Democrats and ballistic missile defense

[Valgora]

I saw something that said a laser killed a test drown in 15 seconds 2 years and 4 days ago (Sep. 9, 2015).
I doubt that a laser could go from 15 seconds to a few milliseconds in 2 years.

And, electromagnetic railguns would probably be ineffective against ballistic missiles.

You are correct, reducing the destruction time by several orders of magnitude is highly unlikely in only 2 years.

As for railguns vs ballistic missiles, assuming your targeting systems are accurate (which, for the US, they would be), and the aforementioned rail-erosion problem could be overcome, they actually would be pretty good.

I was about to say something about the range of a railgun v. being able to shoot a missile.
However, according to the internet, space starts at 100 km. And the US's railgun has a range of 160 km with plans to make it reach 360 km. However, I don't think that accounts for the most likely probability that the US hasn't tested the railgun by shooting up.

[Kramania]

Your entire argument essentially boils down to "we shouldn't pursue ballistic missile defense because it won't make peace with North Korea".

That's asinine. If a country is threatening to use ballistic missiles on us the only sane response is to try and build a defense against them. Yet for whatever reason you seem to want to leave us vulnerable because of some absurd scenario you just concocted in your head.

No, it doesn't exactly boil down to that. The basic premise of his argument is that Country A spends, say, $100 on a highly sophisticated defence system which can shoot down 100% of the targets it identifies. You'd expect this to be a no-brainer spending.

However, it isn't. Because, Country B doesn't spend $100 on developing more sophisticated missiles, therefore driving the whole ordeal into a funding race, which the United States can very easily handle. No, instead, they spend $25 to make more missiles, some with dummy warheads, to simply overwhelm the highly sophisticated system Country A has developed. Basically, the cost-effectiveness of that sophisticated system is terrible, because such systems can be overwhelmed with relatively less cost than it takes to develop the system.

Nuclear weapons are only effective if the other side is too afraid of the costs of using them. If the gains don't justify the losses, you don't press the big red button. North Korea is not going to launch, because they very well know that if they did such a thing, the country would turn into the largest parking lot on Earth. The Kim regime relies on the uncertainty it creates in the West for its extortion racket - threats, "gib aid", relax, then all over again - but it would never launch. The Kim regime wants to self-perpetuate, not self-destruct.

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

[Kramania]

1. Oh, yes, I'm sure you do, Dr. 2. I'll take your word for it over the actual successes of intercepting ballistic missiles.

1. I never claimed I had a PhD. Simply that I actually study physics.

2. You mean the lucky hits we've made that have been highlighted over the failures, to create the illusion that we can reliably intercept them?

So why don't we actually spend the money so we can create the technology? Saying "we can't do it yet, therefore we shouldn't try" isn't a valid argument.

[Valgora]

1. I never claimed I had a PhD. Simply that I actually study physics.

2. You mean the lucky hits we've made that have been highlighted over the failures, to create the illusion that we can reliably intercept them?

So why don't we actually spend the money so we can create the technology? Saying "we can't do it yet, therefore we shouldn't try" isn't a valid argument.

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

[Vistulange]

No, it doesn't exactly boil down to that. The basic premise of his argument is that Country A spends, say, $100 on a highly sophisticated defence system which can shoot down 100% of the targets it identifies. You'd expect this to be a no-brainer spending.

However, it isn't. Because, Country B doesn't spend $100 on developing more sophisticated missiles, therefore driving the whole ordeal into a funding race, which the United States can very easily handle. No, instead, they spend $25 to make more missiles, some with dummy warheads, to simply overwhelm the highly sophisticated system Country A has developed. Basically, the cost-effectiveness of that sophisticated system is terrible, because such systems can be overwhelmed with relatively less cost than it takes to develop the system.

Nuclear weapons are only effective if the other side is too afraid of the costs of using them. If the gains don't justify the losses, you don't press the big red button. North Korea is not going to launch, because they very well know that if they did such a thing, the country would turn into the largest parking lot on Earth. The Kim regime relies on the uncertainty it creates in the West for its extortion racket - threats, "gib aid", relax, then all over again - but it would never launch. The Kim regime wants to self-perpetuate, not self-destruct.

