• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do we need a NMD?

Should we have the ability to shoot down nuclear-tipped ICBMs headed for US cities?

  • Total voters
    23
No Brainer...of course we "Should". The problem is we dont, and have wasted valuable resources on a non working system, rather than R&D on one that has promise. The current system is a political and economic tool....with little chance of doing any good whatsoever.
 
tecoyah said:
No Brainer...of course we "Should". The problem is we dont, and have wasted valuable resources on a non working system, rather than R&D on one that has promise. The current system is a political and economic tool....with little chance of doing any good whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd argue that the current systems show a lot more promise than their opponents are willing to admit, but...
 
I'll tell you what. You take a 270 and stand on one side of a large field and I will take a 270 and stand on another side of a field and let's see if we can hit each other's bullets.

Then, let's get 50 billion from congress to spend on our little project, and take that money and develop two bullets that are programed to hit each other. After several tries, when the two bullets that are programed to hit each other actually do, we can go tell congress that our project is working and we need another 50 billion.
 
Cost over runs and technical failures...decades of research into this system have produced little else. It's still costly and unworkable.

It's a system that can easily be fooled by cheap decoys....dummy missiles. This 'dummy missile' problem is hardly being addressed.

It's a system that has been brought back into focus only because of intense lobbying by weapons contractors, who see the potential to make tremendous money on a system that has yet to prove it's effectiveness.

It's a violation of the ABM treaty that our nation signed, and violating this treaty will only lead to increased nuclear proliferation in the entire world.

If North Korea gets a long range ICBM, and they dare launch it against us, they will face a retalitory strike of 1000's of our own missiles.

I'm not saying completely stop the research, but the fear mongering goes on under this administration...."North Korea is getting a missile...we have to spend billions on NMD!!!" It's using fear to get what they want.

We'd be better off spending our money trying to prevent these nations from getting missiles in the first place, and shoring up our borders...where the real threat lies....suitcase dirty bombs smuggled into our country.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I'll tell you what. You take a 270 and stand on one side of a large field and I will take a 270 and stand on another side of a field and let's see if we can hit each other's bullets.

Then, let's get 50 billion from congress to spend on our little project, and take that money and develop two bullets that are programed to hit each other. After several tries, when the two bullets that are programed to hit each other actually do, we can go tell congress that our project is working and we need another 50 billion.
Click to expand...
Does this address the question of "need"?
Or if we "should" have the ability?
No.

Oh... I prefer 6.5-06 or 6.5-284 over .270
 
Hoot said:
It's a violation of the ABM treaty that our nation signed, and violating this treaty will only lead to increased nuclear proliferation in the entire world.
Click to expand...
We are no longer part of the ABM treaty.
You cannot violate a treaty you are not party to.

If North Korea gets a long range ICBM, and they dare launch it against us, they will face a retalitory strike of 1000's of our own missiles.
Click to expand...
OK, but... without the ability to shoot down those NK missiles, doesn't this mean many tens of thousands of Americans will die?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
We are no longer part of the ABM treaty.
You cannot violate a treaty you are not party to.


OK, but... without the ability to shoot down those NK missiles, doesn't this mean many tens of thousands of Americans will die?
Click to expand...

You're quite right...my apologies.

However, some still believe that Bush had no right to pull out of that treaty without the approval of Congress, thereby making his withdrawal from the ABM treaty unconstitutional.

Of course, now that I think of it, since when has Bush worried about the constitution? LOL

As far as the 10's of thousands, you're right on this also, but I still believe we have far more to fear from dirty bombs smuggled in across our borders. If North Korea attacks us...we'll turn the nation into a sheet of glass....problem solved.
 
Hoot said:
You're quite right...my apologies.
However, some still believe that Bush had no right to pull out of that treaty without the approval of Congress, thereby making his withdrawal from the ABM treaty unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Those people are decidedly and demostrably wrong. Nothing anywhere requires the President to consult anyone before exercising any provision of any treaty, and there are several relevant SCotUS decisons to that effect.

