Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:48 AM Jun 2014

$40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable

Source: LAT

With a convulsive rumble, followed by billowing flames and exhaust, a sleek 60-foot rocket emerged from its silo at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.

It was a test of the backbone of the nation's missile defense system. If North Korea or Iran ever launched nuclear weapons against the United States, the interceptors at Vandenberg and remote Ft. Greely, Alaska, would be called on to destroy the incoming warheads.

Scientists conducting the test at Vandenberg on Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010, had left little to chance. They knew exactly when the target missile would be launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands 4,900 miles away. They knew its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and speed.

Based on this and other data, they had estimated the route the interceptor's heat-seeking "kill vehicle" would have to follow to destroy the target.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html#navtype=outfit



The more complicated it is, the more ways it can go wrong.
71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
$40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable (Original Post) bemildred Jun 2014 OP
You mean RayGun was wrong???n/t TexasProgresive Jun 2014 #1
Raygun was wrong about a lot of things. bemildred Jun 2014 #2
brfore we are dead. olddad56 Jun 2014 #25
Indeed. nt bemildred Jun 2014 #27
Han't Reagan been out of office for a while? Even dead for a while? merrily Jun 2014 #59
Since he started "star wars" he gets the blame and if it worked the credit. TexasProgresive Jun 2014 #60
Your reply does not address my prior post, so I can only refer you to it again. merrily Jun 2014 #61
Sure, there's loads of blame to go around. TexasProgresive Jun 2014 #62
Hence the comments in my first post about Presidents--Commanders in Chief-- merrily Jun 2014 #63
Don't worry. There's more new missiles on the drawing board to buy... Octafish Jun 2014 #3
Sprint worked well PeoViejo Jun 2014 #19
Let's see......India and Pakistan are at each other's throats.......both have nukes........ LongTomH Jun 2014 #36
What a mess MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #4
This is a rare case of a weapons platform working perfectly since inception Orrex Jun 2014 #5
+ struggle4progress Jun 2014 #39
^^Nailed it!!! Strat54 Jun 2014 #45
+1 (n/t) Nihil Jun 2014 #46
We could have ended homelessness Pharaoh Jun 2014 #6
The Hell You Say, Sir.... The Magistrate Jun 2014 #7
Hey, Vanguard was a flop, too. malthaussen Jun 2014 #8
Actually, Vanguard worked very well Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #9
I refer to the first, highly-publicized Vanguard launch attempt. malthaussen Jun 2014 #10
I think the hysteria was caused by the orbiting Russian satellite Sputnik, and jtuck004 Jun 2014 #31
Mal is correct about Vanguard. I remember it well. nt bemildred Jun 2014 #13
You may be thinking of the Voyager satellites. Vanguard blew up on the launch pad. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2014 #20
No, I am thinking of Vanguard Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #22
thought a quick googling shows Vanguard cost $0.9B in today's dollars MisterP Jun 2014 #33
Billions and decades have been spent on the pie-in-the sky missile defense lark Jun 2014 #47
There's an article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #11
That's about the size of it. bemildred Jun 2014 #14
Even at those percentages I think 1 to 5 nuclear warheads impacting US cities.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #30
It just provides an incentive for the enemy to increase the number of missiles or just put........ LongTomH Jun 2014 #37
The Russians have a newer missile nilesobek Jun 2014 #42
Iron Dome is defending against a simpler threat caraher Jun 2014 #40
When the Iraqis were shooting Scud missiles at Israel some years ago Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #44
They were firing scuds back in '91...ABM has moved forward since then some.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #48
So you are in favor of spending trillions of dollars on a system THAT DOESN'T WORK Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #49
I think leaving the fate of America cities not to be incinerated.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #50
Of course, you neglect to mention that these test firings were under optimal conditions Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #54
Either they hit a bullet with a bullet or they didn't.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #55
You mean, of course, well, knowing when and where is a very great help Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #56
Well if i am wrong we develop some more high tech that may have spin offs, spend some money..etc.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #57
You mean, of course Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #58
"Let me restate my point: ABM systems work very poorly".....in your opinion.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #64
You seem to have an odd definition of "does not work well" Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #68
And you have a odd definition of "does not work" also... EX500rider Jun 2014 #69
Look to Israel for short and medium range success stories KareBear Jun 2014 #51
It's f@ckin reliable for Boeing and Ratheon...as a cash cow KeepItReal Jun 2014 #12
Just another giveaway to defence contractors, who gave to the politicians. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #15
It works 50% of the time.... Historic NY Jun 2014 #16
Senator: Why, these missiles are so bad that half of them fall outside the CEP. Witness: Yes, 24601 Jun 2014 #24
Perhaps a defence missile that released a wall of dollar bills might work daleo Jun 2014 #17
Not surprising drm604 Jun 2014 #18
think of the roads, schools, bridges that could have been WhiteTara Jun 2014 #21
About $126 n/t lancer78 Jun 2014 #23
This system's main purpose tabasco Jun 2014 #26
Of course. By that metric the system is a complete success! pa28 Jun 2014 #34
Defense Longie Jun 2014 #28
MIM-104 Patriot on steroids. Downwinder Jun 2014 #29
The PAC-3 & MSE are light years better than the original Patriot system. n/t tammywammy Jun 2014 #38
Too critical packman Jun 2014 #32
With enough pizza and golf tournaments for the people who let the contracts, we can get $80 b. jtuck004 Jun 2014 #35
why wouldn't these 2 locations be an attackers first strikes? Sunlei Jun 2014 #41
better throw another 100 billion at it. The Iraq strategy redux Doctor_J Jun 2014 #43
"because Columbus and Apollo" MisterP Jun 2014 #53
K&R Jamastiene Jun 2014 #52
I beg to differ. DeSwiss Jun 2014 #65
Yeah, but the MIC needs a new pair of shoes! Alex P Notkeaton Jun 2014 #66
It reliably makes money for multi-death corporations. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #67
It would have been cheaper just to buy every enemy ICBM then in existence jmowreader Jun 2014 #70
The somewhat amusing assumption there that Russian or Chinese ICBM's are for sale? EX500rider Jun 2014 #71

