Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Missle Defense System
[email protected]    6/7/2001 9:36:39 PM
YEes, it may seem that we are building a wall, but it takes about 45 min for a missle launched from Russia to make it into the U.S. It takes the U.S. approx. 16 min to prep our missles, and another 10 to launch them, so, in theory, several of our missles would be destroyed, and these that made it out of the U.S. would be shot down by a foreign missle defence system. Unless these numbers seem comforting, and seem to allow you to think that we can retaliate or shoot down the foreign missles in that short time, then don.t you be suggesting your ideas to the U.S. Gov.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
Fred    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 11:40:05 AM
peacekeeping is not nonsense. It has helped stop major conflicts right across the world. Greece and Turkey for example have not gone to war over Cyprus in a while. They are NATO partners. Contempt for peacekeeping is one of the hallmarks of an isolationist atitude that helps to spark major wars. The Balkans would have been settled a hell of a lot sooner if the world had committed more forces there. The safe areas that were overrun and destroyed with the mass graves to prove it might not have occurred. This busines of either killing everyone or sticking your head in the sand is a nonsensical policy that leaves conflicts unresolved and produces misery that can reach acros the ocean. We live in an increasing small world and the force multiplier effect of bio and nukes mean we all have a vested interest in lowerring conflict world wide. Peacekeeping is a tool for that. Our battlegroup in Afghanistan would surely be overwhelmed if dropped into Afghanistan by itself. I am sure thta without the Northern alliance window dressing the Americans there would face a similar situation as the red army. The Afghans have a habit of killing unwanted visitors. The Red army at it's height was far larger than the American presence there. So the states is there because the Afghans want them there. The last time you guys tried to take over a third would country without real local support you got your ass's kicked or does Vietnam ring a bell. If we are there because we enjoy some local support so are you. Everybody is short on airlift. Americans ocasionally contract out civil airlines for troop movement and logistics. One of the main reasons there are problems with the new IBCT program is the shortage of lift. Your air force would rather buy the sexy Raptors then transports. Maybe they should get a little more Allied funds before your IBCT vehicles become yellow cabs so they can meet the deployment schedule the army wants. The Candian army would not be effective on it's own in Afghanistan but yours would not either. The Northern alliance were the ones who overrran the Taliban not Uncle Sugar. I once again point out tht America is the leader of an alliance but not the sole member. Allied contibutions to the war effort in Afghanistan may be small but indicate support of the highest kind. Our most precious coin is our young people. Our battlegroup is very well trained and equipped. Our men have done well there and will continue to do well there. We do need a larger military but the one we have mostly because of the people is surprisingly capable.
 
