Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[McG]

There is a lot of fixation on ICBMs.  However, the program is not called ICBMD for a reason.  It is intended to function against all sorts of ballistic missiles.  One threat that the US has deemed serious is the possibility of a stolen ocean freighter being used to launch a SCUD type missile (with a nuclear warhead) from just outside US coastal waters.  Such an attack could be launched by terrorists or even a "rouge state" that would hope to avoid US retribution by hiding its involvement.

Whatever technologies go into the homeland BMD will likely be found in deployable BMD systems as well.

 

[a_majoor]

As the current ground based technology is not showing a lot of promise, it seems like we'd just be throwing money away that could be better used for health care and other social programs that have suffered around here recently. Even the US Armed Services Committee has it's doubts:

I also just happen to believe that there is no need to weaponize space until ET comes knocking. Although it'd be hella cool to have the X302 and X303 from Stargate

The current non nuclear system the Americans are working on has a track record of 5 for 8 successful tests, which is pretty good for "bleeding edge" technology. IF they can't get it to work, then health care and social programs (unless you are talking about blast and fallout shelters) might become the least of your worries.

Weaponizing space is another "boogieman" to frighten Liberal voters. After all, there was a breath taking silence when the USSR deployed the worlds first operational anti-satellite system in the early 1980s, and now I believe the Chinese are working towards the same capabilities. A space based BMD system would have small interceptor rockets in orbit (Brilliant pebbles) which could patrol the entire surface of the globe, protecting assets and allies fro launches from any place or type of platform. G-PALS (Global Protection Against Limited Strikes) would have required about 800 interceptors to cover the continental United States and the rest of the world 24/7.

 

[buzgo]

What about the potential of space-based weapons platforms to drastically increase the amount of space junk in orbit?

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/abramsprimack040102.html

That would take care of any space based C4I systems... and GPS, Telesat, IRIDIUM, Intelsat, Bell ExpressVu...

 

[old medic]

The current non nuclear system the Americans are working on has a track record of 5 for 8 successful tests, which is pretty good for "bleeding edge" technology.

5 for 8 when hitting a slow moving target where all target data was pre-set into the system.  Which makes it a very impressive failure.

 

[George Wallace]

5 for 8 when hitting a slow moving target where all target data was pre-set into the system. Which makes it a very impressive failure.

I wonder.  What were the success rates with the first experiments with Black Powder?

GW

 

[48Highlander]

What about the potential of space-based weapons platforms to drastically increase the amount of space junk in orbit?

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/abramsprimack040102.html

That would take care of any space based C4I systems... and GPS, Telesat, IRIDIUM, Intelsat, Bell ExpressVu...

hah!  that's a wonderful argument.  we better not blow up those missiles in space then.  much better to let them wipe out a few million people and contaminate a large chunk of realestate for the next 50+ years.

 

[buzgo]

hah! that's a wonderful argument. we better not blow up those missiles in space then. much better to let them wipe out a few million people and contaminate a large chunk of realestate for the next 50+ years.

The point is that this issue is so complex, that it could be debated forever (23 pages).

Maybe the money being put towards missile defence would be better spent trying to get to the root of the problem.

 

[48Highlander]

It's not complex at all.  People just insist on blowing things out of proportion.  Most arguments against BMD are ludicrous.  What have we had so far?

1)  It doesn't work propery
2)  When it does work, it only stops a few missiles.
3)  It's expensive.
3)  It's bad for the environment (space).

I think that's about it.  Now if you stop and think about it, the first 3 "reasons" could also be used as an argument against kevlar plates.  They only stop small arms, even the calibres they stop they can only take so many hits from, and they're pricey.  So we should get rid of kevlar plates?  Put the money into healthcare instead?  Or we should say that they're a "complex issue", and designate a comittee to study the idea for the next 20 years?  Let's not be silly.

 

[Sub_Guy]

The Missle defence program is a waste of money, the testing IMHO is setup to look good.  I mean I could shoot down an incoming missle with a .22 rifle, if I knew the exact flight path, does that make it successful, no it doesn't.

I feel that the U.S will not even bother with North Korea until this so called defence sheild is up and running.  As they have already found a missle from North Korea in Alaska, the news story on that is posted here some where.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html

Once the shield is up this will give the americans a false sense of security, and the end result will be nasty, as I feel that they will pursue Countries like North Korea.

I am glad we said no to the program, I don't live in fear, I don't drive to working thinking about a missle going off target and taking Victoria out.  The Naval Station Kitsap (Bangor) and the thought of an accident happening down there concerns me more.

Americans have to learn to live in the world, and not to attempt to control it.


I can't stand our government, our military is always on the short end of the stick, but I do agree with the Prime Minister for once, which is rare.


DBF  :skull:

 

[Blue Max]

Sub_Guy,
If I told you when a 747 was flying over you house at level flight, I doubt that you would be able to hit it, never mind a SCUD or ICBM.

I read that report and am dubious as to the veracity of it. The report itself say's
"If the report is accurate, the warhead could be from a North Korean three-stage Taepo Dong 3 ICBM, which is, according to U.S. intelligence sources, capable of striking targets about 9,300 miles away."

Lots of "If's" there. And as pointed out in the article no-one else has picked up the story. Curious, some salt is needed here, me thinks.

B M.

 

[Dare]

Hey, if you can shoot missiles down with your rifle, we should mount you on a turret somewhere. You can be our homegrown Canadian BMD. Although, since the Americans are so busy trying to control the world, they might co-opt you for their own neferous survival related purposes. Wouldn't want North Korea to get a hold of our modern technological advances.

The Missle defence program is a waste of money, the testing IMHO is setup to look good.  I mean I could shoot down an incoming missle with a .22 rifle, if I knew the exact flight path, does that make it successful, no it doesn't.

I feel that the U.S will not even bother with North Korea until this so called defence sheild is up and running.  As they have already found a missle from North Korea in Alaska, the news story on that is posted here some where.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html

Once the shield is up this will give the americans a false sense of security, and the end result will be nasty, as I feel that they will pursue Countries like North Korea.

I am glad we said no to the program, I don't live in fear, I don't drive to working thinking about a missle going off target and taking Victoria out.  The Naval Station Kitsap (Bangor) and the thought of an accident happening down there concerns me more.

Americans have to learn to live in the world, and not to attempt to control it.


I can't stand our government, our military is always on the short end of the stick, but I do agree with the Prime Minister for once, which is rare.


DBF  :skull:

 

[Sub_Guy]

Brilliant!!  I think my point was that you should be scoring 100% on taking down missles if you knew the flight path not 5 out of 8.  How about some random testing....... where the targets are launched randomly..........and no one knows the flight path.........except a choosen few...........

I can always appreciate saracism!!! 

 

[48Highlander]

Brilliant!!   I think my point was that you should be scoring 100% on taking down missles if you knew the flight path not 5 out of 8.  

Reallly?  And you're making this assumption on the basis of....?  Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to steer at an object traveling with a closing speed of 11 kilometers per SECOND?  Especially one being sporadicaly moved about by random atmospheric phenomena?

 

[Thirstyson]

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to steer at an object traveling with a closing speed of 11 kilometers per SECOND?  Especially one being sporadicaly moved about by random atmospheric phenomena?

Yes... that's why I really don't like this system.

 

[big_johnson1]

Yes... that's why I really don't like this system.

Ditto. The fact is that it is very hard to hit a target moving at 11km/s.. The fact that in the test, they MISSED 3 out of 8 times on a target that they knew the trajectory and launch time to, means that it is not an effective system. Russia tested a maneuverable warhead in 1998, so essentially now the system is completely useless. That doesn't even take into account simple decoys that can be added to the warhead.

If you're going to give your opinion about BMD at least be informed about it
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A45A2-E044-115D-A04483414B7F0000

You want to know what the most effective BMD system is??? Take a few tons of sand and seed Earth's orbit with it. Nothing would get through that

 

[George Wallace]

Gee some of you guys have logic that really escapes me!

If you don't have 100% accuracy for BMD, then you don't want it.  :  What is your opinion of our Infantry?  Most of them are not 100% accurate in their shooting skills.  Do we get rid of them too?  As I said earlier, "what percentage of accuracy did we have when we first developed 'Black Powder'?  We wouldn't have any modern weaponry today if we had your attitudes.  The CF would be issuing Clubs to its Soldiers, not rifles.

GW

 

[buzgo]

But the issue is that they are pushing a system that has not been effective, without serious constraints on the tests. Having the targets trajectory programmed into the interceptor invalidates the test right from the start. The real system won't work unless Delta Force or someone is sneaking around 'rogue nations' putting beacons on any ICBMs they happen to find...

 

[Sub_Guy]

Do you really think that the US Government would come out and say "Hey the North Koreans launched a test missile and it landed somewhere in Alaska!"  They are too busy dealing with Iraq, which had no weapons capable of reaching american soil.


Missile defence is a waste of time and money. It does nothing but provide the scared american people with a false sense of security.

 

[old medic]

Gee some of you guys have logic that really escapes me!

If you don't have 100% accuracy for BMD, then you don't want it.  :  What is your opinion of our Infantry?  Most of them are not 100% accurate in their shooting skills.

GW

This is very faulty logic George.
Infantry is cost effective and works. There is no comparison.

 

[George Wallace]

I was listening to Michael Harris Live on the radio today and he made a comment on "how unsightly the barricades across from his residence were.  How the road connecting Colonel By and Nicholas Street in Ottawa, was barricaded so no traffic could pass under NDHQ."  This from a reporter of some renown, an author of books on Canada's Prison System, and a radio host.  His naivete really struck home at that moment.  How safe he must feel here in Canada, so far away from war and terror tactics.  This kind of thinking will get us into a lot of trouble.  WE ARE at War.  It is very unconventional.  Random targets are found all around the globe.  No one knows who the enemy may be, or what he looks like.  Yet we have so many Canadians who think that the whole world is as safe as it is in their small little downtown neighbourhood in Ottawa or Toronto.  

I am sure that should we pack up these people and give them a free vacation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, or some other 'Hell Hole', they would come back and have seen what a strong Defence is truly required to maintain their liberties.  They may then appreciate that 'new' systems must be developed and trialled to protect us.  

Those attitudes, of the Liberal Left, and Mr Dithers only lessen our credibility in the future.  Even now the American press is turning against us.

GW