Democrats and ballistic missile defense

[Grenartia]

So North Korea is going to spend billions creating dummy ballistic missiles? When has this ever happened?

The part with the "Country A" and "Country B" is a hypothetical. It would have been the case if North Korea and the United States were more or less on a level economic playing field, such as with the Cold War. However, that is not the case, obviously, so the answer to your questions are "no", and "never".

That does not mean that North Korea is going to launch. It's literally suicide to launch a nuclear weapon against a state that has second-strike capabilities. Contrary to what you may believe, the North Korean regime is not stupid, nor filled with lunatics. The nukes they obtain aren't going to change the name of the game too much. It's not their tool to kill people - well, it is, but in a very far-fetched scenario - but instead their insurance against outside intervention. It's what will allow them to prolong their "threaten-ask for aid-get aid-detente-repeat" scheme.

Indeed.

We could have more money if we drop the fucking F-35.

What's so bad about the F-35?

I don't know much about it, tbh.

They're trying to build a plane that can do almost anything, and do it better than the multiple planes its going to replace. Except that is not only very expensive, but many of the goals have different optimal designs, so improving abilities in one area handicaps abilities in another.

Technology is always getting cheaper and computing power is increasing. It really is a matter of time and money. I'd rather defensive measures than other methods.

Ground fired lasers are not going to be a credible defence against ICBMs. Meteorology sees to that. Not much use in a system that doesn't work if it's a bit cloudy.

That leaves air or space based platforms. You saw the size of that truck? You're gonna need that and a lot more to generate the orders of magnitude high levels of power you'd need to kill an ICBM in mid-flight. You get milliseconds, not seconds of time on target and guess what? They spin as well. You'll note in the video they killed targets that do not spin, no artillery shells.

So yeah, maybe it's possible and the old Boeing laser plane that tried to kill the missile before it left atmosphere is actually probably the best bet, but we're not getting anything reliable from a laser based system any time soon.

^^^

And yet, with a country that has nukes threatening to use them against us it only seems reasonable to try and develop a defense.

Then maybe we won't have to heed their calls for aid and we can just tell them to fuck off.

I'm pretty sure that the US has never, and most likely never will, give aid to the DPRK.

You'd be wrong, then.

1. We didn't have a military advantage over Ivan. We simply made him spend more than he could afford on military toys.

2. Oh boy! Its an episode of "Attacking Arguments the Opponent Didn't Make!"

3. Shooting down mortars and short-ranged missiles and rockets is a totally different beast from shooting down ICBMs.

1. We did though by the mid-80s. 2. Nah, thats what you were implying and good job ignoring the decreasing costs of technology!

1. Conventionally, the USSR made up for in numbers what it lacked in quality, in terms of manpower and equipment. So in a strictly conventional war, the US and USSR were on equal footing, with any advantage one having over the other being cancelled by having one or more disadvantages (i.e., the US has aircraft carriers, but the USSR has most of its targets far inland, out of the carrier-based planes' reach). In terms of nukes, the US was ahead of the USSR in terms of total warheads up until the late 70s, and then Ivan held the lead (and still does, by a few thousand warheads).

How you can possibly claim that having fewer nukes is "having a military advantage" is beyond comprehension.

2. Not at all, but I already know you have a thing for twisting my words around.

[Grenartia]

Really? I thought that was a dead project. Thats interesting.

The official launch is planned to be in 2022, it makes sense that they're planning years ahead considering this isn't just some mundane construction project.
Now as someone who leans to the left I would naturally prefer our first extra-terrestrial colonization to be some kind of inter-governmental venture to a private organization, but really if this succeeds I'll be happy regardless.

Mars One has been known to be a money-grabbing scheme for about 2 years now.

[Grenartia]

Because doing it would create an arms race (not just with NK, but also China and Russia). The only logical conclusion of said arms race ends in preemptive strikes against the first country to develop an effective anti-anti-ballistic missile system, to deprive that country of the ability to conduct a first strike and survive any attempted second strike.

My argument has never been about not doing it because we can't do it yet. It has always been about the catastrophic consequences of actually fucking doing it.

And this didn't happen during the nuclear arms race because...

Two reasons. 1, technology wasn't (and still isn't) advanced enough for effective antiballistic missiles, much less anti-anti-ballistic missiles. 2, cooler heads on both sides saw the trends, and prevailed in making agreements that limited, then halted, the arms race.

[Kramania]

The part with the "Country A" and "Country B" is a hypothetical. It would have been the case if North Korea and the United States were more or less on a level economic playing field, such as with the Cold War. However, that is not the case, obviously, so the answer to your questions are "no", and "never".

That does not mean that North Korea is going to launch. It's literally suicide to launch a nuclear weapon against a state that has second-strike capabilities. Contrary to what you may believe, the North Korean regime is not stupid, nor filled with lunatics. The nukes they obtain aren't going to change the name of the game too much. It's not their tool to kill people - well, it is, but in a very far-fetched scenario - but instead their insurance against outside intervention. It's what will allow them to prolong their "threaten-ask for aid-get aid-detente-repeat" scheme.

Indeed.

What's so bad about the F-35?

I don't know much about it, tbh.

They're trying to build a plane that can do almost anything, and do it better than the multiple planes its going to replace. Except that is not only very expensive, but many of the goals have different optimal designs, so improving abilities in one area handicaps abilities in another.

Ground fired lasers are not going to be a credible defence against ICBMs. Meteorology sees to that. Not much use in a system that doesn't work if it's a bit cloudy.

That leaves air or space based platforms. You saw the size of that truck? You're gonna need that and a lot more to generate the orders of magnitude high levels of power you'd need to kill an ICBM in mid-flight. You get milliseconds, not seconds of time on target and guess what? They spin as well. You'll note in the video they killed targets that do not spin, no artillery shells.

So yeah, maybe it's possible and the old Boeing laser plane that tried to kill the missile before it left atmosphere is actually probably the best bet, but we're not getting anything reliable from a laser based system any time soon.

^^^

I'm pretty sure that the US has never, and most likely never will, give aid to the DPRK.

You'd be wrong, then.

1. We did though by the mid-80s. 2. Nah, thats what you were implying and good job ignoring the decreasing costs of technology!

1. Conventionally, the USSR made up for in numbers what it lacked in quality, in terms of manpower and equipment. So in a strictly conventional war, the US and USSR were on equal footing, with any advantage one having over the other being cancelled by having one or more disadvantages (i.e., the US has aircraft carriers, but the USSR has most of its targets far inland, out of the carrier-based planes' reach). In terms of nukes, the US was ahead of the USSR in terms of total warheads up until the late 70s, and then Ivan held the lead (and still does, by a few thousand warheads).

How you can possibly claim that having fewer nukes is "having a military advantage" is beyond comprehension.

2. Not at all, but I already know you have a thing for twisting my words around.

Yes, any conventional war between the US and the USSR would have ground to a stalemate.

[The of Japan]

Indeed.



They're trying to build a plane that can do almost anything, and do it better than the multiple planes its going to replace. Except that is not only very expensive, but many of the goals have different optimal designs, so improving abilities in one area handicaps abilities in another.



^^^



You'd be wrong, then.



1. Conventionally, the USSR made up for in numbers what it lacked in quality, in terms of manpower and equipment. So in a strictly conventional war, the US and USSR were on equal footing, with any advantage one having over the other being cancelled by having one or more disadvantages (i.e., the US has aircraft carriers, but the USSR has most of its targets far inland, out of the carrier-based planes' reach). In terms of nukes, the US was ahead of the USSR in terms of total warheads up until the late 70s, and then Ivan held the lead (and still does, by a few thousand warheads).

How you can possibly claim that having fewer nukes is "having a military advantage" is beyond comprehension.

2. Not at all, but I already know you have a thing for twisting my words around.

Yes, any conventional war between the US and the USSR would have ground to a stalemate.

US and allies did have slightly more population back then and muuuuuch more today (Russia is only 150000000 vs over 700000000 of nato)

[Grenartia]

Indeed.



They're trying to build a plane that can do almost anything, and do it better than the multiple planes its going to replace. Except that is not only very expensive, but many of the goals have different optimal designs, so improving abilities in one area handicaps abilities in another.



^^^



You'd be wrong, then.



1. Conventionally, the USSR made up for in numbers what it lacked in quality, in terms of manpower and equipment. So in a strictly conventional war, the US and USSR were on equal footing, with any advantage one having over the other being cancelled by having one or more disadvantages (i.e., the US has aircraft carriers, but the USSR has most of its targets far inland, out of the carrier-based planes' reach). In terms of nukes, the US was ahead of the USSR in terms of total warheads up until the late 70s, and then Ivan held the lead (and still does, by a few thousand warheads).

How you can possibly claim that having fewer nukes is "having a military advantage" is beyond comprehension.

2. Not at all, but I already know you have a thing for twisting my words around.

Yes, any conventional war between the US and the USSR would have ground to a stalemate.

Which is why US policy was always to use tactical nukes as a tiebreaker. Which would automatically escalate the war to nuclear. And since nobody wanted a nuclear war, the tiebreaker policy, in a way, guaranteed peace in general, at least outside of proxy wars.