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
2. Raygun was wrong about a lot of things.
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:02 AM
Jun 2014

But he is dead. We need to address the current crop of people who are wrong.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
59. Han't Reagan been out of office for a while? Even dead for a while?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:41 AM
Jun 2014

At what point do things that continue for decades stop being all the fault of one ex-President?

Was Vietnam all the fault of Truman?

Or of Eisenhower?

Or of JFK?

Or of Johnson?

Or of Nixon?

Sure, Truman fell for "the absolute necessity" of taking the baton from the French while they were getting themselves the hell out of there, to contain the Red Satan, but geez, there was more than enough blame to go around. I rather suspect that is the case here, too. For one thing, JFK was one of few Presidents to stand the fuck up to the Pentagon.

When things get tough, the solution seems to be to get tough on the poor and keep your hands off the Pentagon. It's about time we hold Presidents and Congress accountable for failing to hold the Pentagon accountable. I am not sure exactly how we do that, but I doubt it's by blaming a long dead President for most to all of our current problems.

TexasProgresive

(12,148 posts)
60. Since he started "star wars" he gets the blame and if it worked the credit.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:19 AM
Jun 2014

G.W.Bush started Iraq and Afghanistan so it is his legacy.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983,[1] to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

merrily

(45,251 posts)
61. Your reply does not address my prior post, so I can only refer you to it again.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:32 AM
Jun 2014

I never questioned that Reagan initiated this, which is the only point your reply proves.

Also, I am not at all sure Reagan would have gotten the credit today (or under Clinton or Bush) if anything that Reagan had started finally worked during one of those administrations. However, neither of us can prove or disprove that point, given that it is totally hypothetical.

But the idea that no President can stop something started by another President is indisputably false. So why should all Presidents after Reagan get a pass for this? More to the point, how does it help Jane and Joe Q. American to say that only a former (and, in this case, dead) President has any responsibility at all for things he started and subsequent Presidents either continued or doubled down on?

TexasProgresive

(12,148 posts)
62. Sure, there's loads of blame to go around.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:00 AM
Jun 2014

But once these Military-Industrial-Complex boondoggles gets in place it becomes almost impossible to get rid of them no matter how worthless they are because the MIC and it's lobbyists and bought congresscritters will make every effort to keep the public moneys flowing into their pockets.

