US Missile Shield already Defeated?

Anonymous Coward writes "Forbes is reporting that although interest in the missile defense system has waned while the US military addresses more pressing matters of immediate concern, the Russians have already developed an anti-missile-defense missile designed to defeat the system. Were the US military to actually prove that the missile defense shield worked, the Russian rocket's "zig-zag" flightpath taken en route to it's target would render the shield useless. Russian President Vladimir Putin says that the non-ballistic trajectory would leave the projectile virtually impossible to down or divert. The author feels inclined to say that the missile defense shield was intended as a defense against rogue states such as North Korea that have not acquired this technology yet."

Comments

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Shadow Wrought]

But hasn't the shield failed to even stop missiles when their trajectory is known before th test even starts? I think that this is one of those things that is simply too difficult a task to make work under battle conditions. At least for now...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Sique]

The treaty was with the Soviet Union, the USSR.

That entity no longer exists. The treaty was useless since the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Wrong. The Union of Independent States formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union was successor in interest for all treaties and contracts. So the ABM contract was still valid.

Russia isn't the issue

[Shihar]

Russia really is not the problem. If Russia decides it wants to nuke the US, the US is getting nuked. End of story. Sure, a missile defense system might blunt the blow a little, but the truth is there is no good way to stop a few thousand nukes. If Russia bites, it is going to hurt. Both nations are going to end in a nuclear cloud.

The real danger is that North Korea or Iran scraps something together that can just barely make it to the US. Then, through political instability, fanaticism, or provocation they lob a few nukes at the US. Such nukes would probably just barely be able to reach the US, and certainly would not have any fancy zig-zagging capabilities. In such a case a missile defense shield would be a damn nice thing to have, even if it can't stop a full Russian assault.

The real issue is cost / benefit. What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.

It would be nice to throw a few dollars at it and have technology waiting in the wings should we need it or should it ever become cost effective. If I could get an effective ballistics defense system for the cost of an aircraft carrier, I would merrily be all over that. If it is going to cost a fleet of air craft carriers, I am far less enthusiastic. A defensive weapon in the arsenal is nice, but not if it takes Apollo like time and effort to achieve it.

I would like to see low level funding of a ballistics defense system. I do not want to kludge together a half-working system at massive expense. Work towards getting the technology ready should it be needed, but don't go all out building an elaborate defense system that is massively expensive and only kinda-sorta works until there is a clear threat.

Re:Anti-anti-missle defense

[utexaspunk]

As long as we have mutually assured destruction, getting attacked with nuclear missiles by Russia or any other State is not likely to happen because they know it would be suicide. The only reason one would create a missile shield would be to be able to attack with impunity. Even then, unless you can guarantee that the system would be 100% effective (an impossible task) you wouldn't want to risk attacking and relying on your shield. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think the idea of America launching a nuclear missile attack on ANYONE from safely behind a missile shield is quite un-American. The only vaguely plausible threat would be from rogue groups somehow infiltrating a missile silo and somehow managing to launch one. Considering how heavily guarded those probably are, and that the perpetrators would probably still need launch codes, etc, the idea is unrealistic. If the security is that weak, our money would be much better spent helping those countries secure their missiles.

Re:Anti-anti-missle defense

[antv]

/* The alternative is to throw up your hands and give up. */

The working alternative is MAD. I.e. if anyone attacks US we will have enough time to respond.

The "missle shield" is unworkable - well, it does it's job of fooling taxpayers into funding Raythenon, but so far it can't even intercept test missles with known trajectory. And even if we somehow manage to make it "work", it will still be useless against, say, a torpedo with nuke hitting any of our coastal cities. Or against a hijacked airliner with nuke. Or against a nuke delivered by car.

At the same time customs don't have enough resources to scan all the cargo coming into US, because huge amounts of money are spent on unworkable pork barrel projects like this "missle shield".

I declare shenanigans!

[why-is-it]

The simple fact is that the shield was NEVER built to defend against the Russians.

Historical revisionism at it's finest! When Reagan proposed the v1.0 missile defense, the USSR/Eastern Bloc was the only potential enemy. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were allies back then. Who else might Reagan have had in mind?

So - it is mostly against the "rogue" state.

At least that is the current excuse. Much like the justification for the invasion of Iraq, I expect that the rationale will change as circumstances require

The other thing that people don't realize is that this is a system of systems. There are several levels of defense that are being worked on.

The fundamental issue is still the same: how to shoot down a bullet with another bullet. It doesn't matter how many layers of abstraction you have, it never becomes any less complex than that. The physics of the problem suggest that the best way to stop a missile from landing is for it not to be launched in the first place. I don't see Bush pressing for disarmament though.

Besides, a missile is an expensive and complex toy. There are much simpler and cheaper ways to launch a nuclear attack. Some people in this thread have suggested a suitcase bomb. It would be much easier to utilize cargo containers as a delivery mechanism.

Patriots have been upgraded to do a better job than they did during Desert Storm,

Well, it wouldn't take much:

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

The field-test results of what is currently available has not been encouraging. There are failures even with advance knowledge of the exact trajectory of a slow-moving target missile...

I think it has more to do with corporate welfare than actual defense. Defence department cronies get tons of federal cash and nobody really expects to see a finished product. They just have to rig up an an impressive looking prototype from time to time.

It's a bad combination - cronyism and PR.