If North Korea attacks us...we'll turn the nation into a sheet of glass....problem solved.
Click to expand...
Except for the people in Seattle and Portland and...
 
Goobieman said:
Does this address the question of "need"?
Or if we "should" have the ability?
No.

Oh... I prefer 6.5-06 or 6.5-284 over .270
Click to expand...

No, its more a question of practicality. It seems to me that the only scientists who think that such a system is practical or ever stands a chance of really working are the ones who are getting tax dollars to work on it.

Its a great idea, I just don't know that it would ever work regardless of how many billions we pour into it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, its more a question of practicality. It seems to me that the only scientists who think that such a system is practical or ever stands a chance of really working are the ones who are getting tax dollars to work on it.

Its a great idea, I just don't know that it would ever work regardless of how many billions we pour into it.
Click to expand...

We had an operable NMD in the 50s 60s and 70s.
We have a reasonably successful string of tests on the current NMD system.
Why don't you think the current system will ever be 'practical' or will never work?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
We had an operable NMD in the 50s 60s and 70s.
We have a reasonably successful string of tests on the current NMD system.
Why don't you think the current system will ever be 'practical' or will never work?
Click to expand...

Those "reasonably successful" tests, did not in anyway simulate a real world scenario. The technology to actually test in a real world scenario, where you don't have what amounts to two missiles programed to hit each other, does not even exist.

Moreover, even if we were to develop the technology for this to actually work in a realistic scenario, it would still be easily defeated by relatively simple counter measures such as decoy missiles.

I work in IT. In the industry I am in, vendors are always trying to sell you the next great thing that is going to make your infrastructure easier to manage, secure, or longer uptime, or whatever. The problem is, a good bit of it is vaporware. Lots of the vaporware out there is a great idea, the problem is that a lot of it will always be vaporware and will never actually work. That is why you have to be very selective on where you recommend your limited I.T. resources go. That is what missile defense is right now, its vaporware. It is a wonderful idea, however, in the end, is it something that will only line the pocket's of defense contractors, or is it something that actually will work if the money are resources are committed to it. From everything I have read on the subject, it looks more like the former than the latter.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Those "reasonably successful" tests, did not in anyway simulate a real world scenario. The technology to actually test in a real world scenario, where you don't have what amounts to two missiles programed to hit each other, does not even exist.
Click to expand...
But... that's not what happend.
In the tests, the targets were fired ballistically. They were not guided in any way, save by physics. This is as it would be in the real world.
What sort of 'real world' tests are you looking for?

Moreover, even if we were to develop the technology for this to actually work in a realistic scenario, it would still be easily defeated by relatively simple counter measures such as decoy missiles.
Click to expand...
The NMD is designed to defeat an attack by 50 missiles, each with 'sophisticated' pennetration aids (dummy warheads, not dummy missiles). It does this by launching an interceptor at anything that might be a valid target, including decoys.

From everything I have read on the subject, it looks more like the former than the latter.
Click to expand...
You need to read more, then, because, based on the opinions you offer here, what you have read is inaccurate.
 
Hoot said:
Below is a very recent question and answer piece about NMD by the Brookings Institute. Decide for yourself, as it seems like I'm the only one who has voted no on this system. I believe our money could be better spent.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/areas/nmd/faq.htm
Click to expand...

Very Recent?

This is from 2001. Some of it is -very- out of date, and many of the worries it speaks of in its criticisms have failed to materialize.
 
Goobieman said:
Those people are decidedly and demostrably wrong. Nothing anywhere requires the President to consult anyone before exercising any provision of any treaty, and there are several relevant SCotUS decisons to that effect.


Except for the people in Seattle and Portland and...
Click to expand...
Wait a minute... Seattle and Portland would be the first targets? Too tempting, too tempting....
 
:lol:

If the results of this poll are at all reflective of the national sentiment, I guess Democrats really screwed the pooch with the public when they undermined and opposed the interceptor program researching exactly the technology being discussed here.
 
faithful_servant said:
Wait a minute... Seattle and Portland would be the first targets? Too tempting, too tempting....
Click to expand...