Bill Clinton attempted to slow down SDI but when Shrub became president, ever the worshiper of Ronald Reagan, he ginned SDI back up full force. It is just one massive fail and waste of money. President Obama's attempts to rein in spending on SDI have been called traitorous at the worst and weak minded at the least.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
63. Hence the comments in my first post about Presidents--Commanders in Chief--
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:05 AM
Jun 2014

failing to reign in the Pentagon.

As far as Clinton and Obama "trying" to "slow down" this program, but Bush thwarting both his predecessor and his successor (and a Democratic Congress 2007-09?), please.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
3. Don't worry. There's more new missiles on the drawing board to buy...
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:05 AM
Jun 2014
US offers ground-breaking defence technologies to India

Press Trust of India | Washington | June 14, 2014

The US has a number of “ground-breaking” defence technologies, including a helicopter and an unmanned aerial vehicle program, to offer to India for co-development and co-production, a top Pentagon official has said.

“We have a number of offers on the table for India. There’s a ground-breaking offer to share in the next generation of the Javelin missile, co-production and co-development,” Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, told reporters.

He said the offers in the list also include a helicopter program and an unmanned aerial vehicle program.

“We have an artillery piece. We have a number of things in different stages of process,” said Kendall, who has been tasked by US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel to lead Pentagon’s Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) with India.

CONTINUED...

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-others/us-offers-ground-breaking-defence-technologies-to-india/
 

PeoViejo

(2,178 posts)
19. Sprint worked well
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:07 PM
Jun 2014

It had a Nuclear warhead. No need to hit the incoming Warhead. There was a problem with that concept: EMP

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
36. Let's see......India and Pakistan are at each other's throats.......both have nukes........
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 04:38 PM
Jun 2014

.......and we're selling weapons to both! Like, what could go wrong?

Orrex

(63,083 posts)
5. This is a rare case of a weapons platform working perfectly since inception
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:12 AM
Jun 2014

It was conceived, designed, and implemented as a means to funnel cash into the pockets of its corporate backers, and it has functioned perfectly since day one.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
9. Actually, Vanguard worked very well
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:35 AM
Jun 2014

Indeed, it's still working (and using up a piece of the radio spectrum NASA would really like to get back).

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
31. I think the hysteria was caused by the orbiting Russian satellite Sputnik, and
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:06 PM
Jun 2014

the explosion of our rocket added to it as we tried to get as powerful as they were beginning to appear.

The Russians telling us that a piece of their rocket that put Sputnik up there fell on us didn't help any, I suspect. Or when Khrushchev made fun of our satellite. Called it an 'orange", 3ish pounds compared to their orbiting 180 lb sphere. After the rocket blew up and threw it free they reported it laid on the ground, beeping.

Satellite-Launching Attempt Fails As Vanguard Missile Blows Up; Reds Say Sputnik Rocket in U.S.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1957/12/7/satellite-launching-attempt-fails-as-vanguard-missile/

Seems the Russian papers at the time had a little fun too, praising their Sputnik and calling our efforts a "Flopnik".

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
22. No, I am thinking of Vanguard
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:50 PM
Jun 2014

Actually, Vanguard I, Vanguard II and Vanguard III, which were all launched in 1959, and all three of which are still orbiting.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
33. thought a quick googling shows Vanguard cost $0.9B in today's dollars
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:15 PM
Jun 2014

and I saw the poor little "grapefruit" in DC

lark

(22,993 posts)
47. Billions and decades have been spent on the pie-in-the sky missile defense
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:18 PM
Jun 2014

and it's still a total cluster f***. Even when we know exactly where the missile should be, we can't hit it. This is a stupid waste of money and I'm apalled that Obama is still including one cent of funding for this boondoggle.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
11. There's an article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:41 AM
Jun 2014

From February of last year at http://thebulletin.org/does-missile-defense-work that is apropos.

I can sum it up briefly: Missile defense systems are very expensive, Republicans love them, but they don't work very well.

In particular, the system had great difficulty distinguishing between actual warheads and dummy warheads. An example of a dummy warhead is a balloon, which are dirt cheap and can be deployed in quantity from a single missile.

I did a statistical analysis of an attack by ten missiles, each with one real warhead and nine dummies, being countered by 100 missiles, with each counter missile having a 90% chance of hitting a real or dummy warhead (and that is an incredibly generous probability of a hit -- 50% or less is much more likely).

