America Needs the Anti-Missile Defense System

The scientific and technological potential for an Anti-Missile Defense System is immense. Together we can make the world safer and more secure. Do not be swayed by people in science who doubt that it can be done (the Wright Brothers were crazy according to them: to me, not nearly so).

If rejected by the Missile Defense Agency, and/or wanting to becoming a greater supporter of missile defense, join for free the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance at www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org

God Bless America and the World.

Yeah, but the Wright Brothers weren't original, just the first, not crazy. NO one is saying it can't be done, it just can't be done anytime soon.

I think it can be done. It won't be perfect, at least not at first. But the very thought that we have absolutely no defense against ballistic missiles is scary. That's why I'm for the Missile Defense System. The technology that our government and major defense contractors such as Lockeed Martin, Boeing, etc. have is far more advanced than we can imagine- possibly decades ahead of what is known publicly. Over time, the goal of a legitimate defense against nuclear ballistic missiles can be achieved. But we must start somewhere, and I think the sooner we start the sooner we will have this defense capability.

Yes, it's expensive. Yes, there have been setbacks. Yes, there are probably many other things that we could use that money for that would help us right now. But lets not forget what John F. Kennedy said when he first proposed that we send a man to the moon- we don't choose to do this because it is easy, we choose to do it because it is hard. And I think we owe some form of defense against nuclear holocaust to our children and future generations.

Also, for all we know, this is a plan by our government to begin another arms race with countries like China and Russia. They will spend billions trying to develop missiles that can make it past the defense systems that they think we have, whether we have them or not. That's billions of dollars that isn't going into their economies and isn't going into defense of their homelands. Everyday, that brings them closer to collapse and closer to overthrow by their unhappy citizens. Maybe it's a pipe dream, I don't know. But I refuse to believe that this missile defense system is just "star wars" and will serve no useful purpose.

I did a report on this and had to read a bunch of professional documents.

One way that people want a MDS (missile defense system) to work is to shoot down warheads as they descend. The problem with this is that as the ICBM enters the upper atmosphere, it opens up and deploys multiple targets - as many as 200. Less than 20 of these are actual warheads - the rest are just decoys that give off fake signatures to match the real ones. They also have lots of mylar ribbons and balloons that deploy to reflect and confuse radar and other tracking systems. There is also some type of cloudy gas that "dumbs down" radar.

Another problem with shooting down warheads as they come is that the acceleration and speed needed by intercepting missiles would ruin their guidance systems in midflight, making them useless. Most people compare doing this to "shooting a bullet with a bullet." This is an accurate description because of the speeds that are at hand. So far, all interceptor prototypes have been less than 5% successful.

A major international concern is that the US and Russia have both signed multiple treaties that prohibit us from building defenses against the other's ICBMs. Of couse, the idea of working together on an MDS could help resolve this. Still, people worry that if we will reneg on that agreement, what else will we go back on?

Many people agree the most feasible time to stop an ICBM attack is during its launch phase - there is only one target and it's not going too fast, and it is travelling up, not down. Defense professionals have had the idea of multiple countries agreeing to choose which nations they want to defend themselves from. For instance, both the US and Russia have their worries about North Korea. The best site to defend from them would be on the eastern border of Russia, as close to NK as possible. That way, they could intercept the missiles PDQ.

Of course, we would all have to agree on how to split costs/maintenence/occupation of the facility.

And we all know how well and quickly international politics flow!

[edit on 2-9-2005 by trinitrotoluene]

I see it like this,if North Korea launches 3 nuclear missiles at the united states and the missile shield only is able to stop one of them then it is worth it.I agree with superprivy and Rasputin13... it's better to start now and have a chance then waiting till after a nuclear missile hits.

beeing canadian, its always been urban legand that the american missle defence project, or the starwars project if we are talking about the same thing, would intercept missles over canadian airspace, leaving canada with the fall out? you guys seem to know stuff. is this true?

Only if the attacking country was Russia because they would be the only Country that could or would be able to go over Canada to hit the united states and if Russia did attack the fallout would probably wipe out most of the world anyway.