Quote    Reply

Fred    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 1:54:39 PM
BMD as propsed presenlty is based on high speed missile interceptors using very precise radars and thermal imaging to destroy a few warheads launched by socalled rogue states or an accidental launch. Sounds nice but in my opnion as prsently prposed is an expensive ineffectual geature that alienates American allies. These interceptors whatever the current acronym need radar to see thier targets. Even a primitive nuclear weapon gives off a lot of emp. It is a relatively simple matter to increase yield wheras hardenning is far more expensive and of doubtful usefullness. One large nuke detonated in low orbit over the North American land mass would have incredibly bad effects on radar. The detonation of several would have a corresponding larger effect. We would be able to strike back but the guidance of interceptors would be rendderred impossibly problematic. This issue does not even address the issue of a primitive nume smuggled in or a local group of nutbars deciding to do it based on thier own agenda. If you do not think this is possible I would remend you that the nut who destoyed the building in Oklahoma was probably aware he was destroying a daycare as well. I do rather admire your system of capital punishment in certain cases. Missile technolgy is spreading. The Russians would probably sell thier stuff cheap. If intelligance does not see the true capabilties of certain states than a ineffective abm system could take away from the efforts to detect such efforts. ABm at present rather reminds me of the Maginot line. I think the best way to do abm defense is to continue to research lasers and the like and place them in orbit. They should be able to generate lots of high powerred shots and be controlled from high orbit space stations with much redundancy built in. That way if part of your C3I is compromised something else can diresct your weapons. They could fire an and destroy decoys warheads et cetera. If you miss fine blaze away again. Misssiles in comparison have a slow rate of fire and accuracy becomes much more of an issue. This will take years but the money spent there will pay off. O would have no problem basing abm facilties on Canadian soil. We are part of NORAD and we have common interests that geography dictates and besides our nations have moral obligations forged in blood that should count for something. I would just like to seea aystem that is effectual. At present the best way to stop a nuke launch is to oblitrate the launchers before takeoff. Primitive missiles require quite a bit of prep that is ummistakeable especially if done above ground. A Trident would bea good way to respond to such a threat I think. In as regards to detecting smuggled in nukes or homegrown then intelligance becomes key. Your intelligance needs more old fashionned spies to cetch this stuff and money could be profitably spent there. I am not anti-abm but I do have a problem with spending money on a stupid well meaning weapons system. In twenty years you folks will have a great missile defense system but it will not consist of temperamental expensive missiles that miss a lot. Glen Sather was exiled for a reason. Cheers Fred
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff from Michigan    To Fred: Peacekeeping   5/6/2002 8:48:40 PM
Fred, There isn't disagreement that peacekeeping is a vital part on our toolbox of maintaining international order. In no means am I reading that BSL is denigrating the role the Canadians provide here. However there are severe limitations and shortfalls that the Canadian armed forces face. While certain units are in the elite status the overall force structure of the Canadian armed forces is lacking due to the starvation of funds to maintain it. What has happened is a defacto division of responsibility. The U.S. is the armed fist of the West and the rest of the world are the cops. There is no shame in this. It is a result of concious decisions made by the governments after the end of the cold war. Peacekeeping only works when there is a peace to keep. Lets go to the Balkens example. After the Gulf War when Slobo and his proxies started their murderous campaigns THE EUROPEANS took over the lead in this area. Essentially they told the U.S. to butt out this was their sphere of interest. Well you saw what happened. One side did not want peace and kept killing until the Western world (lead by the U.S.) stepped in. We will be stuck in that area for years just like Cyprus. So don't be blaming the Balkans in the U.S. Look at Paris and Berlin for that fiasco. Why not break the Gordian knot and install direct rule/administration on that area until they have been brought up to Western standards. It sure would save a lot of hassle. The UN wouldn't go for it because they would see half the membership disappear. But events might take us down that road unless we let the local yokels know that we are serious and they had better get along or else. So Canada and the rest of the west can do the peacekeeping job which requires a whole different set of skills then killing people. The U.S. can help set up the conditions for the insertion of the peacekeepers and get them their. But as I said earlier there has to be a peace worth keeping. Armed belligerents like in Kosovo should be arrested and jailed by the LAW. If the law is the western forces then so be it. Finally I remember at one time that the UN tried to have some regular standing or on alert peacekeepers so that it could respond quickly instead of having to cobble together an ad hoc force each time. It got no where for what I thought was good reasons at the time but now I am willing to re-look at this question again. What are all of you think about this?