It rains there too much anyway!
 
Talk about a loaded poll question! Of course we "should" have the ability to do that. And it'd also be nice if we were all millionaires, had happy families, and were immortal. And there's a better chance of those things happening than getting a working NMD.

First of all, a missile defense system would be unimaginably expensive. And before anyone says "But isn't any effort that saves even one life worth it?", the obvious answer is no. There are MUCH more efficient ways to allocate our DoD funds to protect America. A missile defense system is at the bottom of that list.

Second of all, a missile defense system would not stop terrorists and/or foreign spies. And before anyone says "But isn't any effort that deprives them of one method of destruction worth it?", once again the obvious answer is no. If a nuclear nation or nuclear terrorist group is determined to nuke us, why on earth would they send a missile if they know we have a missile defense system? This system would just be a small rock in a river; the water would simply flow around it.

Third of all, the cost to America of BUILDING a missile defense system, versus the cost to America's enemies of BREACHING the missile defense system, is so astronomically disparate that it's unlikely that a missile defense system will EVER be worth it.

Fourth of all, even if we got it to work, the technological trends are not in our favor. All other things being equal, a missile defense system will become more and more irrelevant over time, as more and more of the threats facing the world will come from terrorist cells and crazy individuals rather than nation-states fighting each other.
 
Personally, I'd think it'd be more practical to knock out there long range radar, missile silos, missile launching facilities, research facilities, sattelites, infrastructure, and, just for kicks, their government buildings.

Oh yeah, we can already do all that before a missile gets off the ground in 9 out of 10 cases.

Now, a sub may be a different story. But, not to worry, we kick everyones *** down there too. Britain and Russia have some good ones, but ours are better.
 
Kandahar said:
Talk about a loaded poll question! Of course we "should" have the ability to do that.
Click to expand...
So, you voted, yes. Yes?

First of all, a missile defense system would be unimaginably expensive. And before anyone says "But isn't any effort that saves even one life worth it?", the obvious answer is no. There are MUCH more efficient ways to allocate our DoD funds to protect America. A missile defense system is at the bottom of that list.
Click to expand...
"Unimaginably"? How so?
We've spent roughly $8B/yr since 1996 to develop the system to the point of deployment and have deployed about 5% of the planned number of interceptors. Seems to me the number is "imaginable" and compared to the cost of things we don't question, isn't all that large.

And aside from shooting them down, how would you propose we stop ICBMs that have been launched at the US?

And... what amount of $ is "too much" to stop a 500kt nuke from going off over Seattle? You must have some number in mind...?

Second of all, a missile defense system would not stop terrorists and/or foreign spies.
Click to expand...
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That defense A does not counter threat B is not an argument against defense A.

why on earth would they send a missile if they know we have a missile defense system?
Click to expand...
And yet, they still develop missiles capable of reaching us...

Third of all, the cost to America of BUILDING a missile defense system, versus the cost to America's enemies of BREACHING the missile defense system, is so astronomically disparate that it's unlikely that a missile defense system will EVER be worth it.
Click to expand...
Again:
How much $ is too much $ to heep an 500kt nuke from going off over Seattle?
You must have some number in mind...?

All other things being equal, a missile defense system will become more and more irrelevant over time, as more and more of the threats facing the world will come from terrorist cells and crazy individuals rather than nation-states fighting each other.
Click to expand...
See threat A, defense B, above.
That, and...weapons systems become obsolete all the time. That's never been an argument against building them up to this point; how is it an argument now?
 
I feel so much more secure now......

"U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails
Latest Setback in Pacific Fuels Doubts About System's Future

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A05

The Bush administration's effort to build a system for defending the country against ballistic missile attack suffered an embarrassing setback yesterday when an interceptor missile failed to launch during the first flight test of the system in two years.

