ukraine.

IMO the fall of USSR was good only for local political elites, the same commie functioners we both hate.

You hide your e-mail, if you'll send it to me I'll give you a link to a recent discussion about national politics where I tried to state my point of view. Unfortunately that page contains links that I can't post here.

Your remark about Afghanistan is Stingers is extremely stupid. Look at what our Great American Democracy reached helping Freedom Fighters. Go rent a copy of Rambo-3 and watch it 10 times.

My provocation really hit you  

BTW: another misunderstanding occured. Many people WILL prefer guaranteed rations. But if it will come that far (and I really don't see another end of all the crap going on here) - I'll prefer to "run away" too.

So far I didn't see any reasons for doing so.

You emigrated whith the first opportunity, because your career in USSR could be earning 120r monthly and sitting holes in your pants in some NII or KB forever.

You are maybe 10 years older then me. At that time I was still a student. When life became bearable in maybe 1993, I already had good job and didn't need anything else.

Here is a song for you:
 http://www.zvuki.ru/T/P/271/28m/5

To define myself completely: my Mother emigrated to Australia in 1995, at the age of 50.

 

Now - back to ABMs.

AFAIK US is going to deploy 110 ABMS.

SAMs are usually fired in salvos of two, or three in case of a special-importance target. I don't count some miracles, like that 2 F-14s shot down by one salvo from Lybian S-200 over Line of Death in 1986. Usually the hit possibility is around 50%. 1/3 or even smaller hit possibility is considered pretty high for a try.

So - let's assume that 110 ABMs will intercept 55 warheads. Let's forget about targeting channel overloads, fake targets, active jammers that accompany warheads etc.

55 warheads is only 5 modern ICBMs.

I already said that the only working "missile shield" in the world is capable to intercept about 10 warheads. It's only purpose is to protect Moscow from accidental launch. It can be useful even in case of a massive launch, because ICBM's typical target is an enemy's ICBM launch site, and AFAIK our nearest silos are 400km from Moscow.

So - we see that the "missile shield" is useless against a massive launch.

If US indeed breakes the ABM treaty - Putin's hands will be free to deploy MIRVs again, and therefore the world security system will be threatened again.

And the last thought: any massive launch by any country will result in massive launches from other ICBM owners. End of planet Earth.

Now please someone explain me what is the purpose of NMD system. If US will step out of the 1972 treaty this year - Russia will re-equip ICBMs with MIRVs in a matter of months, if not weeks. America will face the threat again years before their ABMs will be ready for production.

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Toad:

Yoj, yes, the history of the human race shows that there are just some technological hurdles that we cannot and never will be able to clear. We’ll never have a man walk on the moon, for instance. The challenges are just too great…oops… < snip >

"If it is not 100% successful, its completely worthless."

There’s the flaw in your argument. 99% would make it extremely worthwhile. Even 75% would make it incredibly valuable. 50% would be much better than nothing at all. It would be completely worthless from the POV of those who live in or near the cities that were destroyed, of course. It would be absolutely priceless to those who live in or near the cities that were saved.

Ah friend Toad - putting intentions into my words, eh?  Five yard penalty and loss of down!

I explicitly said that the technology could be made to work.  I also said that the technology can be defeated, because ANY technology can be defeated.  You talk about saving some cities, yet if a system is, say, 75% effective, that does not mean you save 75% of your cities - it means a high probability that 25% of the attacking missiles will get through to every target, and ONE is enough.  Without 100% reliability, there is a measurable chance of 100% destruction.  

A shield (as currently proposed) could only reliably protect against a small limited nuclear missile attack - a determined opponent with a large force can always build to overwhelm by numbers (assuming they can never produce a technology to spoof your defensive system).  And any small country (rogue state) making such an attack would face total obliteration.  As a number of people have pointed out, an attack from rogue state would most likely NOT come by missile.  

Research will continue - it always does, and its important that it does.  However, true strength comes from pure research (in which we learn) not from an expensive and highly specific engineering project (which simply applies and refines what is already known).  The money would be much better spent backing scientific research, and the world would have one less controversy if they just packed it in on this shield thing.

- Yoj

[Toad]

Yoj, I'll take the five yards, but loss of down is a bit harsh.  

Again, there's a counter to your argument. Even if 25% of the missiles get through, it doesn't mean all cities would be destroyed. There is a measurable chance of 100% destruction but an equally measurable chance of much less destruction. Just depends on which subsets get nailed, right? For example, if they wipe out all the warheads aimed at LA, LA survives. Whoops... maybe this isn't a good idea.  

All that is just arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin however. You wouldn't know how it played out until it played out.

Right now, it's only research and experimentation. (I disagree with you on the "only pure research" aspect. I think we learn a lot from the experimentation phase, particularly the failures. Failures lead to improvements that can be cross-utilised later.) It's not anywhere near a deployment decision, let alone a deployment stage. I haven't made up my mind whether I'd support deployment or not. Too much research left to do.

The time will come when Congress will have to decide. I'll speak my piece to them at that time.

Until then, I'm happy to toss my tax penny into the pool to fund the research and experimentation. They will learn things from this that will be used in other beneficial areas. Beats heck out of subsidizing the Congressional Barber Shop.

[Dowding]

Europe hates this idea - without European cooperation, it will never be implemented. The system relies on a missile tracking station about 80 miles from where I am sitting, writing these words. There is alot of cross-party opposition to the idea, backed up by public support.  

As for Russia - it was a mess in 1990 when I was last there. I hope things have improved alot, but from what I read it has not.

Tearing up missile treaties with poverty-stricken nations still smarting from defeat doesn't make sense. Even if the cause is considered just.

I reckon alot of Russians have already pulled out the rose-tinted spectacles and are turning their attention to the past. And that, to me, is a very scary thing.