Post #21,329
12/13/01 11:15:51 AM
|
Simple...
Since its ratification in 1972, technology has advanced to the point where an active defense against ICBM's is possible (debatable point, I know).
This treaty does not allow testing of such a defense system.
That...seems to me...would be counter to our supreme interests...ESPECIALLY since our principle enemy is no longer the former Soviet Union.
Extraordinary events are 1) failure of Soviet State 2) peaceful diplomatic relations with the Russians...including negotiations on the reduction of nuclear arsenals 3)intercontinental ballistic technology being developed by coutries other that the US and the former USSR. 4)the massive technological change over 30 years.
Hmmm
You guys seem to be turning conservative (what was good 30 years ago MUST be good now) ;)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,344
12/13/01 12:07:16 PM
|
Not bad Beep.. fer a Conservative
Lookin fer loopholes ^h^h recruits, are we?
I can agree that the techno changes should be assessed. What concerns me is not so much what would have been paramount before '90: a *certain* new arms race. While that's still possible (China? Russia depending upon Putin's local Right-opposition) I suppose it might be avoided, if our direction is made known - and if we aren't too [For US OR Agin Us] beastly arrogant next. That is a huge IF.
But as a classic Military-Industrial Complex porkbarrel, along with the guaranteed Interminable War Against Evil (er.. think we might Win that decisively, this millennium?) it's a larger pork attractor than Exchange is a virus attractor. We already know this.
Jobs created by such projects are relatively few, high-paid techno-specialist ones. No 'useful product' results, only an expense - won't do a damn thing for (even the trained) current layoffs; by subtraction of funds, will put more of the less-ept onto the streets with shopping carts. Loral & G.E. dance.
The bombast is likely to eclipse the starkness of the much easier alternate means of delivery - no need for missile accuracy when you can park it by GPS and not even get a ticket. And everyone knows This too. Dubya folk haven't even acknowledged the legitimate criticisms - just more 'protectin ya' folksy BS.
A.
|
Post #21,464
12/14/01 4:23:44 AM
|
Technology has what?
I know you claim it is a debatable claim.
It is also a wrong one. And the wrongness doesn't change because legions of talking puppets with visions of never-ending defence contracts are constantly telling us that they think it can be done. Claims which I put on par with Microsoft's claims that the next one will be secure, won't crash, and will solve all of my problems...
Oh right. And it is a claim to solve a problem that we don't currently have. Hello? We are the only remaining superpower? Our current opponents are fully capable of causing us tremendous harm, yes, but only using unconventional warfare. They cannot stand toe to toe. We need to worry about delivery via suitcase, not ICBM. Furthermore if you have a brain and a basic appreciation of history, the likely end of the US Empire is economic, not military. The US won't get defeated. It will just run out of money, and decide that policing an ungrateful world has too little payoff for the huge costs...
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #21,466
12/14/01 8:29:52 AM
|
And I know all of these things
However, when listing things that have radically changed since 1972...that obviously had to be one of them. Hoever, I >do< recognize that the "clear and present danger" has shifted from ICBM to more "unconventional" means.
And delivery via ICBM has probably become an unlikely scenario. But if that unlikely scenario can become impossible...well that wuold be nice.
Also, keeping the military research budget had nice side benefits. They >did< bring us this internet thingy among other nice side benefits of advanced weapons research.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,470
12/14/01 9:30:44 AM
|
Risk to reward ratio
... is a standard bizness "tool" to determine whether a project should be funded. By your own hand, you state that the reward is slight: And delivery via ICBM has probably become an unlikely scenario. And also by your own hand, you stated earlier that the amount of money needed to make it probably work would be huge. A cold, hard, Beep-style risk/reward analysis would clearly indicate that the project is, to use the bizness vernacular, a "non-starter". Yet you continue to advocate it. How do you, Mr. Opponent-of-big-Guv'mint-don't-spend-my-tax-dollars-on-pork-barrel-projects justify that? I'm not clear.... jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #21,486
12/14/01 10:34:56 AM
|
Hold on there bub...
Principle job of government=Defense
And...although I'm sure DeSitter would disagree being as they're Republican's and all in the White House at the moment...most pure research funding comes as part of these "impossible" military projects.
And wouldn't it be really handy if we could learn to target objects freefalling from space?
However unlikely you consider ICBM missile delivery...it is probably still an equal percentage danger...especially considering the questionable security of the former Soviet aresenal.
You will never get economic analysis to come up in favor of national defense over more traditional free market investments. Thats why its the governments job. Strange name for an econ course...Public Finance...but its out there...and its required.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,492
12/14/01 10:52:11 AM
|
Target objects freefalling from space.
Like an asteroid which likely caused the Cretaceous-Tertiary [link|http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/extinction/|extinction] wiping out half the species. Of course we need to spend a bit more money to track these objects, now.
It might be a bit risky to wait for the detection of one of these rocks and then begin a research program on interception technology. Yeh, and put the contract out to the low cost bidder. :)
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #21,494
12/14/01 11:17:40 AM
|
It's dangerous to assume that
Missle Defense Shield technology will assist in preventing asteroids from hitting the earth.
MDS is aimed at hitting relatively low targets on a very tight schedule.
An asteriod defense system would be better served at detecting asteroids at a much greater distance and then giving them enough delta-v to miss the earth.
They should be very different systems.
|
Post #21,517
12/14/01 2:39:04 PM
|
You aren't thinking Hollywood.
#1. Compare the mass of an ICBM with the mass of a meteor.
#2. Compare the mass of an ICBM with the mass of a meteor.
#3. Compare the mass of an ICBM with the mass of a meteor.
Now, if the ICBM is hit and disabled, it will fall to Earth and cause some damage.
Now, if the meteor is hit, it will break up into smaller chunks.
Will the net effect be that the smaller chunks will burn up in the atmosphere or that the meteor will just spread itself over a larger area?
Does it really matter as the meteor will already be in our atmosphere when the missle defense system hits it?
|
Post #21,539
12/14/01 5:13:23 PM
|
Nah...we will >never< be able...
...to accomplish such outlandish goals.
What was I thinking?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,540
12/14/01 5:17:51 PM
|
Well yeah.. Hollywood only makes movies about
after the disaster struck - a showin them naked folks fleein their beds and the smarmy executive in his Mercedes, as the fragment turns it into gold-leaf film.
Besides, I think the troops have already grokked the asteroid problem as Simon sez: delta-V. with a looong lever arm = we gotta find this stuff reeel early. As to how you carry to the site -- sufficiently slow-burning propellant, so's not to fragment the beast [??]
Some would like to imagine a scenario of some sorta nuke-dud, such that it barely reaches crit-mass, and the blast is focussed so as to apply a net delta-V yada yada. Now *THAT's* where the stupid fucking ABM-$ OUGHT to be spent.. if we just Have to fund some [oil] more of Bushie's [oil] boys at Loral and such.
NASA-like, not DOD-like boffins are needed, and.. as we convert University research funding from basic research to mere pedestrian Corporate seeking of smaller vias for IC manufacturers:
The folks with this kinda smarts are running out of support. Will have to market for Billy n'BallyCo. before long (is that a scary enough scenario?)
Ashton
|
Post #21,550
12/14/01 6:46:51 PM
|
Geez, agreeing with Brandioch now. The End is Near.
#1. Compare the mass of an ICBM with the mass of a meteor. and Now, if the meteor is hit, it will break up into smaller chunks. Um, I think you're missing something here. The type of force required to disable an ICBM is actually pretty small; you probably wouldn't need to do more than launch a chunk of lead into its path and it would be very likely to disable the weapon. An explosive charge would only be insurance. Take the size of an ICBM. I don't know exact dimensions, but maybe 3 meters around and 20 meters (I'm being optimistic, the missiles they fit into subs are smaller) in length? A dangerous asteroid would be 100 meters in diameter; a dinosaur-killer would be much larger. The type of explosives that would be used against an incoming ICBM wouldn't make a dent in a dangerous asteroid. It's doubtful even a nuke would do enough damage to a nickle-iron asteroid to destroy it. And as you note, the ABM defenses would only be catching it as it entered the atmosphere; far, far too late. All that said, just because there may be a bigger danger from so-called suitcase nukes doesn't mean it isn't worth testing and building an ABM system. R&D into ABM as a concept for missile defense can extend to, say, anti-SCUD defenses and anti-Stinger defenses. I'd think that a laser defense system effective against ICBM's should be effective against a wide variety of other targets. On the other hand, I personally would prefer to be putting money into cheap access to space. The NASA bureaucracy is so fixated on the shuttle that they seem to be doing their best to scuttle any competition or alternates. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #21,576
12/15/01 2:23:00 AM
|
What about the danger of elves?
Now, there probably is no such thing as an elf, and if there is, it is probably either benign or miscevious, so the potential reward of stopping an eldrich attack is low.
But we've decided that cost/benefit analysis doesn't apply to Defense, so we better get on it right away. Need I remind you that we are utterly unprepared to defend ourselves from attack by virtualy any mythical creature?
And whatever we decide to use against elves probably would come in handy if we were attacked by gremlins.
Seriously - there is a certain amount of money available for defense. We aren't comparing cost/benefit between free market investments and defense, we are comparing cost/benefit between one form of defense and another. Spending it on technology that might be effective against a threat that is unlikely to materialize may not be as prudent as spending it on known effective defenses against known threats in progress.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #21,581
12/15/01 5:47:52 AM
12/15/01 6:44:37 PM
|
Why__ Haven't__ We__ Been__ Told ?!
Thou sayest, short and not so sweet.
(Been readin again huh? Think our stuff can reach Mordor.. or come near the power of The One Ring ??)
[link|http://www.bbspot.com/News/2001/12/naughty.html|Elves are already on.. an AG competitor's list]
But yer right - we can't be Too safe, now can we? Can anyone here prove that there is no Elvish Threat? Why there might even be already - Elvin-moles!. We can't see them, you say?
That's the scary part..!
Best just to tack on an initial $100B 'seed' along with the planned other windfalls. From JFK we can borrow 'the Elf gap!' and from LBJ perhaps, 'Elves and butter!'
Next we must increase the range of the Tom Cruise Missiles - to at least Mordor. Orcs! those will need many nuclear-powered Swinging Swords. And GPSs too: Gollum Protection Systems. Clearly there is much work to be done, and little time: these must be cost-plus contracts; forget that time-wasting low-bid luxury..
And if you think *this* sounds silly: wait til the BS morphs next towards.. the Immediate Need for granting 100% veto-proof requisition power to King Bushie-II, for reasons of National Security.. and things which go bump in the night.
{sigh}
At this stage of ovine capitulation of all sane checks and balances: HTF Could ya satirize stuff?
Ashton
|
Post #21,585
12/15/01 11:27:22 AM
|
Attack of the Killer Keebler ;)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,624
12/16/01 8:47:01 AM
|
Perhaps pigs want to fly as well
You apparently missed the fact that I think the claim that we actually could make ICBM attack impossible are so much baloney. (And here I thought I made the Microsoft comparison fairly clearly...)
Cost benefit analysis is beside the point. Spending money in pursuit of guaranteed failures is a waste of money. Doesn't matter how nice the result would be. If it ain't going to happen, it ain't going to happen.
If you want to justify the research for secondary benefits, well ask for the secondary research. Because that is all we are going to get. (Now defence contractors, that might be a different story...)
Cheers,
Ben
|