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.

[Kramania]

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.

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.

[The East Marches II]

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.

>assuming they will act rationally

I give it 3/10 for the attempt. Better luck next time!

[Kramania]

So why don't we actually spend the money so we can create the technology? Saying "we can't do it yet, therefore we shouldn't try" isn't a valid argument.

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.

[The East Marches II]

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.

Pierre Sprey and Boeing are salty they didn't get the contract.

[Fartsniffage]

"Just"

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.

[Valgora]

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.

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.

[Valgora]

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.

It's the next generation US multi-role fighter jet that's a fucking waste of money.

I think it's near $1.45 trillion that's been wasted.

[Genivaria]

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.

The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and has been much criticized inside and outside government, in the U.S. and in allied countries.[17] Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of… [identifying and fixing] defects before firing up its production line".[17] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule".[18] Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

[Vistulange]

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.

>assuming they will act rationally

I give it 3/10 for the attempt. Better luck next time!

Yes, we have to assume that they will act rationally. It's the one single assumption we have to make, or we have no other footing to stand on.

Now, there's nothing indicating that Kim Jong-un has a mental condition which clouds his sound judgement. I'm personally of the belief that North Korea isn't beholden to Kimmy's will, but instead a more traditional military clique. No rational man - and I have no evidence to suggest that the entirety of North Korean essentials are insane - would think that North Korea can prevail in any war, nuclear or conventional, against the United States. It's simply a racketeering scheme, nothing more.

It's not just one nuke, either. The costs of utilising that one nuke is just too goddamn high. What then? You've bombed, say, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Then? You have no further capability and you are a sitting duck waiting to be flattened. You don't need to be anything special to understand that this is fucked up for you - average intelligence is more than adequate. But, what Japan wouldn't want is a nuke in the face for disturbing Kimmy and his racket. Like I said, insurance.

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.

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.

Whoops, totally missed this. And yes, you're right. Doesn't hurt to develop defences - you just ought to be a tad smart with how you spend the money. It isn't limitless, as you know. And the regime isn't going to use the nukes even if their cries are denied, in fact, I'm of the belief that aid to North Korea should end, because that's the only meaningful way to corner the regime. No matter what, North Korea doesn't want to be the first to use a nuke. If they do that, they're fucked, no matter what.

But if they're already being invaded, "outside intervention", they might use it, because either way, the regime is going down.

[The East Marches II]

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.

Of course not ground based, any good defense is layered. I believe its worth investing money in. Humans are not rational, its best to have a response that isn't nuclear holocaust alone.

[Genivaria]

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.

Of course not ground based, any good defense is layered. I believe its worth investing money in. Humans are not rational, its best to have a response that isn't nuclear holocaust alone.

Ha jokes on you we already have a railgun on the moon aimed at China.

[The East Marches II]

>assuming they will act rationally

I give it 3/10 for the attempt. Better luck next time!

Yes, we have to assume that they will act rationally. It's the one single assumption we have to make, or we have no other footing to stand on.

Now, there's nothing indicating that Kim Jong-un has a mental condition which clouds his sound judgement. I'm personally of the belief that North Korea isn't beholden to Kimmy's will, but instead a more traditional military clique. No rational man - and I have no evidence to suggest that the entirety of North Korean essentials are insane - would think that North Korea can prevail in any war, nuclear or conventional, against the United States. It's simply a racketeering scheme, nothing more.

It's not just one nuke, either. The costs of utilising that one nuke is just too goddamn high. What then? You've bombed, say, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Then? You have no further capability and you are a sitting duck waiting to be flattened. You don't need to be anything special to understand that this is fucked up for you - average intelligence is more than adequate. But, what Japan wouldn't want is a nuke in the face for disturbing Kimmy and his racket. Like I said, insurance.

Building systems on false assumptions is generally bad policy.

Same belief the Kemalists had but we saw how well that worked out in Turkey. You'll have to pardon me if I don't take your judgement on the matter of intentions with any particular weight.

[The Black Forrest]

Man are people talking about ABMs again? This is not a new thing as it's been discussed in the past.