Pentagon officials could not immediately explain the reason for the failure. They said some kind of anomaly prompted the automatic shutdown of the launch sequence just 23 seconds before the interceptor was due to take off from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. Plans had called for the interceptor to soar into space and knock down a mock warhead fired from Kodiak Island in Alaska about 16 minutes earlier. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html


"Missile Defense Fails Test Again

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2005
An anti-ballistic missile interceptor shown launching from a platform in California. (AP)


(AP) A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml

"

Joe Conason
The rigged missile defense test
The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect. Why has the media mostly ignored the story?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

July 31, 2001 | The Pentagon and the Bush administration are determined to sell the American people a national missile defense system that will probably increase tensions with allies and adversaries and will surely cost more than $100 billion. Their latest marketing exercise took place on the evening of July 14, when a "kill vehicle" launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific smashed into a rocket sent up from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Precisely according to plan, the target was instantly vaporized on impact -- and along with it, or so the Pentagon's uniformed salesmen hoped, the perennial concern that missile defense won't work. With the cooperation of major news organizations and conservative pundits, that test provided an enormous propaganda boost to the Bush proposal, which conveniently enough had been brought up to Capitol Hill by Defense Department officials just two days earlier.

There was only one thing that all the happy salesmen forgot to mention about their latest test drive. The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged.

No wonder, then, that Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the Air Force officer who oversees the NMD program, told the Washington Post on the eve of the test that he was "quietly confident" about the outcome. The general knew about the GPS beacon, while the reporters didn't. "

http://archive.salon.com/news/col/cona/2001/07/31/test/

If anyone is interested in the timeline and scenario information.....this is a wonderful resource, containing detailed information of who did what....and when. It is unfortunately, less than reassuring.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/chronology-of-missile-defense-tests.html
 
tecoyah said:
I feel so much more secure now......
Click to expand...
That's because you're reading Conason.

The Bush administration's effort to build a system for defending the country against ballistic missile attack suffered an embarrassing setback yesterday when an interceptor missile failed to launch during the first flight test of the system in two years.
Click to expand...
And when the Shuttle doesnt go up because of some problem during countdown -- does that indicate that the shuttle program has "suffered a setback"? Of course not.

How about a Delta-IV, used to launch most of our satellites? Nope.

But if something like this happens to a GBI - during a test?

Proof positive that it won't work. :roll:

"Missile Defense Fails Test Again
A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.
Click to expand...
OMFG. A problem with ground countrol.
The system will -never- work. :roll:

Joe Conason
The rigged missile defense test
The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect. Why has the media mostly ignored the story?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a GPS "beacon", it was a C-band radar transponder.

It was used so that a C-band radar could act as a surrogate for the yet-unbuilt X-band radar that will provide targeting data to the NMD Battle Management Sysytem (BMS).

See, the C-band radar can't do what an X-band radar can do, so it needs a little help. The transponder allowed the C-band radar to 'see' the target, allowing the BMS to tell the kill vehicle where to look for the target. The kill vehicle looked there, saw the target, homed in on it, and killed it.

What Conason doesnt tell you - either deliberately, or because he doesn't know - is that at no time did the kill vehicle lock onto or get data from the transponder. This is true for -every- test where the C-band radar/transponder stood in for the X-band system.

Of all 10 hit-to-kill flight tests:
5 were hits.
3 missed because of failures in surrogate systems not being tested.
1 didn't go off because of a failure in a surrogate system not being tested
1 didn't go off because of a ground control problem

That is the "proof" that the system doesn't/won't work.
 
Last edited:
NMD is a political program, not a defense system.

What Kandahar said in post #19 goes for me. ( Great post, Kandahar) The only thing I'll add is, a system like NMD will probably add to nuclear proliferation throughout the world.

To borrow from an old Clinton campaign slogan...

"It's the borders, stupid."
 
Goobieman...are you sure you don't have one of those transponders hidden somewhere on your body? Maybe someplace you're not aware of?

The Bush White House is sending you alot of garbage and they certainly have you honed in! :rofl

Just kidding around with you Goobieman...your posts are always worth a read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom