SDI? Building a better shield is bad?

[Ah-Teen]

Why does everybody now seem to hate amercia?
Maybe because of better media today? - You hear a lot more of bombed wedding-parties and such today, than you heard before (Vietnam was just the beginning of such problems).
Also USA is still not signing treaties that a lot people think of as important (Kyoto protocol, and some human right things). Also because of the war on Iraque and Afghanistian wich weren't reall legimitate by the UN, as far as i remember (the one against Afghanistan might have been).
Also the new conflict course with russia (SDI and such), is somewhat of a problem...

New conflict with russia over SDI? I really never understood this conflict. Why not develop their own and make all ICBM's obsolete?

Besides economy, am I missing something? Isn't making nukes obsolete a good thing?

The SDI think is quite simple... i mean we still live in M.A.D. times (mutually assured destruction, i think it was).
So even if russia isn't any longer a real world-power, they still want to have the security that america won't use Nukes, because they would be nuked too.
And i would say Russia and America, but also a lot of other countries who are located near Russia don't like each other that much. So there's a bit of fear.
If russia would also try that, it would either lead to a new weapon race, or a russian president wich would have to admit, that they wouldn't be able to do this race, wich somewhat of a political blamage i think. Not good to blamage a political enemy, at least not in such a situation...

A new arms race? I CAN BUILD A BETTER SHIELD THAN YOU!

Thats just my take on it. If everyone had armor no one could penetrate. There wouldn't be any point in fighting like that. At the very least we wont have to try and survive radioactive fallout from thousands of nukes.

Yes we still live under MAD, but both Russia and the US have ended the policy of using nukes as a retaliatory weapon. It is on the table for use other than MAD. The US ended the policy near the end of the Clinton presidency I believe.

So why shouldn't we build better shields. Maybe even share our technologies so no one can use airborn nukes?

 

[Tagaziel]

Build your missile shields, but please, STAY THE FUCK OUT MY COUNTRY you neocolonialists >

 

[Bad_Karma]

You know, the problem about arms-technology is, that everytime somebody invents a new better shield, somebody comes up with a better weapon wich is able to pierce it. -> Weapons Race.

And yes, maybe offical MAD might be over, but there are two problems (from what you wrote):
1. Clinton (?) - the US has now a 'right wing' (or something like that) president.
2. It's only a statment from a politican, without anything that guarantees that the US would act as he said. I mean he also said something about an affair toward a now famous trainee,...
So do you think that really means it's over?
I really don't think so.

If some country (/leader) get's put in the corner and it's pretty clear it(/he) will loose to it's(/his) enemy, it(/he) might use Nukes.
Therefore there have been no wars between nuclear countries (at least none i know of). And nearly no wars (not acts of terrorism) against nuclear powers (isreal is somewhat of a exception, but they were backed up through america so i think loss wasn't near, and it's hard to nuke ones neighbour without having real problems.).
That might by the way also happen in our MAD-World, the use of nukes if you're loosing.

But now just think about someone having this shield, being invincible. Being the one and only having the power to let a lighting hit the enemys while they sit on the toilet (sorry, i really had to put it this way ).
You won't use it everytime, but you might consider using it, if it would get otherwise hard. Like when fighting China, or Russia, or... na maybe some European countries (guess all three would cost at least much).
So you could end the war, and get what you want, by only bombing two cities. Not even the big ones like Paris or Berlin, but 'smaller' ones like Rennes or Solingen (around 200.000), of wich you would kill of 50% ... so 100.000 dead while you would save the lives of let's say 500.000 because it would be a messy 3 year war, with equal much dead on both sides. so 300.000 less dead people!
I mean today a lot of people are defending the use of the 2 bombs on Japan because of such maths,....

Sharing the technology is a good step, so to say. But that again would it make even more easy for a way to thing off something that wouldn't be stoppable by the shield.
And do you really want to have ElQaida (bad example i know), or KimJong having such a shield?
-Imho startegical it would be a somewaht bad idea to sell your 'enemies' your shield, or weapons.
If you only mean that you will shield them, why should russia believe the US? The US could also pull the plug any given time, when it's done in such a way.

By the way, why isn't the USA destroying all their Nukes, and why isn't Russia doing it? Because of their (the nukes) power. And because they are a sign of power. I think a lot of Republicans (and other 'hardliners') would scream out loud if a president would destroy all nukes...

Politcally it's by the way a problem for 'power'-politicans who live through showing off how strong they are. And i would count Bush and Putin (i mean he's still somehwat the power in russia) toward them. No one of them wants to loose face....

It's the simple fear of not being in anyway able to defend onesself against someone. That's what russia (and others) are fearing, and because of wich a lot of countries (often under dictators and such) are trying to get nuclear weapons.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

*Anti-American Rant*

Honestly now, a "missile shield" is nothing more than a white picket fence. If Kim Jong wants one, who gives a shit? It can't stop ground forces (Unless we're deploying them through space shuttles...).

If one of the many anti-American nations decided to make a move, do you think they'd try to shoot a fucking nuke at us? No, because they know we can clean anybody's clock in open warfare.

With how embarrassingly bad our port security is (It really is a joke), they could be (probably already have been) funding terrorists (I'm looking at you, Iran) to smuggle in dirty bombs/bioweapons through the ports.

 

[SSgt Curious]

When it comes to dismantling the nuclear arsenal most americans more than likely would want that to happen if possible (weapons loaders most of all, we don't want to have to deal with this shit). The issue at hand however is a big fucking mexican standoff (no offense to any mexicans on here). basically if we dismantle our nukes then our potential enemies will still have their's and with no MAD to stay their hand will they resist pushing the button? even if we proceed with dismantling bombs 1 for 1 as outlined in the START treaties there is still the issue of one side will theoretically have the last bomb not to mention those countries and rouge states that aren't involved in the START treaties having all their shit still. Of course what I find most disturbing is that Russia can't account for over 50% of the soviet era nukes. These include mobile missie platforms, Air Delivery Systems (bombs), small caliber strategic systems (look up the davy crocket on wiki for an american version), anti air nuclear rockets (look up the Genie on wiki for an american example of these), suitcase nukes, and weapons grade fisionable materials. However they do know where all their ICBMs are even if they no longer control the territories they are located in. So it is a mad MAD world we live in.

 

[Ah-Teen]

You know, the problem about arms-technology is, that everytime somebody invents a new better shield, somebody comes up with a better weapon wich is able to pierce it. -> Weapons Race.

True, in this case it would be on delivery systems. But the only delivery system I can think of to defeat such a shield would be a briefcase bomb. Slow to move around and would need lots of planing ahead. Not exactly a MAD world anymore. I don't care if a few million die in a nuke fight. I just don't want us all to die in a nuke fight.

I believe it is better to make it hard to fight these wars.

And yes, maybe offical MAD might be over, but there are two problems (from what you wrote):
1. Clinton (?) - the US has now a 'right wing' (or something like that) president.
2. It's only a statment from a politican, without anything that guarantees that the US would act as he said. I mean he also said something about an affair toward a now famous trainee,...
So do you think that really means it's over?
I really don't think so.

1. Clinton is our last president. When bush came over he didn't simply erase everything he did. Don't get me started on that right wing warlord bs.
2. Statements from politicians carry weight. Especially with the military. Say we invade Iran, they use gas(I know it was Iraq that used gas but hypothetically) the president previously said to his generals that nukes are on the list of things we can attack with.

They tell the president the Iranians are using gas and american soldiers are dieing in horrific ways. Then in an emotional situation they thrust before him the nuclear football and ask if we can retaliate.

All because in peace time some dumb president said if we need to use nukes to win, they are in play.

If some country (/leader) get's put in the corner and it's pretty clear it(/he) will loose to it's(/his) enemy, it(/he) might use Nukes.
Therefore there have been no wars between nuclear countries (at least none i know of). And nearly no wars (not acts of terrorism) against nuclear powers (isreal is somewhat of a exception, but they were backed up through america so i think loss wasn't near, and it's hard to nuke ones neighbour without having real problems.).
That might by the way also happen in our MAD-World, the use of nukes if you're loosing.

All it takes is one crazy son of a bitch surrounded by his possy of minions. Anyone remember the Cuban missile crisis?

But now just think about someone having this shield, being invincible. Being the one and only having the power to let a lighting hit the enemys while they sit on the toilet (sorry, i really had to put it this way ).
You won't use it everytime, but you might consider using it, if it would get otherwise hard. Like when fighting China, or Russia, or... na maybe some European countries (guess all three would cost at least much).
So you could end the war, and get what you want, by only bombing two cities. Not even the big ones like Paris or Berlin, but 'smaller' ones like Rennes or Solingen (around 200.000), of wich you would kill of 50% ... so 100.000 dead while you would save the lives of let's say 500.000 because it would be a messy 3 year war, with equal much dead on both sides. so 300.000 less dead people!
I mean today a lot of people are defending the use of the 2 bombs on Japan because of such maths,....

