Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[aesop081]

I agree with infanteer, US BMD efforts are not a destabilizing factor when it comes to MAD.  Large nuclear countries are not the worry, smaller rogue nations or stateless organizations are more my concern.  No amount of US nukes can respond to that.......who are you gonna nuke in return ?  MAD does not apply to asymetric warfare .

The US scrapped the ABM and NTB treaties without any big impact.........everybody saw ABM comming .....

 

[Glorified Ape]

I think the ballistic missile spin-offs will be worth the research.   The research can spawn into better THAAD systems to protect against ballistic missiles aimed at soldiers in the operational setting - we have a hard enough time hitting a Scud, and that is nothing but a souped up V-2.

Mmm.. good point. I don't see why such research can't be conducted without the development of the kind of shield the US is talking about, though.

As has been elaborated before, I don't see how a system to deal with a handful of missiles at most factors into theories of MAD.   The Chinese and the Russians both know that they can overwhelm the system.   I think a far bigger issue (with regards to MAD) is the continuing existence of Launch-on-Demand forces.   Having an itchy trigger figure with these things isn't very good.

One concern I have is that what was claimed to be for a few missiles only will inevitably increase into a larger program. It just seems pointless - the benefits gleaned seem far outweighed by the costs and side-effects. I don't see terrorists coming across intercontinental ballistic capabilities, nor the platforms from which to launch them since any state that did so would summarily cease to exist. I don't believe that the "rogue states" the US is so afraid of are suicidal. As irrational as they may seem to many of us, their governments are still characterized by a desire to continue to exist and maintain power - something that launching nuclear weapons (or the permission thereof from their soil) would run counterproductive to.

Concerning the "launch on demand" threat to MAD, could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Baloo]

Hey everyone, Chris here. Long time reader, first time poster.

In regards to the following statements, if they have been overmentioned, I apologize, I tried to read the entirety of the posts beforehand.

The US shield as it is being proposed, is turning into the fabled white elephant, just as the Maginot Line of WWII. Even if the missile tests yesterday (sorry if that date is incorrect) were successful, what would that prove? That it was capable of hitting the least sophisticated of missiles in ideal conditions? Please. Any missile, especially the SCUD, if it had the range, deploys certain counter measures, to confuse the missile trying to target it, for a fraction of the cost, compared with shooting it down. As stated, most nations with nuclear capability would either a) Have enough assets to overrun the system, or b) Be swayed by the prospect of being turned to glass themselves in a retaliatory strike. Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group is not going to attack with a ballistic missile. Dirty bombs, in suitcases, would be their tactic. In my belief, this is their only option. They proved that missiles are unnecessary, when their manned, slow moving ones hit the WTC. What the US needs, or we need, for that matter, is a system to destroy missiles in launch phase, not mid flight where it is like shooting a bullet at a bullet. From what I have gathered, launch phase operations would be much more successful.

Tactics are being developed all the time to overcome defenses. Every known defense has only been able to be instituted for so long. The Soviets had their complex SAM network, which was continually beaten progressively, in the intricate cat and mouse game with American spy planes. This too, will be beaten.

I am sorry, but we have so many more priorities within the CF before we can even think of this one.

PS. Again, if I just re-iterated too many other posts, just say.

 

[a_majoor]

Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....

Just what history book did that idea come from? Obviously it must have been written before 1947, or only cover the post war period except for 1948, 1967, 1973, the "war of Attrition" period, the Infantada (s), the Scud Missile attacks.......

Baloo, while you have reiterated the "top ten" list of what's wrong with BMD, please read this thread again and you will see there are

a: valid reasons to persue BMD
b: potential spin offs of BMD which will strengthen our conventional defense capabilities, and;
c BMD is part of a comprehensive package of measures the United States is persuing. Strengthening the Coast Guard might not be so "high tech", and the Patriot act might not seem to be defense related, but they are all part of the greater whole which includes BMD.

This is not a slam against you, just look again in greater depth, you will see the arguments both for and against are multifaceted and quite deep.

 

[Acorn]

Any missile, especially the SCUD, if it had the range, deploys certain counter measures, to confuse the missile trying to target it, for a fraction of the cost, compared with shooting it down.

"Especially the SCUD" fascinates me. Can you let us in on what countermeasures the SCUD employs?

Acorn

 

[Glorified Ape]

Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....

It's actually quite accurate - the Arab nations did not make an "all out" effort, either in constituency or in the application of their forces. An ARAB all out effort would necessitate the entirety of the Arab states as well as a full commital of their capabilities in their entirety.

If they'd actually made an all-out effort, they would have won. The Arab-Israeli wars were relatively limited exchanges compared to the "all out" wars like WWI and II.

 

[a_majoor]

If you read the various histories of the Arab Israeli wars, you will see the Arab nations did send as much of their strength as possible, even to the point of Iraqi divisions attempting to drive from Iraq, through Syria to the battlefield on their "tracks".