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 9:11:50 PM
Part 1 Fred, This last one, I'm afraid, is a list of inaccuracies. 1)Greece and Turkey have nothing, whatever, to do with "peacekeeping". There isn't and never has been a "peacekeeping force" separating the Greeks and the Turks, unless you want to go to Cyprus, (NOT part of either country until the last bit of Greek national expression, when Turkey took over the Turkish part). And, that's hardly a model as the present lines were drawn precisely by force of arms. 2)The Balkans, as you say, suffered from a lack of outside force. Problem is, as YOU, yourself have put the thing (and, btw, I agree with your statement), what was lacking was NOT "peacekeeping", but "more forces". There was no peacekeeping behind the end (or pause) in hostilities. To the contrary, in THIS case we have parallel examples; a UN based "peacekeeping" effort and an **actual** exercise in force and the real threat of force by a NATO-based force. The latter, as puny and hypocritical as it was, actually managed to intimidate the Serbs into a settlement, ultimately. The former is best represented by the heroic defense of Srbernica by the brave Dutch carrying the UN banner with the full faith and backing of Kofi Annan. All hail the gallant protectors of the helpless of Srbernica! Get the point? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a member of a militia and I don't march wearing armbands. I have an academic background which includes these issues and the larger context, both theoretical and historical. The last three sentences in your first paragraph are little more than cant. They certainly don't represent any real analysis but they do match well with the political platforms of several Non Governmental Organizations I could name. (Like this ad hominem argument business any better when it's turned back on you?) 3)"peacekeeping is the tool (for resolving conflict)" Oh? Prove it. Your examples certainly don't. Lacking historical evidence to back your claim, can you make, at least, a stab at a theoretical framework to support your proposition? In fact, this is hardly a new topic in international affairs or political science. Certainly not, as we were discussing it during my undergraduate days, more than twenty years ago. Problem is - AS EVEN THE DIPLOMATIC PROFESSIONALS tend to admit - "peacekeeping" doesn't work, at all, unless both sides already WANT peace, BEFORE the "peacekeepers" ever show up. IOW, there is some room to provide what, in effect, is rather like what's called "confidence building measures", when the violent phase is already over. HOWEVER, I'm eager to see you list the instances when it worked when the parties ARE STILL FIGHTING. IOW, any poor fools under attack who trust their futures to "peacekeepers" are on the short list for a long stay under the ground in pine boxes. "Peacekeeping" doesn't stop fights. Indeed, while I strongly question the ability to do so when the effort is sincere, in practice, the actual examples on the ground typically involve forces either corrupt or lacking the actual ability to intervene and stop ANY real military action. Or, both. (In the case of Canadian deployments, surely only the lack of military capability. Canada has no reputation, at all, of corrupt deployments or double dealing government behind them.) If you examine the issue, and check the history of the UN, you'll find that peacekeeping is, basically, NOT intended to be an exercise in force. To the contrary, both by the statements of the body and the nature of the deployments, it's an exercise in symbolism. And, as such, falls afoul of Von Clauswitz's admonition about the relationship between force and diplomacy. "Peacekeeping", in it's *actual* history over the last decades, is a diplomatic attempt to display the instruments of force absent any willingness to resort to the use of force. And, that's where it collapses, if challenged. Force is not defeated by waving flags, wearing blue helmets, or statements of moral certitudes. It's defeated by the application of force or the credible threat of such application. And that, in turn, brings us back to the basic proposition that you need a certain minimum level or REAL power in order to effectively exercise power. Set out with less and you'll fail, or be killed. (And, I very much regret, in our modern world, the usual course of things is to cut and run, assuring everyone and especially ourselves, that nothing could have been done, anyway. That attitude, btw, just cost a Dutch head of government his job, while the poor slob who led the deployment on the ground, at Srbernica, committed suicide.)
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 9:29:21 PM