The chance of at least one real warhead getting through was over 99%. The chance of 5 real warheads getting through was over 85%.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
14. That's about the size of it.
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:52 AM
Jun 2014

Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then, but that's not good enough for nuclear war.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
30. Even at those percentages I think 1 to 5 nuclear warheads impacting US cities..
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jun 2014

....is significantly better then 10.
Also the Israeli's Iron Dome system has worked out fairly well. It calculates impact trajectory and only fires if it's going to hit a urban area. I think if we had incoming Chinese or North Korean warheads a large percentage would be off course and the ABM system would benefit from that type of discriminatory software. Obviously knocking them all down would be better but if ones going to hit empty desert and one is going to take out LA the LA warhead is a much better target.

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
37. It just provides an incentive for the enemy to increase the number of missiles or just put........
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 04:43 PM
Jun 2014

......more warheads and 'penetration aids' (dummies) on their existing missiles.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
42. The Russians have a newer missile
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:51 PM
Jun 2014

dubbed, "Thor," which changes its flight trajectory radically during flight which makes it almost impossible to intercept. It was cheaply made and made Raygun's dream die in the silos. It zigs and it zags.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
40. Iron Dome is defending against a simpler threat
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:11 PM
Jun 2014

The engineering problem is vastly more difficult for ICBM warheads. Re-entering warheads are so fast it would be far too difficult to effect an intercept by the time you determined whether a warhead is on-target - and what "on target" means is subject to some guesswork given the unknown yield of the warheads.

You'd also be stuck coping with decoys. This is part of why boost-phase intercept systems get talked up - you have a target with a big signature across the spectrum and if you can hit it on the way up, decoys are a non-issue.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
44. When the Iraqis were shooting Scud missiles at Israel some years ago
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:26 AM
Jun 2014

Do you know how many missiles were intercepted? I'll give you a hint, it's an integer between 1 and -1, non-inclusive.

Simply put, anti-missile systems are incredibly expensive and don't work very well. In the analysis I made said that there was essentially a 50% probability that at least 7 warheads would get through. That is NOT significantly better than 10.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
48. They were firing scuds back in '91...ABM has moved forward since then some..
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:34 PM
Jun 2014

.....and again, the 3 possible US cities saved might be considered a better outcome for the inhabitants of those 3 cities...

Also it's a multi-layered defense with Aegis for boost, GBI for mid and THAAD and Patriot for terminal. No doubt the Russians could swamp the system with MIRV's and penetration aids but the Chinese and N Koreans not so much. And with 4 different systems batting 50-70% you will see a higher attrition rate then 50%.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
49. So you are in favor of spending trillions of dollars on a system THAT DOESN'T WORK
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:52 AM
Jun 2014

If I were to present a medical treatment that failed 99% of the time, the best response I could hope for is "better luck next time". But you want to THROW AWAY vast amounts of money on an anti-missile system which has a massive failure rate: A fifty-fifty chance of failing 70% of the time is unacceptable in the real world, especially given the huge costs.

Incidentally, in my analysis, I was extremely generous in my success rate -- I gave each anti-missile a 90% chance of hitting a target. I just did it again with a considerably more realistic success rate of 50%. In that case, there is an 87% chance of all ten warheads hitting their targets, and a 40% chance of six getting through.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
50. I think leaving the fate of America cities not to be incinerated..
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:48 PM
Jun 2014

...should not be left in the hands of possibly crazies or megalomaniac leaders and dictators around the world. Even the possibility of accidental launch is there with China or Russia. I don't trust the leaders of N Korea any further then i can throw them. The only way to get a robust ABM system is to continue to work to develop one. And the Ageis RIM-161A system has not failed "99%" of the time.
Overall the Aegis has been successful in about 85 percent of its test firings.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
54. Of course, you neglect to mention that these test firings were under optimal conditions
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jun 2014

The people doing the firing knew exactly when the target missile would be fired, from where it would be fired, and its precise course. And, of course, that there would be only one target, no dummies.