[Senkaku]

With North Korea's maniac dictator now in possession of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deploy them, people are now waking up to the reality of the need for ballistic missile defense. Unfortunately, we still remain a ways away from an effective ballistic missile shield due to the simple fact that Democrats for decades have been doing everything in their power to prevent the development of a means of countering ballistic missiles. Even Trump initially cut funding to ballistic missile defense. It seems only now with Kim Jong-un threatening to nuke us (and now having the means to back up those threats) are the Democrats waking up to this reality. Now we have to do everything in our power to make up for lost time and develop an effective ballistic missile defense.

Thoughts?

Mondale wasn't wrong at the time. The idea of Star Wars and an anti-ballistic missile shield spooked the Soviets and would have threatened the credibility of their deterrent if it had been successfully implemented (hence why it would have been destabilizing). Furthermore, at the time anyways, the system proposed under SDI wasn't really technologically viable anyways (though that took a while to establish). The modern debate is a bit different (though our relations with Russia aren't exactly warm and fuzzy and they still have quite a few nukes laying around), but I don't think it's fair to characterize previous arguments against ABM systems as mindless Reagan-hating and opposition to the GOP. There were legitimate concerns that they would destabilize MAD and lead to global thermonuclear war- and those concerns haven't died with the Cold War.

Anyways.

[Kramania]

With North Korea's maniac dictator now in possession of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deploy them, people are now waking up to the reality of the need for ballistic missile defense. Unfortunately, we still remain a ways away from an effective ballistic missile shield due to the simple fact that Democrats for decades have been doing everything in their power to prevent the development of a means of countering ballistic missiles. Even Trump initially cut funding to ballistic missile defense. It seems only now with Kim Jong-un threatening to nuke us (and now having the means to back up those threats) are the Democrats waking up to this reality. Now we have to do everything in our power to make up for lost time and develop an effective ballistic missile defense.

Thoughts?

Mondale wasn't wrong at the time. The idea of Star Wars and an anti-ballistic missile shield spooked the Soviets and would have threatened the credibility of their deterrent if it had been successfully implemented (hence why it would have been destabilizing). Furthermore, at the time anyways, the system proposed under SDI wasn't really technologically viable anyways (though that took a while to establish). The modern debate is a bit different (though our relations with Russia aren't exactly warm and fuzzy and they still have quite a few nukes laying around), but I don't think it's fair to characterize previous arguments against ABM systems as mindless Reagan-hating and opposition to the GOP. There were legitimate concerns that they would destabilize MAD and lead to global thermonuclear war- and those concerns haven't died with the Cold War.

Anyways.

MAD would have kept the Soviets in line. As for the technology, it would have taken decades to develop, yes, but thinking in the long term is what leaders have to do.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Alright well first things first - ICBM's can really only be intercepted at three points.

1: Before they are launched is the most successful moment to intercept them (or to prevent the need to ) and this preventative measure works so long as the launch is not a surprise. We already can do this across just about the entire world using our strategic bombers and tactical strikes.

2: Right after they are launched but before they reach the upper atmosphere/extreme speeds. This is harder to do however the THAAD system was developed in 2008 and under President Obama it was deployed in South Korea which kind of blows a hole in your claims that democrats are sabotaging missile defense.

3: Terminal phase is the final moment to stop a missile strike. This is a bit like trying to gently toss a marble at a 90 mph baseball. Hitting it is problematic due to the sheer speed and also the fact that if it explodes far above a target it will still do massive amounts of damage. You seem to be wondering why we do not have some sort of anti missile defense over every city but honestly that is not how it would work. These missiles will need to be in the air before it gets to this point and will be launched from a central location. They will have a flight time to reach their positions and climb in altitude. At this point though a fallout shelter is almost a better investment.

Second things second - US military funding was increased to deal with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Idea of lowering their funding to prewar levels has been turned into the right claiming the left hates this country and wants bin laden/kim jong un/stalin/hitler to invade. It is flat out wrong. The Pentagon is the least efficient and wasteful organization in the world. You hand then 10 million and they come back with an order for 1 pack of bubblegum which will be delivered in 2045 but require more money for cost overruns in the design phase.

Third thing is simple - Republicans hold a majority in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, most state legislatures (both houses and senates) and they have the presidency. No excuses. You cannot point the finger at democrats. They cannot block funding which by the way I would like to see proof funding was cut under president trump. Last thing I read he had increased defense spending across the board. Hard to know though considering during the election he flat out did not know what the nuclear triad was.

Edit: I especially like how this is an opinion piece and almost every source was another opinion piece

[The Black Forrest]

2: Right after they are launched but before they reach the upper atmosphere/extreme speeds. This is harder to do however the THAAD system was developed in 2008 and under President Obama it was deployed in South Korea which kind of blows a hole in your claims that democrats are sabotaging missile defense.

THAAD is older then that. I remember it back in the -late- 80's. Being developed back then and it had a shit load of issues.

*modification as simply saying the 80s can give the wrong impression.

