'Star Wars' today: What would Reagan do?
President Reagan stunned fellow citizens and the world 30 years ago this month with a dramatic announcement that the United States would develop and deploy a system capable of intercepting and destroying strategic ballistic missiles. Like President Kennedy's pledge to send a man to the moon, Reagan's vision was meant to stretch minds to new realities that most found inconceivable.
As the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, developed, this vision encompassed three big ideas. First, technological advances would make it possible to "hit a bullet with a bullet." Second, when fully deployed, this missile defense system would "render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." For Reagan, this was an essential steppingstone to his even grander vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Third, to persuade America's Cold War adversary to eliminate its superpower nuclear arsenal as well, Reagan proposed to share this SDI technology with Moscow.
All three dimensions of Reagan's vision drew immediate, fiery criticism at home and abroad. Skeptics argued that killing a missile with a missile was technically impossible. Thirty years and more than $150 billion of investment later, this objection has been largely overcome. Today, the United States and its allies have deployed missile defense systems for shorter-range missiles (for example, the Israeli Iron Dome and U.S. Patriot systems) and for longer-range missiles (the sea-based Aegis system and a ground-based system deployed in Alaska). Just this month, in response to North Korea's threats, the Obama administration announced plans to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors.
Reagan's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons was initially rejected by most of the American establishment as naive and dangerous. In the last decade, however, four of the bluest chips from the American Cold War establishment George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn have put this back on the American strategic agenda.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allison-missile-defense-reagan-20130328,0,6240638.story
Itchinjim
(3,085 posts)And bust the storm trooper's union.
One of the technical concerns about SDI was that it would not have a high enough kill ratio. That is the number of inbound warheads successfully prevent from impact or detonation.
In a full scale engagement with the Soviets, the potential count of inbound warheads could be in the thousands to the tens of thousands. At those levels, including false targets which would change the inbound target count by up to an order of magnitude, the effective kill ratio was not high enough to stop an attack entirely.
Lives lost would have been in the millions.
To date, the SDI program has failed to address this challenge except by significantly altering the 'rules of engagement', significantly reducing the number of inbound warheads to be stopped.
SDI today remains the love child of those few who think that technology solves all and a economic boon to defense contractors.
Macoy51
(239 posts)I guess the ability to knock down NK nukes aimed at Las Angles, San Francisco and Seattle is kinda worthless. If we cant knock down thousands of ICBMs, then whats the point in just knocking down a few. The lost of life if the three cities mentioned above were nuked would be sad, but just think of the construction boon that would result in rebuilding.
/sarcam
Macoy
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and say "Barack I am your father"
Sorry couldn't resist