MIssile Defense: A Hard Argument to Refute

Having lunch with friends where we often talk politics. Today's topic was missile defense, the president's bold revision of nuclear deterrence policy and the new START treaty (which, we all agreed, the RWers are sure to saboutage).

My view on missile defense has always been: a lot of money that could have been better spent healing the world's ills or America's shortcomings for an unproven technology that only serves to destabilize the world and anger people with whom we have treaty obligations.

Let's face it, RWers only want these toys to nullify Russian defenses and thus lord over them and anyone else like the Chinese or whomever.

But a friend of mine--who is pretty solid on matters like no nukes, anti-war, healthcare etc--suggested that if we had a robust missile defense system and subsequently pared down our warhead stockpiles then any nation that attacked with a nuke could have their weapon neutralized and we could respond conventionally.

As an example he asked, "Why nuke Iran and kill 20 million people who don't even like their government when we could shoot down the missile and use targetted conventional strikes to take out their military and government."

He even suggested merely shooting the missile down would create such an "oh shit!" moment in the offending government's mind the fear of impending retaliation alone would make them sufficiently agreeable to non-militarily imposed reforms.

In short, killing becomes obsolete.

I have to say I don't like the idea of responding with nukes even if attacked by nukes. As a progressive I try to keep an open mind and look for new ideas to old problems. So far I'm having a hard time seeing how this idea would do mroe harm than good and I think someone as bold as Obama could embrace such ideas.

It only serves to pour more public money into the military industrial trough. Don't believe the hype.

with 100% reliability. So far, any test on any of that stuff has been completely staged & even then had
a low probability of success. They have worked on those systems for the last 25 years or so.

It's practical to see to the elimination of all nukes everyplace.

Missile defense (as currently designed by the US military) is futile when installed to stop intercontinental ballistic weapons It's difficult to explain without visual aids, but to summarize:

A modern Russian (and presumably Chinese) ballistic missile has multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVs). A MIRV vehicle can be loaded with dummy warheads as well - as many as 20 or 30 could be feasible. Thus as the carrier opens, the defensive system would see a "shower" of 20 to 30 individual warheads descending. Because the dummies would have different mass and signature, a system may be designed to id the dummies, but I doubt this could be done in time, since the outgoing missiles have to launch as soon as an enemy vehicle is detected in flight - ie the US defense radars would have very little time to ID the decoys. And to make matters worse, a small nuke could be disguised to be ID'd as a decoy.

There's another issue, the system installed today lets through a certain percentage of the incoming warheads, and if only one gets throgh and detonates an EMP weapon, it would fry a lot of electronic devices - presumably the early launch vehicles would be loaded with EMPs to make sure they fry the US grid and launch the country into the 1800's within minutes.

Furthermore, a kinetic ABM as designed by the US requires a very steady target. Which means a single warhead device such as say Iran may have in 10 years can be designed to tumble slightly as it enters the atmosphere. And the US ABM kinetic system can't stop a tumbling warhead - which does so randomly, which means the targeting computer starts making wild guesses as it vectors the killer warhead in. It's fairly easy to show the ABM system is not viable against a tumbler, therefore the rest of the conversation amounts to: Once the other guys launch, the only option is retaliation, other type of resistance is futile.

An ABM system, however, is really good shooting down bombers. It's an outstanding weapon against planes, and has some use against medium range straight path warheads (such as SCUD warheads) - until the SCUD maker launches a tumbler warhead.

The drawback for a tumbler is its lack of accuracy, it may miss the target by miles. However, if the idea is to put a bomb over a large US city, refinery complex, or simply to put out an EMP blast, then accuracy isn't needed.

In conclusion, the US ABM system is bogus. Also, I would like to add, there's no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon, nor that they are processing weapons grade material. What Iran is doing is perfectly within the boundaries of the treaties it has signed, and efforts by the US to punish Iran are outside the realm of current international law. The US behaves this way to please Israel, which does have nuclear weapons outside of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty boundaries. And the US lacks a mutual defense treaty with Israel. Thus one can conclude US behavior is purely caused by the Israel Lobby, the same entity which was the principal cause of the US invasion of Iraq.

Look up the S-300 and S-400 missile systems.