Originally posted by dazed and confused
beeing canadian, its always been urban legand that the american missle defence project, or the starwars project if we are talking about the same thing, would intercept missles over canadian airspace, leaving canada with the fall out? you guys seem to know stuff. is this true?

There would not be enough radioactive material to actually do much of anything.

There is no doubt that such a system would cost a great deal of money. Since China buys our foreign debt I don't see how this is could be a good thing. China already owns 40% of our foreign debt. The US is running a deficit and no longer has a surplus.


I suppose it could be possible to shoot a bullet with a bullet but the idea is faulty from a strategic standpoint. The enemy could simply place hundreds of warheads in hundreds of freighters and explode them offshore or do the same with trucks and drive them directly to ground zero.

In the 50's there was an idea called Fortress America that held that we could make the continent impervious to missile attack but it was discarded when it was pointed out that even the dullest smuggler could circumvent the entire system. I think the idea is a collosal waste of money with zero real benefit.

spelling

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Alexodin]

I cant believe anyone actually wants a MDS, its utterly useless, and way too expensive.

You should all read this excellent Scientific American article and learn how it can never protect the conus from multiple warheads and/or small range nuclear missiles launched from submarines:

Holes in the Missile Shield

I rest my case

Zion et al. I support the MDS for a variety of reasons:

1) It will never defend the US agains SLBM's nor a massed attack. That is simply out of the realm of our technology. SLBM's especially those fired from close in may stand a chance albiet minor from a THAAD like system if modified alot and also on alert (A close in shot would give you maybe 10-15 minutes warning if lucky). But if given a chance to mature, it stands a better than none chance of hitting a missile fired from say Iran or North Korea at the US. Here on the West Coast of the US, i prefer a maybe to a no chance any day

2) The technology's that are being developed will eventualy find its way tot he private sector and benifit the public. People made alot of fun of Reagans "Star Wars" proposals, but alot of good came out of it from lasers etc that have many uses beond knocking down missiles.

I agree that much of the technology will become available for the private sector, eventually, but that's not a very good reason to poor so much money into a useless system, is it?
Iran/North Korea havent got intercontinental ballistic missiles, and perhaps even havent got nuclear warheads. More developed countries have submarines, and know the weak spots of the Shield; the lack of ability to respond quicly enough.

Just look at a cruise missile, they fly low, and fast, impossible to detect by a MDS satellite (I think). This program is a perfect example of a huge waste of money by The Pentagon, just like the F/A-22, Commanche, V-22, DDX programs.

I think that a missile based MDS is pretty stupid. If multiple lasers were used (would use a stack of power) they could sweep quickly across the sky and take out several a lot easier than with missiles, and there won't be the worry of a missed shot going AWOL and making guam disappear. Although the birds might not like it either way

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Also, for all we know, this is a plan by our government to begin another arms race with countries like China and Russia. They will spend billions trying to develop missiles that can make it past the defense systems that they think we have, whether we have them or not. That's billions of dollars that isn't going into their economies and isn't going into defense of their homelands. Everyday, that brings them closer to collapse and closer to overthrow by their unhappy citizens. Maybe it's a pipe dream, I don't know. But I refuse to believe that this missile defense system is just "star wars" and will serve no useful purpose.

Actually, some of the countermeasures against ABM are very simple and cheap, like covering your warhead in a balloon and release similar balloons as decoy. If anything, ABM will undermine your own economy. I also doubt the sanity of spending billions on such wasteful projects and dubious wars like in Iraq while people are dying by the thousands in disaster areas. People really wonder why the hell they should help a nation that is rich enough to waste money by the billions and more than able to help themselves.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Just look at a cruise missile, they fly low, and fast, impossible to detect by a MDS satellite (I think). This program is a perfect example of a huge waste of money by The Pentagon, just like the F/A-22, Commanche, V-22, DDX programs.

I thought that the SBIRS High could be used for this purpose? Not 100% sure of this and the Alaska based F-15C's with the ASRA are to be used with the Aim-120C for cruise missile defence according to a AWST article a while back.

Hasn't Russia claimed that they are developing maneuverable warhead capable of penetrating the BMD? And haven't countries like China said that in response they will simply increase the size of their nuclear arsenal? Terrorists won't be launching warheads at the US, they'll be sneaking in a suitcase nuke or something of that nature. Why jeopardize MAD on something that has shown so many flaws?