This incident alone should explain why the "all out" nature of the various Arab Israeli wars doesn't look very impressive to some of us: the Arab economies are small and inefficient (mostly due to nepotism and internal corruption consuming what little a "command economy" can produce), and so they can buy tanks from Russia, but not have anything left over for the tank transporters or the sundry other items which keep modern mechanized armies going. By the 1980s, the gap was almost insurmountable. Israel can undertake limited production of satellites and launchers, jet fighters (Lavi), and tanks (Merkava), while Arab nations are constrained to purchase weapons systems from outside nations.

The Arab hatred of Israel is intense and all consuming, and even more bitter because they can see a small, prosperous and relatively peaceful state (Israel has no equivalent of the secret or religious "police" which prop up various Arab regimes by terrorizing opponents), and cannot admit to themselves that the reason they don't live in peace and prosperity like Israel is their own social and government structures and beliefs. There is really no other reason that nations mired in poverty would spend so much on supporting terrorists, conventional arms, ballistic missiles (Saudi Arabia has a small fleet of Chinese "Long March" IRBMs), WMDs and especially nuclear weaponry. It would be more satisfying to their collective egos to destroy Israel than to change and adapt.

It would also be more satisfying to wave the threat of nuclear weapons in our face to "prove" they are world powers, prevent our assisting Israel and blackmailing the West, hence the urgent need to get under the BMD shield.

 

[Baloo]

"Especially the SCUD" fascinates me. Can you let us in on what countermeasures the SCUD employs?

Acorn

Sorry about the manner in which I said this. It was meant not so much as "countermeasures", so much as say, the manner in which the SCUD fires. Erratic flight patterns. Breaking apart of the missile itself into smaller pieces, or jettisoning sections of the body. Spiralling of the missile. Less of programmed issues, more to do with the poor workmanship on certain models, that have been demonstrated to confuse such countermeasures as the Patriot Missile. In the end, while they are not as accurate, these problems could confuse any potential missile trying to knock it from the air.

 

[a_majoor]

A missile disintegrating in flight is not a "countermeasure" in the usual sense of the word, and I would think a BMD system that could strike that target would be protecting a lot more people, since such a missile will essentially land in a random location....

 

[Baloo]

But would the BMD even be able to distinguish between these? Even IF it was proven that this system ahd the capability to strike the mid-flight missile, in itself a feat, could it necessarily pick out the warhead still heading towards the ground, or the now defunct tail section of the missile. This doesn't make it an accurate enemy weapon by any means, but provides a huge problem for defenders.

 

[Infanteer]

But would the BMD even be able to distinguish between these? Even IF it was proven that this system ahd the capability to strike the mid-flight missile, in itself a feat, could it necessarily pick out the warhead still heading towards the ground, or the now defunct tail section of the missile. This doesn't make it an accurate enemy weapon by any means, but provides a huge problem for defenders.

Well, we would never really know if we never bothered to initiate the project research, would we?  Are you absolutely certain that technology could never overcome this problem, rendering the program worthless?

People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....

 

[aesop081]

People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....

.....Love that one.........thanks infanteer, you made my day !!

 

[Baloo]

Well, we would never really know if we never bothered to initiate the project research, would we?  Are you absolutely certain that technology could never overcome this problem, rendering the program worthless?

People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....

Officials in the Renaissance being taken aback by a view that went against everything that was believed for centuries, and against the supposed laws of God is slightly different than that of siphoning tens of billions of dollars for a decade into untested technology that was prematurely deployed. I would hope that in time the shield could work, but as it stands, there is no reason for Canada to deploy a system that might as well be a black hole of money. Test it, put all the necessary calculation to work, and put it through the most rigourous trials. Don't just send a mock warhead in broad, clear daylight on a preset trajectory. We cannot grow complacent or secure in a system that just doesn't work.

 

[48Highlander]

Officials in the Renaissance being taken aback by a view that went against everything that was believed for centuries, and against the supposed laws of God is slightly different than that of siphoning tens of billions of dollars for a decade into untested technology that was prematurely deployed.

Yeah, those silly Americans, siphoning massive ammounts of money into a tried and untested concept like "nuclear" research during WW2.  What were they thinking?  Shoulda known it would never work.  And that silly airplane idea too.  All the generals at the time would have told you it wouldn't have any military applications.  But those damn beurocrats all think they know better.  It's terrible I tell ya.

 

[aesop081]

In addition to that..there was a time when rockets were unproven technology.  But these very same unproven rockets were mated with nkes and put in the ground as ICBMs and formed the cornerstone of US deterence.........or was i sleeping during military studies classes ???

