Last Peacekeeper Deactivated

Inthewire writes "The United States Air Force deactivated the last of 50 Peacekeeper missiles yesterday. The Peacekeeper was an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of accurately placing a 300 Kt W-87 warhead on ten individual targets."

Comments

without comment

[asjk]

Date of Berlin Wall falling November 9, 1989

Date and cost of final deployment (from TFA second source)

Despite years of work, by July 1987 Northrop Electronics Division had succeeded in delivering only a small number of usable INS units. Up to one-third of the silo-emplaced force had no guidance system. In January 1988 20 missiles were finally operations, and by December 1988 all 50 MX missiles (with guidance systems) had been deployed.

The cost of procuring a Peacekeeper missile (the "flyaway" cost) was only about $20 million (FY 82). The total cost of the program was approximately $20 billion however, at a pro-rated cost of $400 million per operational missile, or $40 million per deployed warhead. A total of 114 Peacekeepr missiles were produced (due to the need for test missiles and spares).

Re:without comment

[bill_mcgonigle]

What's your point? The CCCP trying to keep up with those kinds of numbers was a contributing factor to the fall of the wall.

I think that's it. Some analysts feel they essentially went bankrupt. Between the MX, the Space Shuttle, the B2, etc. etc. etc. the capitalist society could just out-produce and the Kremlin felt a need to keep parity. Reagan certainly egged them on and Gorbechev may have allowed it to happen.

Re:without comment

[coaxial]

First off, the point is, the MX couldn't have contributed to the collapse, since the numbers they had to "keep up with" was 5, when the Soviet Union already had hundreds of missles stockpiled. There was no threat to counter.

The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it. The belief that he won the Cold War basically hinges on Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!", and then Gorby saying, "Holy shit! Better do what the Gipper says, or he'll sick Bonzo on us!"

The real cause of the collapse has more to do with the intrinsic inefficiencies in command economies. Especially command economies where the commands are enforced under penalty of death. The Kremlin tells you to make 50 widgets for 10 rubles each, you'll make 50 widgets and say they cost 10 rubles each. The may have cost 12, but you're sure as hell aren't going to say that, since you'll be sent off the gulag for failure. So produce them for a loss. Repeat across pretty much all sectors of the economy, and repeat for 70 years, and of course the economy is going to fail. Why do you think China is now effectively a capitalist economy?

Did Reagan's SDI (aka "Star Wars") plan have anything to do with Soviet collapse? Not according to the Gorbechev and the KGB. When SDI was announced, Gorby asked if it was a threat, and the KGB said no. They (rightfully) said that any antiballistic missle system has intrinsic engineering challenges that the US couldn't overcome with the technology currently available, or even available in the near term. And effective countermeasures to the proposed systems were already available. But most damning of all, the cheapest countermeasure would be to simply overwhelm the defenses by launching more missles in the first wave.

I remember the fall of the Iron Curtain. Yeltsin on the tank out side the Russian White House. The tanks rolling in. The crowds surrounding the tanks, and talking to the tank crews. Then watching the tanks turn around and defend Yeltsin. I remember the second wave of tanks, also being stopped by the crowds, and the previous tank crews. It was remarkable that no one died in '91, ala Tiananmen in '89.

It was confusing. It was scary. No one. No one knew what was going on in Russia. The Baltics broke away in less than a week. Then Ukraine, and then everyone else. The press didn't know what was happening. The public didn't know. The US government sure as hell didn't know.

A couple of years ago I was friends with the guy from Moscow who was my age, and I asked him about the collapse. I asked him what happened. I told him I watched it on live television, and no one knew what was actually happening. We knew the events, but no the larger picture. I told him that to this day, I am still mystified to why it collapsed when it did, and how it did. What did he tell me? "I have no idea either."

If you absolutely have to say who one the Cold War for the West, there's really only one choice. Mikhail Gorbachev. His Glastnost and Perestroika effected the internal dynamic of the Soviet Union, more than nukes in Wyoming ever did. In all honesty, the west should have realized how perilous the situation in the Soviet Union was when it was revealed that Gorbachev's wife, Raisa, had an American Express card.

Re:without comment

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The real cause of the collapse has more to do with the intrinsic inefficiencies in command economies.

Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.

Oh, wait...

Reagan didn't cause the collapse. But to say that the economic and military policies had no effect is just nonsense.

Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth

[aelbric]

Unfortunately, nations today only practice what has been known since Roman times:

Si vis pacem para bellum

"If you desire peace, prepare for war"

Don't blame it on dogma, blame it on human nature.

Re:In other news...

[MindStalker]

MAD (Mutually assured destruction) doesn't win wars against terrorist groups. Our new weapons are percise GPS guided small tactical missles. You can be sure we are keeping some warheads in waiting incase a new superpower emerges. But for now these weapons are pointless.

Won? not likely, but it does help.

[kinglink]

wow 71 foot tall, 8 diametere and 10 warheads.

The only problem I have with the article is it didn't win the Cold War, it did help us in it. But the only way we "won" the cold war was not by our hand. When the USSR was falling apart and the end was nigh, it was by the grace of god that the leaders of the falling communist state, didn't just say "fuck it" and launch their missles.

It was by their work, not our work that the end was peaceful as it was, at that point it wasn't a deterent because look at them now, they lost everything, but they chose the peaceful means of leaving the office.

Granted the missles did deter them from attacking earlier, but to be honest it's a deterent, not a win in the columns. An important difference.

Keeping the peace... with nukes.

[8086ed]

When I was in fifth grade I lived near Vandenberg Air Force Base, where they would regularly test rockets and missiles. One of the groundskeepers pointed out a Peacekeeper (informing us of the name in the process). Even then, I wondered to myself: How are missiles designed to keep the peace?

Re:Peace Keeper" was the most ironic name of all t

[demiseofman]

First of all, we wouldn't launch just one missile at a time and it's ignorance to think so. The Peacekeeper name was picked because it was to keep the peace through deterence. Nobody would dare to attack the US with these missiles in place, thus keeping the peace. As for terrorism, it's been used for hundreds of years, primarily by fundamental extermist. Today, it is used overwhemingly by Muslim extremist. We just stirred up the Iraqi hornets nest and now it's a mess that has to be dealt with.