That only works if you have a monopoly on weapons. Which we don't.

Sharing the technology is a good step, so to say. But that again would it make even more easy for a way to thing off something that wouldn't be stoppable by the shield.
And do you really want to have ElQaida (bad example i know), or KimJong having such a shield?
-Imho startegical it would be a somewaht bad idea to sell your 'enemies' your shield, or weapons.
If you only mean that you will shield them, why should russia believe the US? The US could also pull the plug any given time, when it's done in such a way.

True, its not very realistic.

By the way, why isn't the USA destroying all their Nukes, and why isn't Russia doing it? Because of their (the nukes) power. And because they are a sign of power. I think a lot of Republicans (and other 'hardliners') would scream out loud if a president would destroy all nukes...

They are a sign of foolishness and everyone(loosely) knows we don't need to be sitting on the biggest pile of bombs anywhere on the planet.

Most republicans, especially younger ones wouldn't flip out if we drasticly reduced our number of bombs. 100% gone. Yeah, more than "hard liners" would be crying out. Most people know we need to maintain an arsenal.

But I'm pretty sure if a republican candidate president said he'd drop down our nukes to just enough to wipe out whoever attacked us. He would be elected without contest.

But even with a democratic candidate I think it would give them a boost of normally republican younger voters.

Politcally it's by the way a problem for 'power'-politicans who live through showing off how strong they are. And i would count Bush and Putin (i mean he's still somehwat the power in russia) toward them. No one of them wants to loose face....

From what I remember of the 2000 elections, he got elected the first time because he pushed schools and family values. Since then he's become a "power" politician. Back then it would have been easy for even him to say. "Oh btw, lets reduce our nuklears to a reasonable amount." Gaining him a whole bunch of democrats.

*Anti-American Rant*

Honestly now, a "missile shield" is nothing more than a white picket fence. If Kim Jong wants one, who gives a shit? It can't stop ground forces (Unless we're deploying them through space shuttles...).

Wait, shit... I was going to say something about how a proper missile defense nullifies air combat but then I realized, stealth technology almost nullifies SDI. You can't shoot it down if you can't see it.

 

[Neamos]

Does anyone here like Reagan?

link[/url]]Shultz told reporters that the two leaders, aided by groups of experts, had reached a contingent agreement to eliminate all nuclear ballistic missiles within 10 years and also had made progress on human rights issues.

But Shultz said that the two days of talks here had ended without agreement because the Soviets insisted on a change in the 1972 ABM treaty that would have limited Reagan's SDI antimissile program to laboratory research.

The vegetable liked his lasers more than not being fried by ICBMs

 

[Bad_Karma]

*We are da roxxors*

If you think so.... I won't even discuss this subject any longer with you.

True, in this case it would be on delivery systems. But the only delivery system I can think of to defeat such a shield would be a briefcase bomb. Slow to move around and would need lots of planing ahead. Not exactly a MAD world anymore. I don't care if a few million die in a nuke fight. I just don't want us all to die in a nuke fight.

I believe it is better to make it hard to fight these wars.

Not completly true, it matters how the shield is working.
As said, there is technology that's able to shoot the first version of Nukes down. But then we got multiple warheads, wich rendered it unusable.
Who says, that the new system won't have another 'simple' weakness?

1. Clinton is our last president. When bush came over he didn't simply erase everything he did. Don't get me started on that right wing warlord bs.
2. Statements from politicians carry weight. Especially with the military. Say we invade Iran, they use gas(I know it was Iraq that used gas but hypothetically) the president previously said to his generals that nukes are on the list of things we can attack with.

They tell the president the Iranians are using gas and american soldiers are dieing in horrific ways. Then in an emotional situation they thrust before him the nuclear football and ask if we can retaliate.

All because in peace time some dumb president said if we need to use nukes to win, they are in play.

Sure not all things get changed. But some things might change. Especially when you have a change from left to right or the other way round. You can see it clearly in US's foreign policy.
Clinton didn't attacked Afghanistan or ElQaida when they did the first terroristic acts against the US, at least he didn't do anything drastic, while he could have done it. But he would have lost Votes because of it.

So i just say, different presidents (and goverments) render old promises often obsolete. Also different situations can do this.
If Clinton would have been in a situation in wich russia launched it weapons on america, he might have launched also his weapons. Maybe he hadn't but who really knows?