There are many problems with having one. But rather then bore let's just look at two reasons why total faith in them is misplaced.

1) They are not a guarantee. Stuff will get through and the "acceptable losses" starts getting discussed.
2) Acceptable losses starts becoming a factor. One of the reasons we didn't go for them during times of the USSR, it was thought that if enough were built, somebody would get comfortable enough to say "Let's go for it!"
3) Submarines pose a big problem.
4....

Having nukes doesn't guarantee they will be used. They also don't guarantee your friends won't turn on you. For example, let's say NK did launch it somehow landed on the US. I could see China hitting them for an unprovoked attack. Propaganda is one thing that doesn't work with a launch. It may work on your people but the nuclear neighbors are a different problem.

An ABM system should be part of a defense but it's not a solution.

[Kramania]

What's so bad about the F-35?

I don't know much about it, tbh.

The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and has been much criticized inside and outside government, in the U.S. and in allied countries.[17] Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of… [identifying and fixing] defects before firing up its production line".[17] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule".[18] Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

Fug, that's a lot of money.

[The East Marches II]

Of course not ground based, any good defense is layered. I believe its worth investing money in. Humans are not rational, its best to have a response that isn't nuclear holocaust alone.

Ha jokes on you we already have a railgun on the moon aimed at China.

>tfw you wish we had a moon base for that purpose

We should have gone further. Wunderwaffe are the best.

[Vistulange]

Yes, we have to assume that they will act rationally. It's the one single assumption we have to make, or we have no other footing to stand on.

Now, there's nothing indicating that Kim Jong-un has a mental condition which clouds his sound judgement. I'm personally of the belief that North Korea isn't beholden to Kimmy's will, but instead a more traditional military clique. No rational man - and I have no evidence to suggest that the entirety of North Korean essentials are insane - would think that North Korea can prevail in any war, nuclear or conventional, against the United States. It's simply a racketeering scheme, nothing more.

It's not just one nuke, either. The costs of utilising that one nuke is just too goddamn high. What then? You've bombed, say, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Then? You have no further capability and you are a sitting duck waiting to be flattened. You don't need to be anything special to understand that this is fucked up for you - average intelligence is more than adequate. But, what Japan wouldn't want is a nuke in the face for disturbing Kimmy and his racket. Like I said, insurance.

Building systems on false assumptions is generally bad policy.

Same belief the Kemalists had but we saw how well that worked out in Turkey. You'll have to pardon me if I don't take your judgement on the matter of intentions with any particular weight.

You seem to bring up Turkey in every post you make in response to me. I get it, you have this thing against Turks, but really? Come up with some scientific arguments instead of "lol u Turks dun know shit". It's gotten tiresome.

[Genivaria]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

Fug, that's a lot of money.

When 'too big to fail' is applied to military R&D.

[Kramania]

Man are people talking about ABMs again? This is not a new thing as it's been discussed in the past.

There are many problems with having one. But rather then bore let's just look at two reasons why total faith in them is misplaced.

1) They are not a guarantee. Stuff will get through and the "acceptable losses" starts getting discussed.
2) Acceptable losses starts becoming a factor. One of the reasons we didn't go for them during times of the USSR, it was thought that if enough were built, somebody would get comfortable enough to say "Let's go for it!"
3) Submarines pose a big problem.
4....

Having nukes doesn't guarantee they will be used. They also don't guarantee your friends won't turn on you. For example, let's say NK did launch it somehow landed on the US. I could see China hitting them for an unprovoked attack. Propaganda is one thing that doesn't work with a launch. It may work on your people but the nuclear neighbors are a different problem.

An ABM system should be part of a defense but it's not a solution.

Nobody's saying it's a solution. People simply think we should have a defense.

[Fartsniffage]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

Fug, that's a lot of money.

Meh, US military procurement is just welfare with another name.

[Genivaria]

Ha jokes on you we already have a railgun on the moon aimed at China.

>tfw you wish we had a moon base for that purpose

We should have gone further. Wunderwaffe are the best.

What do you mean 'tfw'?
Implying that's somehow weird.