Part 2 Fred, If you're right about the effect of WMD, congratulations. Your humane ideology has led you to attempt a principled argument in favor of ignoring tyranny, murder, virtually every sin of history. I prefer the American approach, which, as flawed and limited as it is, still tries to make things better for other people apart from Americans. It may, as a matter of intellectual history, be seen as an outgrowth of important elements in the ethics influencing British policy increasing through the 19th century. You idea seems more naturally related to modern French statecraft. I find it impossible to prefer the latter to the former. You can't really get away with a comparison between the American and the Russian deployments. We won, quickly, and with an entirely different strategy and pointedly unlike EITHER the Russian or British (imperial) adventures in Afghanistan, we have no desire or intention to REMAIN, let alone to rule, which puts our exercise on a rather different basis. Or, IOW, when it comes to the intersection between force and statecraft, it's BOTH the meat and the motion which count. Yes, EVERY military is short of transport. Difference is, while we have less than we'd like, we have enough to act. Indeed, we are nearly the ONLY power, right now, which can effectively project power far from our own country and support it adequately. ANY other power would need to plan and build well in advance and they'd be scrambling to keep it going. We can move, right now, from a standing start and deploy forces on any continent, ready to engage on the division level in short order. And, we can engage in a rolling reinforcement moving up the ladder of the weight of the forces, starting with the airmobile and working up through heavy armor. In fact - if you want a concrete example, from the Gulf War - we were prepared to stick two divisions in front of Hussein had he moved out of Kuwait, in a matter of days. (82 and 101st, the two airborne/airmobile divisions), and follow up with a Marine deployment of division size, almost immediately. Would have taken much more time to get the heavy armored divisions over, but we were ready to fight, immediately. We CHOSE to build up in a more orderly fashion, because Hussein sat tight in Kuwait. We didn't have to. Your grabbing at straws over Afghanistan. You completely miss what went on if you try to argue that the Northern Alliance won the fight. In fact, the Northern Alliance was LOSING the war with the Taliban when we entered. Indeed, after being beaten back to less than 10% of the country, it had just had it's charismatic leader, Massoud, who had personally held the thing together as long as it had lasted, to an Al Qaeda assassination days before 9-11. It was precisely America which changed the whole course of fighting. Didn't you notice? Did you think the Northern Alliance suddenly rose from the near-dead, on it's own, and won a war it had been losing for years, as if by magic? We spell "magic", "America" in these parts. We can speak of the strategic and tactical decisions made, in the aftermath of 9-11, if you care to. I consider the approach we took, given the state the military was in, to be one of the really brilliant strokes of the century, although I have some serious criticisms of the problems these choices caused, too. But, given the geography and geopolitics of a war in Afghanistan, America performed brilliantly, and in an almost complete improvisation, too.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 9:40:43 PM
Fred, Sorry, but this is one issue I dealt with, specifically, at some length, academically. The fact is that while, in theory, unconventional delivery makes perfect logical sense, the historical fact is that virtually every time we see a specific country trying seriously to acquire a nuclear capability, we find a parallel effort to develop very conventional forms of delivery. Whether or not this fits into you hypothesis, it's a fact. I take the threat of unconventional delivery seriously. I have since I first studied these issues, in the late 70s. Indeed, I spent some time sounding very alone in taking this seriously. Neverthelss, you can't just write off the matter of defense against missile attack because it dovetails nicely with your politics. You need to deal with the real delivery systems the real aspiring nuclear powers seem, so perversely, to want. When Hussein is trying to buy missiles suitable to deliver nukes, and YOU say that doesn't matter...well, I'm sorry, but I'm more concerned with what I know Hussein to be doing than with any theoretical "proof" that he's not. As for the international political fallout (irony intended), that's just too bad. If a "ally" demands, as the price of alliance, that we deliberately refuse to attempt to defend ourselves against objectively real threat, then we are forced to question to basis and utility of the alliance. The nonproliferation argument is largely nonsense, too, I'm afraid. WITHOUT any BMD, we see widespread movements towards proliferation. Beyond any conceivable deniability, too, since we have actual, on the ground evidence of Iraq's activities from the inspection days. Indeed, had Israel not destroyed the Osirak facilities, years before the Gulf War, we WOULD have faced a nuclearized Iraq. Thus, whatever the nice folks who insist that it's our moral duty to refuse to defend ourselves against WMD delivered by missiles may believe, we KNOW, as an actual, historical FACT, that their argument has been falsified. We ARE facing inimical powers actively developing such weapons EVEN given the absence of BMD. This pretty well shatters the basis of the argument against.
 