Sorry friend, but neither the S300 nor the S400 are capable. Also, I would like to add, the S-400 is a recent addition, and is merely a Patriot-like system. It's not going to stop a long range nuclear warhead, just as the Patriot isn't going to stop a long range nuclear warhead either. The Russians intend the S300 and S400 to be used primarily to stop airplanes. Since the US relies on cruise missiles for medium range attacks, these systems are marketed more as air defense systems - they can definitely shoot down a B1 or an F15 if protected with an ground to air missile shield (in other words, the S300 has to be defended with its own air defenses so it can remain operational).

It was created as a chip to be negotiated away in missile defense talks.

The only value it has as a chip to be negotiated away is as an anti-aircraft weapon. My observation is that these type of weapons are developed by the US to funnel money to the military industrial complex. It's like the Crusader self-propelled howitzer.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/

is an invitation to an arms race. Increased numbers of good decoys and increased numbers of true re-entry vehicles simply run the defense out of ammo. The numbers game ultimately will wreck the economically most challenged side. This is how the Soviet Union died. Another round of this would likely destroy the US.

There really can never be a defense that is unlimited either by munitions or the energy to drive the lasers. We can only have so much of that stuff.

The best solution is prevention. The only real reasons to fight Russia or China are direct aggression which is unlikely as China and Russia really gain nothing as spoils of war from aggression against the US, or more likely, the need to secure against the use of an essential survival resource (water, food, possibly energy) as a weapon. What would Russia or China do with us? Assume our national debt? Take on the social welfare of 400 million people? Aggression by China and Russia is simply not cost effective. They have a good possibility of getting a great return just engaging us in "open markets." The Chinese are obviously the reigning masters of economic war.

Starving a nation and thereby commiting genocide against its population is sure to get a warlike response, but why starve the US of a resource? We are much more valuable as a disadvantaged partner in lopsided trade than we are as the ward of any eurasian nuclear power.

Now you need to convince the American elites to stop shooting their nation in the foot.

Say Iran or N Korea?

Now, keep in mind, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here but I don't know my friend's entire side of the argument because we only get 30 minutes for lunch so I'm not really prepared to faithfully represent his side of the discussion.

I think IF it could work it would be worth trying.

Suppose someone with a limited arsenal launched. Even if we had only a 30 - 50% chance of knocking the missile out of the sky if we could do it I say try. Suppose we score that lucky 30% against a launch. That right there is millions of lives saved. Then, when it comes time to respond we do not respond with our own nukes we say, "We could turn your country into a glass-bottomed parking lot but we are not about to kill millions of innocent people because of the reckless actions of a few. Therefore the United States and the international community expects..."

I think such a magnanimous gesture on our part destabilize our attackers and win us overwhelming international support. Wouldn't the world be relieved that the big, bad US refrained from slaughtering tens of millions in an act of emotion-driven retaliation?

Would it somehow make up for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

What if Israel launched against one of their neighbors? Would it be worth trying to shoot that one down? Or put them in a position of having to return to the bargaining table because they can't hide behind a nuclear shield anymore?

I know they have a slim chance of working and cost far, far too much. Those are the arguments I have used against them myself in the past, but these are horrible, horrible weapons and anything we can do to make them obsolete almost seems worth the effort.

Iran and N. Korea don't have the capability of lobbing a nuke in, at least not yet.

Suitcase bombs are another story, but then anti-missle missles are worthless against suitcases.

Missle defence systems are the modern equivalent to the Maginot Line.

At the time considered 'absolutely impenatrateable' Hitler went around it by going through Belgium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line

So lets say that the US comes up with an effective air defense system.

Bring it by boat and get a tub to take it right into the center of Manhattan.

Every technological defense can be thwarted by creative offense, hence box cutters taking down a 747 airplane.

Any type of defense can be overcome, just ask the French how the Maginot Line worked out in 1941. Or Hitler's Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line?

ok three words: stealth cruise missile.

"missile defense shields" are bullshit waiting to go plop the first time they are seriously tested.

If it worked, our enemies would simply not attack us in the conventional way. Our enemies don't have the capacity to attack us in a way that the shield would be useful.

So creating a missile defense shield would be a waste of money, therefore make us less safe (because the money could be spent elsewhere more effectively)..