Originally posted by FredT
I thought that the SBIRS High could be used for this purpose? Not 100% sure of this and the Alaska based F-15C's with the ASRA are to be used with the Aim-120C for cruise missile defence according to a AWST article a while back.

I'm sure those satellite systems can dectect them, but still they need to respond incredibly quickly to take them out.
I believe the High version of the system can detect ICBM, and the lower orbiting ones cruise missiles, but I might be mistaken. Anyway, just look at 9/11, they weren't even able to take out hijacked passenger aircraft, so how are they gonna cope with low flying, small, possibly stealthy cruise missiles.

There is just no way a city like LA, or NYC can be protected from submarine-based cruise missiles and nuclear missiles. The distance from which a missile is launched determines the ammount of time the MDS has to take it out. There is no way a missile launched 25 miles offshore from a sub can be intercepted.

Hasn't Russia claimed that they are developing maneuverable warhead capable of penetrating the BMD?

Yes obviously they have, it would be naive to think Russia and China havent looked researched the MDS in order to find weak spots. The US military would have done the same if the Russians would build a MDS.

As mentioned before by 'trinitrotoluene', warheads can contain multiple smaller warheads, each targeted at a specific objective.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Zion Mainframe]

Here's an idea. Lets stop wasting money, time & resources on worthless ideas like this and start putting the money into helping actual americans. Like New Orleans. Might just be a crazy idea but if less money was spent on Iraq those levees could have been refortified like initially planned and a lot of unnecessary death & suffering could have been avoided. Or, how about putting money into relief programs so they actually get there on time instead of 2 days after the fact. But, I guess when you have a president that would rather be on vacation than prepare for a disaster, or the us secretary of state that would rather be shopping and going to theater in Manhatten. All this instead of woking on this disaster I(we) shouldn't expect much. At least I know where thier priorities lie.

Call me crazy, I live in a dreamworld where America should worry about it's own more than some other country. Or all those damned missles that keep getting launced towords the US on a daily basis.

God help those poor souls in N.O.

edit: spelling
edit: spelling, again

[edit on 3-9-2005 by jmilici]

[edit on 3-9-2005 by jmilici]

NO doubt a missile based MDS is stupid, like hitting a bullit with a bullit (cliche). Microwave, laser, etc are the only options and these options consume way too much power and are way too expensive. Two things we don't not have: the money and the massive facilities to create such power.

I don't think the fact that a MDS cannot protect the nation from missiles fired by submarine should negate its existence. The fact remains that there is no major threat to the United States from submarines. We know at any given moment where virtually every Russian and Chinese submarine in the world is located, especially when they're near the continental United States. In the event of war, all of these submarines would be found and destroyed very early on. When it comes to submarines, no one comes close to the United States' technology.

A major international concern is that the US and Russia have both signed multiple treaties that prohibit us from building defenses against the other's ICBMs. Of couse, the idea of working together on an MDS could help resolve this. Still, people worry that if we will reneg on that agreement, what else will we go back on?

If you want to get technical, one of the arguments against this theory is that the agreement was made between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists, thus making the agreement null and void. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that argument, just that it has been made by the US administration.

My question to all those who oppose the MDS and think that its goals are unreachable is this: If that is the case, then why are countries like Russia and China even complaining about it? It appears to me that they're worried about the capabilities of this system. If they truly felt that it was the equivelant of "shooting a bullet with a bullet" then I doubt they would have made the uproar that they've been making. Furthermore, I doubt they would spend the billions of dollars that they have spent or plan to spend in the near future developing technology to bypass the MDS and/or increase their nuclear stockpile. If the MDS system is an impossible feat, and if our government is aware of this fact and is simply bluffing, then it could very well mean that we have Russia and China falling hook, line and sinker for another economically-damaging arms race.

Could it be possible that we are aware that the MDS system is currently impossible, and that we are secretly diverting the billions of dollars allocated for this system into other, more realistic, military projects? My theory is either that this system really works or that our government just wants other nations to think that it works. Either way, I refuse to believe that we would spend the kind of money we're spending on a system that we know is impossible to produce.