[Fartsniffage]

2: Right after they are launched but before they reach the upper atmosphere/extreme speeds. This is harder to do however the THAAD system was developed in 2008 and under President Obama it was deployed in South Korea which kind of blows a hole in your claims that democrats are sabotaging missile defense.

THAAD is older then that. I remember it back in the 80's. Being developed back then and it had a shit load of issues.

You really don't. THAAD came as a response to Iraqi SCUDs during the first Gulf war.

[The Black Forrest]

THAAD is older then that. I remember it back in the 80's. Being developed back then and it had a shit load of issues.

You really don't. THAAD came as a response to Iraqi SCUDs during the first Gulf war.

actually you are thinking of the Patriot. They were hoping THAAD would replace it.

[Seangoli]

You really don't. THAAD came as a response to Iraqi SCUDs during the first Gulf war.

actually you are thinking of the Patriot. They were hoping THAAD would replace it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ ... ea_Defense

THAAD was originally proposed as a concept in 1987, however formal requests for proposals from contractors didn't occur until 1991. The first operational system did not get deployed until 2008.

[AiliailiA]

Alright well first things first - ICBM's can really only be intercepted at three points.

1: Before they are launched is the most successful moment to intercept them (or to prevent the need to ) and this preventative measure works so long as the launch is not a surprise. We already can do this across just about the entire world using our strategic bombers and tactical strikes.

2: Right after they are launched but before they reach the upper atmosphere/extreme speeds. This is harder to do however the THAAD system was developed in 2008 and under President Obama it was deployed in South Korea which kind of blows a hole in your claims that democrats are sabotaging missile defense.

3: Terminal phase is the final moment to stop a missile strike. This is a bit like trying to gently toss a marble at a 90 mph baseball. Hitting it is problematic due to the sheer speed and also the fact that if it explodes far above a target it will still do massive amounts of damage. You seem to be wondering why we do not have some sort of anti missile defense over every city but honestly that is not how it would work. These missiles will need to be in the air before it gets to this point and will be launched from a central location. They will have a flight time to reach their positions and climb in altitude. At this point though a fallout shelter is almost a better investment.

THAAD is terminal phase defense, and you forgot the ballistic phase. It's difficult but not impossible to intercept missiles when they're coasting in space.

[Taihei Tengoku]

THAAD is also not a replacement for Patriot, but a complement.

[The Black Forrest]

actually you are thinking of the Patriot. They were hoping THAAD would replace it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ ... ea_Defense

THAAD was originally proposed as a concept in 1987, however formal requests for proposals from contractors didn't occur until 1991. The first operational system did not get deployed until 2008.

And what? I was at the facility. I will adapt my comment to say late 80s to make the timeline more correct. It was designed originally for ICBMs and there was a convoluted effort to turn it into a patriot replacement. There were many issues with it. Twenty years later I am not surprised they worked out the kinks. I wasn't in aerodefense and the government at that time so I can't speak for it now.

[Fartsniffage]

You really don't. THAAD came as a response to Iraqi SCUDs during the first Gulf war.

actually you are thinking of the Patriot. They were hoping THAAD would replace it.

What? Patriot was around long before the Iraq war?

[The Black Forrest]

actually you are thinking of the Patriot. They were hoping THAAD would replace it.

What? Patriot was around long before the Iraq war?

I want to say they started appearing in 80 or 81 (my memory is a bit dodgy for exact information). The design was older. It was not a proven concept as MAD was the guiding force. ABM was a bad thing. The Gulf changed peoples views in this area.

[Wisconsin9]

The only thing we need to do to not get nuked by North Korea is not nuke them first.

[Wallenburg]

We already have anti-ballistic missile systems. We call them ICBMs. Read up on mutually assured destruction, please.

[Valgora]

We already have anti-ballistic missile systems. We call them ICBMs. Read up on mutually assured destruction, please.

I'd rather have an actual defense system, because MAD is like the argument "if we make weapons worse, no one will want to go to war."

[Wallenburg]

We already have anti-ballistic missile systems. We call them ICBMs. Read up on mutually assured destruction, please.

I'd rather have an actual defense system, because MAD is like the argument "if we make weapons worse, no one will want to go to war."

And that argument is correct. We have never had a war between two nuclear powers.

[Valgora]

I'd rather have an actual defense system, because MAD is like the argument "if we make weapons worse, no one will want to go to war."

And that argument is correct. We have never had a war between two nuclear powers.

That argument didn't stop World War I.

[Grand Britannia]

This explains alot.

God forbid we get a decent ballistic missile defense going.

[Albrenia]

I'm not sure I trust some current world leaders enough for MAD to be the only thing we rely on though. MAD only works when the people at the table are sane enough to realise that they'll burn too in the fires.

Couldn't hurt to beef up defences in other areas.