All it takes is one crazy son of a bitch surrounded by his possy of minions. Anyone remember the Cuban missile crisis?

But it didn't happened, and it didn't happened because both sides realized that they both would be doomed.
And then they started communicating more with each other. This is when they realized, that we live in a MAD-world.

That only works if you have a monopoly on weapons. Which we don't.

Right but when you have a shield that renders the enemy weapons useless, you again have something like a monopoly on this weapons.

-About the destroying the nukes thing:
I think US and Russia alone got enough Nukes to destroy the world 3-times (or even more). That's what statistics says imho.
So sure, no one would really care about going down to one time the power to destroy the world.
But all countries going down to 0 nukes, what would be more or less the only step to assure anyone, that no one would use this weapon, isn't realistic, and won't happen.
Because as Curious said, there would be the danger that someone wouldn't destroy his weapons. And then he would have the monopoly on this weapon (as you putted it).
And this is were MAD again comes in. They have it, but we also, if they nuke us, they will get nuked themselves, so they won't gain anything through it.

From what I remember of the 2000 elections, he got elected the first time because he pushed schools and family values. Since then he's become a "power" politician. Back then it would have been easy for even him to say. "Oh btw, lets reduce our nuklears to a reasonable amount." Gaining him a whole bunch of democrats.

As said, a few nukes count nearly to nothing. But even though, he might have lost votes of right-wingers. And he stands right, he is counting on this votes, and so he will demonstrate at least as much power as is necessary to keep this votes.
At least that's how i think politic is working on that

Wait, shit... I was going to say something about how a proper missile defense nullifies air combat but then I realized, stealth technology almost nullifies SDI. You can't shoot it down if you can't see it.

The problem is, that a lot of countries are able to shoot stealth-planes down. At least from what i heard.
In Jugoslavia one F-117 was shoot down, and as far as i remember a triangulating-system of radars made this possible. At least systems of more radars makes it hard to have some real stealth fighters.
But okay, there might be some new evolution on stealth, wich makes this impossible. But i wouldn't bet on it.
By the way, you heard that russia is claiming able to stealth every Plane through some 'plasma'-thingie (Build into the nose of planes)? - Real interesting (this claim and if there's really this technology, also this technology ). But okay, that's a bit off topic.

 

[SkynetV4]

Missile Shields are not intended for warfare with a nuclear superpower.

No matter, how good is your system, it can be overwhelmed. Which was the theoretical justification for the ABM: "You have an ABM? Ok, we'll increase the number of attacking missiles to quadruple the amount, try stopping that".

An ABM actually increases nuclear proliferation because as ABMs were (and still are, AFAIK) limited to ground-based systems. That means you have to intercept the RVs (in a nuclear war, MIRVs WILL be used whether they are forbidden or not) in the final (hardest) phase.

MIRVs carry several warheads AND decoys, so for each launched missile, you have to contend with 10~30 warheads plus decoys. You'll have to use an interception missile for each warhead.

You'll lose if you try this approach because you'll exhaust your resources faster than the attacker.

The only "feasible" ABM shield would be a space-based one as you can destroy the missiles on the boost phase. That way you'll be on equal spending as your opponent. Your shield can still be overwhelmed but its harder to do.

If you have a space-based ABM, you might as well have a fractional bombardment system, which allows you to keep your nukes on orbit and just detonate them when you need to. If you can preempt a launching silo, the ABM is kind of useless.

However if the scope of the ABM is limited to non-superpowers, then, it becomes useful. Low tech countries will have crappy, crude nukes and delivery systems and in low enough quantities so that the ABM will be effective against them.

A superpower will not use a retarded approach for attacking, it will most likely orchestrate a multi-layered attack.

This is a relatively simple attack pattern.

The US starts by using nuke subs to generate Compton Scattering over the opponents country. This fries electronics for non-hardened installations. Leaves populace unguarded. When satellites detect silos opening for launch, nuke subs launch radiation boosted nukes to generate x-rays which fry the guidance systems of the opponent's nukes. The opponent has to choose whether to launch and risk his nukes being rendered ineffective. On ground ABM system's are overwhelmed by MIRVs using decoys and promptly destroyed.

This can be complicated as you use other non-nuclear technology. Such as downing enemy satellites using anti-satellite missiles (nukes are not recommended for this unless you want to destroy your own satellites as well) non-missile nuclear munitions such as artillery-launched nukes and whatnot.