U.S. SPACE FIRST STRIKE PROGRAM WELL UNDERWAY

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22449

U.S. SPACE FIRST STRIKE PROGRAM WELL UNDERWAY
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-05-13 16:08. Media

Bruce K. Gagnon, http://www.space4peace.org

In the House of Representatives last week Democratic Party Congress members lead the way to approve money for Star Wars research and development programs in the fiscal year 2008 budget.

Rejecting the recommendations of a sub-committee, Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and John Larson (D-CT) restored $150 million to Pentagon boost phase missile defense programs, $48 million for future missile defense systems, including space sensors, $12 million more for sea-based sensors and language to allow $160 million for a highly controversial European missile defense site.

snip//

Following an International Conference against the Militarization of Europe last week in Prague, a statement was released by the participants. It said, in part, that "We voice our protest against the plans of the Bush administration to install a 'national missile defense system' for the U.S. on the territory of the Czech Republic and Poland . Most people in the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as in the rest of Europe, reject plans to host this system. We reject the official reasons given for the NMD project as mere pretexts."

"The realisation of the U.S. plan will not lead to enhanced security. On the contrary - it will lead to new dangers and insecurities."

"Although it is described as 'defensive', in reality it will allow the United States to attack other countries without fear of retaliation. It will also put 'host' countries on the front line in future U.S. wars."

more...

And unfortunately, it will still probably never be enough to make my investments in SpaceHab and SpaceDev (which were purchased in a spirit of optimism and peaceful exploration pre-Bush) earn me enough to pay back the brokerage fees that have now cost me more than the stocks are worth.

This is not in any way financial advice of any kind.

Technology wasn't there in 1984 or whenever the idea was concocted.

The technology exists now.

Question is, can a sensoring device accurately spot a nuke and destroy it in time, so no radiation or EMP could cause damage?

You set one fin off at a slightly different angle from the others, and you get a rather random corkscrew spin.

This can be done during boost phase or re-entry.

If you're concerned about accuracy during re-entry, then you either straighten the offset fin in time to accurately aim at a target during the last moments, or else you use an extra "spin-fin" that you can jettison when it's time to fly straight.

Cheap and easy.

which does matter, even with nukes

and move to a more controlled, guided phase.

But when it comes to a nuclear attack, we're only likely facing one of two kinds of scenarios:

1) A Rogue nation or terrorist group launching only one or two nuclear weapons. In this case, accuracy only matters in terms of casualties on the ground. The actual goal of such an attack isn't to create US Casualties, but to provoke a US Response to the attack. Compared to a nuclear attack, 9/11 was a mere pinprick-- and look how out-of-control our response was to THAT. An inaccurate nuke aimed at Manhattan but landing in Allentown, PA would still provoke an insanely suicidal US response in the world stage.

2) A massive all-out attack by a large nuclear power. Accuracy doesn't matter much at all. In fact, if Russia wanted to destroy the world, all they would have to do is detonate their missiles right in their own silos without even launching them. The resulting fall-out, nuclear winter, and plagues would kill the rest of the world along with them-- only more slowly.

Accuracy would only matter to a large nuclear power crazy enough to think that limited strikes against strategic targets won't eventually lead to
escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction.

You can not maitain an inertial fix with that kind of moverment.

There are still hardened targets that required precise placement, esp if you are trying to prevent a counterstrike.

Assuming you're right and that the spinfin idea won't work. It is exactly rocket science.

Prevent a counterstrike? Hah! You're going to take out every nuke silo in the US with ICBMs before we can launch?

This is very similar to the Jack Bauer torture scenario - it doesn't exist in the real world or any similar to it. It's not a problem that needs to be solved.

A Rogue nation/terrorist group of A massive all-out attack by a large nuclear power. However, his conclusion and yours is inaccurate in that precision really doesn't matter in the latter case. It does. In any attack there are key sites that must be destroyed for success (however it is measured). For those accuracy matters.

In the past, the decentralized nature of the US nuclear forces were designed to make a single strike knock out blow impossbile. However, considering the massive removal of ICBMs, the three pronged force is closer to two and even those are significantly smaller. That may well be a good thing.

Provided the strike were accurate, at all of our nuclear assets? That between launch and impact we couldn't retaliate? We still have MAD, and it's a pretty strong shield against a large nuclear power which would care about precision.

In the case of a rogue nation/terrorist group with missiles, I don't believe they'd care about incredible accuracy for the most part. If you pick a good target area you'll hit something of value. Even if you don't, terrorism is already accomplished. It would be a "shame" if you hit albany (or the atlantic) instead of NYC or whatever, but still.

And in any case, it just seems to me that if the tech exists to TRACK a missile, then that same level of tech on a missile could easily evade the tracker. Pathing is a very difficult problem, especially in 3d.

today than in years past.

I disagree with you about evasion being easier than tracking. Tracking is quite easy. Hitting it with something else is hard.

Instead of blowing up the world 10 times over, maybe only twice!

Even with the decommission of many ICBM sites, our Trident Subs can still destroy any country very easily.

A limited missle "shield" designed to deter one or two missles is OK with me. What is going on with the Eastern-Europe situation is just mind boggling. We are starting Cold War II.

but not for conventional interceptors. A target can spin all day, but that isn't going to stop it from getting blown to smithereens by a conventional warhead mounted on an interceptor. You still don't need to be all that accurate to do enough damage to destroy another rocket. Particularly if it is in a powered flight stage.

However, the failure of anti-missile systems runs deeper than that. Basically, it costs more to build each interceptor than it does to build each missile (or decoy to be thrown in with the missiles). If one side has 100 interceptors, the other side just needs to build an extra 100 missiles to negate them. The more you build interceptors, the more you lose economically.

I agree with the earlier post about it just being welfare for the aerospace industry.

is a myth.


We've practiced Peace through Strength.

I think we're due for our share of enjoying the benefit of Strength through Peace.

Everyone is missing the leading point in this article.

"Our" Dems are leading this effort in Congress. According to the quoted article they are rejecting - REJECTING - the subcommittee recommendations against this stuff.

The same Democratic party that shot down Reagan's ridiculous plans for Star Wars oh, so many years ago is now leading the congressional effort to install first strike star wars.

Kind of boggles the mind.

Wat

(edit due to inability to spell)

Until we manage to de-facise our government, these Dem supports for crap-a-rama will continue to SURGE.

Tax dollars to campaign donations.

They don't care if it works or not, and will only do enough to make it look like they are doing something.

It's like mom sends you to the liquor store for booze, and you buy cigarettes and dirty magazines for yourself first, and then whatever mom wants.

She doesn't ask you about the change, 'cause she's got her booze.

The politicians are the mom, and the military contractors are her freakish weirdo son playing with their guns and their knives and their peckers in the basement.

No? Then it is a trillion dollar pile of shit. Forget it. Don't fund it first--then forget it. It's an excellent theoretical defense for nuclear attack circa 1965, but absolutely pointless now or in the future.

Wait, I have an important amendment to make: don't fund it first, then secondly, jail the people who propose this nonsense for attempted fraud--then and only then is it safe to, in step three, forget it. Don't forget that middle part!

The terrorism schtick isn't going to last forever, so the new bogeyman is Communist China and her rapidly expanding military budget.

only thing is mad is based on 80's flawed theories of nuclear winter and dissovling of the ozone layer, there is not enough nukes to destroy every sq foot of eother nation even if they used their own nuclear weapons on themselves.