The fact that the US is begining to field ABM systems, however limited its effectiveness, will lead to the developements of more improved versions.  After all, ICBMs started out no more sophisticated that the V2 and look at them now.....we have gone from single warhead to MIRVs.........

Sometimes, in the long run, investment in "unproven" technology pays off, i beleive ABM will become an effective system and will become the cornerstone of continental defence.

 

[Baloo]

I am not debating with you the whole issues of technology. I am aware that most weaponry comes as a result of trial and error. Hell, if this was the case, then we would be still using spears and clubs. What I take issue with, is deploying a system before it has even been properly tested or sorted out. It's the attitude of "we'll fix the kinks along the way". As long as we're all going to quote history sarcastically, I will use the following examples:

"Let's use the Ross Rifle. It's a good marksmanship weapon. Sure, we haven't tested it in the proper environments, but we can fix that later..."
"Let's give our boys a shovel, with a hole in the middle of it, to allow them to shoot from behind it's cover. They can figure out how to dig with it later..."

There was a reason they sent monkeys or dogs into space before humans.

This attitude get's people killed.

 

[48Highlander]

I am not debating with you the whole issues of technology. I am aware that most weaponry comes as a result of trial and error. Hell, if this was the case, then we would be still using spears and clubs. What I take issue with, is deploying a system before it has even been properly tested or sorted out. It's the attitude of "we'll fix the kinks along the way". As long as we're all going to quote history sarcastically, I will use the following examples:

"Let's use the Ross Rifle. It's a good marksmanship weapon. Sure, we haven't tested it in the proper environments, but we can fix that later..."
"Let's give our boys a shovel, with a hole in the middle of it, to allow them to shoot from behind it's cover. They can figure out how to dig with it later..."

There was a reason they sent monkeys or dogs into space before humans.

This attitude get's people killed.

    The military needed a rifle.  The ross was a poor choice, but 10 more years of testing and troops without rifles would have resulted in a lot more deaths.  Sometimes you have to make use of something before it's ready and then fix it along the way.  Testing the missile shield for another 10 years before deploying it doesn't do anyone any good if in 2 years a Russian janitor slips and accidentaly hits the launch button

 

[Baloo]

    The military needed a rifle.  The ross was a poor choice, but 10 more years of testing and troops without rifles would have resulted in a lot more deaths.  Sometimes you have to make use of something before it's ready and then fix it along the way.  Testing the missile shield for another 10 years before deploying it doesn't do anyone any good if in 2 years a Russian janitor slips and accidentaly hits the launch button

So, instead of sending them with a British rifle, the best choice was to send them off with the Ross, untested, rather than buy British?

And deploying it now doesn't do us any good, if in 2 years that missile fires, and the missile does not launch, or misses, does it?

 

[48Highlander]

So, instead of sending them with a British rifle, the best choice was to send them off with the Ross, untested, rather than buy British?

And deploying it now doesn't do us any good, if in 2 years that missile fires, and the missile does not launch, or misses, does it?

    Those in charge were convinced it was the best option yes.  But that doesn't apply to our current situation.  We can't very well buy a Brittish Ballistic Missile Defence system now can we?

    Deploying it now doesn't do any harm either.  You may as well argue that it also doesn't do us any good if nobody ever launches.  As a soldier you should understand the need for planning for as many eventualities as possible, even if you cannot gaurantee that you'll be able to deal with all of them.  If the shield fails to work and the US gets wiped out anyway, what have they lost?

 

[a_majoor]

A nice letter on the subject:

December18, 2004 THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

RE: "OUR SOVEREIGNTY DEPENDS ON JOINING MISSILE DEFENCE" - OTTAWA CITIZEN LETTER / ALAIN PELLERIN / DECEMBER 18

In light of Alain Pellerin's reasoned concern that "there is a mutual interest in co-operating on defence and security issues, especially the defence of the North American continent", one really wonders what all the fearful handwringing is about throughout "the true North strong and free" when it comes to the concept of a North American missile shield to "stand on guard for thee". Loud and passionate are the voices of insular pacifism in Ottawa, anxiously claiming that joining a U.S. missile defence system would risk Canadian sovereignty ... earnestly pretending that Canada, in fact, is in a position to ignore the reality of its North American geography.

Not to worry! - Given North Korea's pending entry into the "nuclear club", surely all Mr. Martin would have to do is to seek Pyongyang's solemn assurances that our "sovereign airspace" north of the 49th parallel will, of course, be respected.

Then he is to advise Washington, in light of these assurances, that Canada's participation in a North American missile shield has become quite unnecessary. This way, Mr. Martin can safely withdraw into the relative comfort of our peaceful Canadian values, secure in the knowledge that, in the event of Pyongyang reneging on its promises, Washington, of course, will have no choice but to "shield us from evil". Who says, we can't have our cake and eat it too? - After all, that's the "Canadian way"!