No, my objection stands: ABM systems are extremely costly, and the success rate does not justify the cost.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
55. Either they hit a bullet with a bullet or they didn't..
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:50 PM
Jun 2014

Knowing when and where isn't that much help, they don't preload the directions....either the BMEW's or AGIS gets a solid lock and transmits to the missile or it doesn't. Either the missile locks on on final or it doesn't. And Chinese and N Korean missiles will be on well know trajectories from their silos also. Only difference will be the time constraint on getting a green light to take the shot.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
56. You mean, of course, well, knowing when and where is a very great help
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:21 PM
Jun 2014

Compared to a surprise launch. If you are conducting a test, and you know all the parameters, that makes things much easier. And it's not quite hitting a bullet with a bullet, it's more like hitting a duck with a shotgun. If you know exactly where the duck is, exactly which direction it's flying, and exactly how fast it's flying, that makes shooting it much easier.

No, it is clear that you support throwing billions of dollars at a system which works for crap. I do not know why you have this avid desire to waste vast amounts of money, but I say that it is a waste. A bloody expensive waste.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
57. Well if i am wrong we develop some more high tech that may have spin offs, spend some money..etc..
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:21 PM
Jun 2014

....if you are wrong millions of Americans could be incinerated in their homes from a rogue lunch, accidental launch or suicidal launch.

I would tend to error on the side of caution here. ymmv

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
58. You mean, of course
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:51 AM
Jun 2014

" i am wrong we MIGHT POSSIBLY develop some more high tech that may have spin offs (or we might just throw away billions for nothing". And if there is a "rogue launch, accidental launch or suicidal launch", the ABM system almost certainly won't work -- so we will have millions killed as well as having wasted billions for nothing. And, also " I would tend to error on the side of wasting over a trillion dollars here. ymmv"

Let me restate my point: ABM systems work very poorly, and are very expensive. The US has poured over a trillion dollars down that rathole, and has nothing to show for it.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
64. "Let me restate my point: ABM systems work very poorly".....in your opinion..
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jun 2014

The percentages of successful warhead interception seem to indicate otherwise.

And a trillion dollars while a very large chunk of money is still only about 6% of the US annual GDP of around 16 trillion. And over what period was 1 trillion spent? Still a amount I would gladly spend if it kept even 1 US population center from being nuked in the future.
ymmv..

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
68. You seem to have an odd definition of "does not work well"
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 06:12 AM
Jun 2014

Your argument amounts to "I'm afraid, so I believe the country should waste trillions on a system that DOES NOT WORK. Furthermore, I am going to pretend that it does work."

That is a very silly argument. Oh, and if you think that a trillion dollars is a drop in the bucket, then you will have no problem in sending me a thousand or so. I have some plumbing issues in my house that a grand would almost certainly solve, and money clearly means nothing to you.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
69. And you have a odd definition of "does not work" also...
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:36 PM
Jun 2014
Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted.

On 4 October 2013, an SM-3 Block IB eliminated the medium-range ballistic missile target at the highest altitude of any test to date. The test was the 26th successful intercept for the SM-3 program and the fifth back-to-back successful test of the SM-3 Block IB missile. Post-mission data showed that the intercept was slightly lower than anticipated, but the systems adjusted to ensure the missile intercepted the target. The SM-3 Block IB is expected to be delivered for service in 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

KareBear

(192 posts)
51. Look to Israel for short and medium range success stories
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:59 PM
Jun 2014

Iron Dome for short range
David's Sling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Sling) for medium range.

David's Sling would wipe the floor with incoming scuds today.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
12. It's f@ckin reliable for Boeing and Ratheon...as a cash cow
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jun 2014

Every dud they launch equals more $millions in rework and bug fixes

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
15. Just another giveaway to defence contractors, who gave to the politicians.
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:22 AM
Jun 2014

The missile defence shield was yet another of the many lies Americans were told, and seem to relish believing.

The current big lie giveaway is the F35.

24601

(3,940 posts)
24. Senator: Why, these missiles are so bad that half of them fall outside the CEP. Witness: Yes,
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jun 2014

Senator, you've nailed the definition of Circular Error Probable (CEP).

The most dangerous aspect of the possibilities of nuclear war were never the weapons but the humans.

Nuclear strategies, both counter-force (targets predominantly military) and counter-value (targets predominantly cities) strategies relied on judgments of the effectiveness. With the USSR, the decision makers had tables drawn up that calculation the correlation of forces. While the correlations themselves were not all that difficult, the challenge was to get to the next decision level to know: if Cf = X, the operational launch decision is Y.

The US and USSR had plenty of warheads & delivery systems for approximately 3500 targets in the USSR and 4000 targets in the US. What missile defenses did and do is, with respect to great power war, introduce uncertainties regarding the probable targeting success sufficiently to cloud decisions that could lead one to believe a nuclear exchange is winnable. To be effective, it doesn't have to be air-tight, just uncertain enough.

And regarding a smaller state actor who develops a small number of 1st generation weapons with a small number of missiles capable of reaching the US, a robust system that can overwhelm doesn't have to have a one-missile, one interceptor precision capability.

Is it worth it to have a capability to save just one target, even if it's only Honolulu, LA, or San Francisco, or even Las Vegas? And is it worth it to have a system that never has to be used because it keeps a rational decision maker from crossing the line to an irrational launch decision?

Should we pay lots of $ for something we don't want to have to use? That seems to work for health insurance where annual spending in the US has hit $3.6 Trillion and an injury or illness will never be scared away because you might have access to care.

Is the right spending level - much less than Americans spend annually on our pets ($61B), movie spending worldwide ($62B) or beer ($97B).

Worth as much as pets? Dogs maybe, certainly not for cats.
Is LA worth more than beer? Maybe, maybe not - are we talking about GOOD beer or Schlitz?

That's the beauty if the US, you can vote with your wallet and in the mid-terms.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_do_Americans_spend_on_beer_annually?#slide=2

http://qz.com/86525/americans-spend-more-annually-on-pets-than-beer-or-movies/




daleo

(21,317 posts)
17. Perhaps a defence missile that released a wall of dollar bills might work
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jun 2014

At any rate, it would cost less.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
21. think of the roads, schools, bridges that could have been
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 12:37 PM
Jun 2014

repaired for that amount of money. I wonder what kind a monetary payout that would equal for every person in the US. Probably enough to take a vacation or make a mortgage payment or pay off a credit card.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
26. This system's main purpose
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:18 PM
Jun 2014

was to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to traitorous war industry profiteers.

 

Longie

(10 posts)
28. Defense
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jun 2014

A military that thinks it has an adequate missile defense is a very dangerous military to itself and to the world.
Longie

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
32. Too critical
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:08 PM
Jun 2014

What I gathered from this is that we need the Russians/Chinese/whomever to tell us when they are going to launch, where they are going to launch, and some other shit - and then we will have a viable defense system. Works for me Money well spent

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
35. With enough pizza and golf tournaments for the people who let the contracts, we can get $80 b.
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 03:52 PM
Jun 2014

That's our target, not some silly missile.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
52. K&R
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jun 2014

Figured as much. It's working as intended though, to make the MIC richer. I guess they'll be the next squeaky war wheel that gets more grease. Meanwhile, the homeless stay homeless and children remain hungry in this country and around the world, because by God, there is ALWAYS money for more war toys.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
65. I beg to differ.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

The $40 billion missile defense system has proven to be remarkably reliable at shitting gobs of taxpayer money down a rabbit hole that has defense contractors at the bottom of it,

- So success, in this case, is measured by what one's objectives are.

K&R
[center]

[/center]
 

Alex P Notkeaton

(309 posts)
66. Yeah, but the MIC needs a new pair of shoes!
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:47 PM
Jun 2014

With Afghanistan winding down, the complex's profits are in danger.































 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
67. It reliably makes money for multi-death corporations.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:08 PM
Jun 2014

It also contributes to an insanely aggressive foreign and "defense" policy, again with the essential element of plundering tax revenues to make hyperprofits for contractors in the consolidated mass-murder industries. That's all that ever mattered.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
70. It would have been cheaper just to buy every enemy ICBM then in existence
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 01:33 AM
Jun 2014

Write a contract with every country that makes ICBMs: we will give you X number of dollars for each missile, X1 for every litre of rocket fuel, Y number for each piece of support equipment and Z number for your technology, and if you make any more we will flatten the factory and your capital city with 15,000-pound conventional bombs.

As soon as we bought up all the missiles there were, we'd eliminate ours too.

If you fuckers want to blow each other up, do it the old-fashioned way: aerial bombardment from manned airplanes. No more missiles.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
71. The somewhat amusing assumption there that Russian or Chinese ICBM's are for sale?
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jun 2014

And their entire inventory?
Fat chance.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»$40 billion missile defen...