is there any way that missile defense systems would actually work?

[© tweed]

this has been in the back of my mind, and I may have even read something on the topic a while back.  I don't think the elaborate missile defense systems that we have in place would stand a chance in the event it was forced to work.  think of the vast distances that would have to be able to be covered, and how the margin of error of distance is basically zero.  missing by ten miles would be 99.9999% accurate.  meanwhile there are a lot of factors that cannot easily be controlled for in different layers of the atmosphere.

[dead0man]

A.the missile defense system is anything but "elaborate", a proper umbrella would cost way too much money
2.Just because something seems really hard to do doesn't mean it's impossible
III.If some rogue nation manages to shoot 4 or 5 nukes at us, would you rather lose 5 cities or 2?  Is Seattle worth 4 billion dollars?

[Lunar]

Some theorists argue that such systems make nuclear war more likely, since nations protected by them are less afraid of retaliation

[© tweed]

A.the missile defense system is anything but "elaborate", a proper umbrella would cost way too much money
2.Just because something seems really hard to do doesn't mean it's impossible
III.If some rogue nation manages to shoot 4 or 5 nukes at us, would you rather lose 5 cities or 2?  Is Seattle worth 4 billion dollars?

the point is I think it is prohibitively likely that the number of 'cities saved' is zero.

[minionofmidas]

No. Don't be dumb. The thing is strictly a gift from the taxpayer to a couple of large "defense" contractors.

[dead0man]

A.the missile defense system is anything but "elaborate", a proper umbrella would cost way too much money
2.Just because something seems really hard to do doesn't mean it's impossible
III.If some rogue nation manages to shoot 4 or 5 nukes at us, would you rather lose 5 cities or 2?  Is Seattle worth 4 billion dollars?

the point is I think it is prohibitively likely that the number of 'cities saved' is zero.

So is your mind made up already (if so, what was the point of this thread) or are you open to ideas different than yours?

[GMantis]

A.the missile defense system is anything but "elaborate", a proper umbrella would cost way too much money
2.Just because something seems really hard to do doesn't mean it's impossible
III.If some rogue nation manages to shoot 4 or 5 nukes at us, would you rather lose 5 cities or 2?  Is Seattle worth 4 billion dollars?

In a case of a nuclear strike by Russia (against whom the missile shield is obviously based) does it matter if 1995 missiles reach their targets, instead of 2000?

[dead0man]

Except it's not "against" Russia.  How could it be?  As you point out, it's nowhere near big enough and nobody claims it is. 


Except maybe Putin.

[Jacobtm]

If Russia wants to obliterate the United States, we can't stop them.

The shield could conceivably stop, or lessen the effects, of an attack less severe than thousands of nukes.

With Russia, an effective missle shield could lower the value of their nuclear arsenal as a threat to neighboring countries.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A missile shield isn't really useful against Russia due to the principle of nuclear deterrence, or MAD. It seems like it would be more of a benefit against rogue states headed by leaders of questionable sanity (i.e. North Korea).

[Coburn In 2012]

actually the SDI would have worked just fine.  but the liberals kept unfunding it.

[GMantis]

actually the SDI would have worked just fine.  but the liberals kept unfunding it.

Could you give some evidence? From a neutral source?

[Coburn In 2012]

actually the SDI would have worked just fine.  but the liberals kept unfunding it.

Could you give some evidence? From a neutral source?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1992/KMP.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg664.cfm

(And Heritage is a very neutral source.  Just because liberals disagree with it doesn't make it biased.  I have found them to be top knotch in every respect of analyzing policy)

[GMantis]

actually the SDI would have worked just fine.  but the liberals kept unfunding it.

Could you give some evidence? From a neutral source?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1992/KMP.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg664.cfm

(And Heritage is a very neutral source.  Just because liberals disagree with it doesn't make it biased.  I have found them to be top knotch in every respect of analyzing policy)

Thank you. Neither of the two sources asserts that SDI could fully protect the US from a full scale nuclear attack. Both talk of limited defense, 30% and so on. I don't need say what would happen with the US if it was hit by 70% of the Soviet strategic missile arsenal.
Calling a foundation which was a significant basis for Reagan's policies neutral is ridiculous even for you.

[Lief 🗽]

Here is an article I found on the first site based on a study done by the second site:

How Out of Control Entitlement Spending Is Draining the Defense Budget

hahahahahaha

[dead0man]

Can we all agree to stop reading this thread at post 9?  Maybe if we go back to wondering why GMantis thinks the current, real missile defense system (not some possible one we could have made in the 80s with has nothing to do with anything) is "against" Russia.

[minionofmidas]

Can we all agree to stop reading this thread at post 9?  Maybe if we go back to wondering why GMantis thinks the current, real missile defense system (not some possible one we could have made in the 80s with has nothing to do with anything) is "against" Russia.

Nobody's really ever thought it to be against anything else. (Well, Russia and China).

[dead0man]

Can we all agree to stop reading this thread at post 9?  Maybe if we go back to wondering why GMantis thinks the current, real missile defense system (not some possible one we could have made in the 80s with has nothing to do with anything) is "against" Russia.

Nobody's really ever thought it to be against anything else. (Well, Russia and China).

I don't think I understand.  Are you saying you agree with GMantis that the current missile defense system as currently employed by the US is "against" Russia (and China)?

[minionofmidas]

It's aimed at ending MAD, or requiring a massive nuclear buildup by Russia and China to preserve it. Of course it's an aggressive act aimed at Russia and China (your traditional military paranoid worst-case-scenario logic means that it doesn't even have to work - it's perfectly sufficient that they can't be sure it won't). The Eastern European shrieks of fear about it, and the decision to put them within the shield, further drives the point of anti-Russian aggression home.

[dead0man]

But how can it be if EVERYBODY agrees it's not big enough to put a dent in a Russian strike?

[minionofmidas]

But how can it be if EVERYBODY agrees it's not big enough to put a dent in a Russian strike?

I'm not sure EVERYBODY does. I think everybody thinks it probably isn't... but that's something else entirely.
The deceitful claims about the thing being aimed against rogue groups wherever (as if it could work without knowledge of launching areas) do nothing to inspire confidence, either... though of course the point is to mislead an uninformed US public, not to mislead the Russian military. But get the idiots in the Russian military to understand that.