Quote    Reply

Fred    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 10:06:32 PM
Perhaps I could explain peacekeeping to you as obviously your point on peacekeeping indicates a certain lack of what it does. Peacekeeping involves armed combatants agreeing to a ceasefire/truce and having a force from a third party supervise it along agreed lines of demarcation. This third party presence has helped right across the globe. There have been many successful operations and a number of failures. By the way Greek and turkish troops fought in Cyprus and it was a flashpoint between those two nations. In eritrea Candian troops helped supervise the disarming of rebel groups and patrolled agreed upon ceasefire lines. At present there is no war there. I guess success is something the press doesn't like to trumpet but with your intellectual background I am surprised you did not mention this. You say the europeans wanted to run the show in the balkans and screwed it up. I agree. Howver your point seems to indicate the States wanted to get involved but could not. I think the americans got involved when public pressure forced them too because of the revealling of the atrocities. In short you nevr got off your ass until public opinion dictated you do so. I am sure you remeber the endless debate about Americans not wanting to get involved in the quagmire of the Balkans. You seem to indicate that as soon as Americans make a show of force that conflict ends. Well you people sure tucked your tail between your legs and ran the hell out of Somalia. Your peacemaking did not work there. I suppose you will manage to blame the UN somehow for the withdrawal as this seems to be the standard position for the states. I by the way have never maintained that peacekeeping is a an exercise in force but an attempt to prevent conflict or end one. I would say your viewpoint resembles realpolitik and I have always found the that manner of thinking a litle disgusting in it's might makes right atidude. Qouting Von Clauswitz and other intellectual sophistry does not impress me. Your arguement comes down to Uncle Sam as the misunderstood benevolent Uncle who can solve all problems with his mighty stick. Your failure to point out where American force of arms has not prevailled indicate to me an inabilty to look at a situation from all sides. I wish that Nato had acted sooner in the Balkans. Since when did the europeans dictate American foriegn policy.
 
Quote    Reply

Fred    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 10:36:14 PM
Your entire post does not address the real technical issues I raised or the fact that I like the idea of system based on mature technology that works. Your responce is I have studied this and if people do not like our policy then we should not be allies. Do not express doubt as we will disown you. My god what intellectual arrogance. It sounds like the typical do what we say or you will suffer. Think about the technical issues I raised. Respond to that. All the verbiage in the world does not change physics. By the way I notive treaties on restricting land mines and war criminals is something the states has rejected as well. It is I suppose the usal ther are rules for everyone else but we do not trust anyone to hold us accountable. Do you really feel your nation is that diliked. The we are the only island of democracy crap is something I expected better of you. Cheers Fred
 
Quote    Reply

Fred    RE:Missle Defense System   5/6/2002 11:08:06 PM
I do not remember being in favour of tyranny murder and virtually evry sin in history. Oh well I was confused I guess. The Russians were very successful intially as I remeber correctly. It was in the long haul they began to suffer. I beleive part of that was american supplied missiles and the like. It seems odd that some of the same people you helped arm and train are now attacking you. Funny how that works. You are quite correct when you say the Americans are the only country that can deploy heavy forces in relatively short order. Surprised I said that I bet. Your statement about putting two divisions on the ground right away is correct. They were light infantry howver and it is a good thing they did not cross the border because it would have been intereting and horrifying to see what heavy armour would have done to them. The present IBCT program is designed to remedy the lack of heavy forces in short order. I noticed you ignored my point about the lack of transport hobbling this effort. But i guess if you mentionned anything that was not one hundred percent positive it would mean you have to take off your Captain America ball hat. Of course the American entry changed the nature of the war in Afghanistan, Airpower blew the Taliban to pieces. This was a smart way to fight using Special forces and aipower in combo with Northern alliance ground troops. If I remeber correctly our special forces got in on that party too. The problem is the long haul. You may not be wanting to rule but can the Americans think long term. Al Qaida still exists and we are still hunting them. This will require a long term concerted effort.. The magic line by the way was a little over the top but still I got over the nausea.
 
Quote    Reply

Fred    RE:To Fred: Peacekeeping   5/6/2002 11:16:54 PM
Hi Jeff from Michigan, I find what you say to be well written and interesting. I agree with you about our forces being starved of funds. If you read the earlier posts I still do not wish to fight Greenland. Your point about the States being the fist is a good one. Your nation has a fine miltary. The points I was addressing was that others can help and should even with the fighting. We do do peacekeeping well and it has a role. I am very proud our country is standing with yours against terrorism. If I question some American policies it is not because I dislike Americans it because if you are to deal with hard questions than one needs to look at all sides of a question. I have worked with American forces and enjoyed the experiance when I was in the army.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics