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.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[TripMaster Monkey]

No. The treaty was with the Soviet Union, the USSR.

Sophistry.

The treaty was useless since the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Because whatever political entity succeeds the Soviet Empire couldn't possibly launch nuclear missiles at us, could they?

Treaties can also be broken at any time.

People can be murdered at any time as well...that doesn't make it right. For this treaty to be abrogated legitimately, one of the necessary conditions for abrogation spelled out in the treaty must be met. To justify his unilateral action, Bush cited Article XV of the ABM Treaty, which states that the Treaty could be abrogated by one of the parties "if extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests." To date, the President has not specified the 'extraordinary events' which supposedly prompted his decision, and has not explained how the United States' continued adherence to the ABM Treaty could 'jeopardize' its 'supreme interests'.

That treaty would not have stopped nukes from raining down on American cities.

Funny...the treaty was in existence from 1972 to 2002, ans I don't recall a single nuclear incident on U.S soil during that time. Fast forward to now...no treaty, and Putin's bragging about a missile that can penetrate our defense system (admittedly, not much of a boast, given the pathetic state of the 'missile defense system'). Seems to me there's a bit of a correlation there.

The missle[sic] defense shield *might*.

You might want to keep up on current events. Bottom line: our President threw away a 30-year old treaty like so much garbage, needlessly antagonizing other nations, to pursue a technology that is still firmly in pipe-dream status. Not much of a surprise, though, given that this same President pulled out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrew the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposed a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failed to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Again, I can't help but see a trend.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[TripMaster Monkey]

You must be joking if you're trying to pass off United Press International as an unbiased, objective source. The mere title of their current front page story, Analysis: Bush -- Never surrender to evil, is enough to raise serious doubts...doubts that are confirmed within the first two paragraphs of the story.

How about we instead rely upon a less partisan, more respected source....say, Reuters?

From the Reuters article:

The missile defense system, which has not staged any intercept tests for almost a year following two failures, has faced criticism from some lawmakers and government watchdogs, who worry the system has not been adequately tested.

  Lehner said the agency planned four tests of the system this year, including two intercept tests in the second half of 2006, fulfilling another recommendation in the new Pentagon report.

The report said the battle management system was "making progress, but has not yet demonstrated engagement control."

In short, it doesn't work, and noone knows when it will, if ever. Any claims to the contrary are pure astroturf.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[MrFlibbs]

You're wrong. Some of the tests failed, and some succeeded, but to say that because a single test failed it never worked is simply incorrect.

As for the Patriot missle performance in the Gulf War, it is just as incorrect to say they didn't work as to say they did. The truth is, they "sort of" worked. I read the official (non-classified) government study on this when it came out. Here's a summary of their conclusions:

1) Some Scud missiles were successfully intercepted, but the success rate was closer to 50% than the 90% claimed by the military. Some of the Scuds likely broke up on their own because they were modified by Iraq to extend their range using poorly designed modifications.

2) Only half the damage done by a Scud is due to the warhead. The rest is due to kinetic energy, and this is not changed by a successful intercept. Thus a Patriot missile success only cuts the damage in half and alters where it comes down.

3) Since the modified Iraqi Scuds are very inaccurate missiles, altering where it comes down was of little value. The Iraqi Scuds were mostly terrorist devices rather than tactical weapons. They lobbed them at the coalition troops in hopes of causing chaos -- not to neutralize military targets.

Will we ever have a missile defense that can stop close to 100% of any missile fired? Of couse not. However, the technology to shoot down a militarily useful percentage of incoming missiles is indeed possible. To say otherwise is simply not correct.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[955301]

sure:

Here's one about how one got progressively more inaccurate.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm

Here is a degradation of the original claim of 25%:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1992/59740945-59743599 .htm

And here's a more accurate final assessment:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/rp911024.ht m

better?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[golgotha007]

How can the parent be modded anything other than overrated??

I was SCUDed in Dharan, Riyadh and King Khalid Military City; all in Saudi Arabia.

The most memorable was watching a single SCUD missle flying overhead about 11oclock in Riyadh. Everyone was dumbling with their gas masks and tumbling over each other to get into a large foxhole nearby, but I just stood there, mesmerized at the extreme reality taking place before my eyes. I was separated from my unit and had just got off a C-130 from Dharan and found my bags pilfered upon landing. No gas mask.

A patriot battery was behind me about 50 meters, but boy was those suckers loud. Two patriots were launched; one hit the SCUD motor, the other just barely missed the warhead. The warhead tumbled into a busy part of the city about a click from my position and exploded in a flash of light. I later learned it hit an apartment building and killed a person.

So, Mr. Anonymous Coward Parent, you are very wrong.

Already covered in Get Smart

[the_demiurge]

All we need now is an Anti-Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile to shoot down their Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile.

Anti-anti-missle defense

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Welcome to the game. If you build a better mousetrap, someone will come up with a better mouse. This will then force someone to come up with an even better mousetrap, and so repeats the cycle.

Personally, I'd much rather have the technology than not. As long as the technology exists, it can be improved upon. Perhaps to the level where the zig-zag isn't good enough. Perhaps we'll reach a parity whereby we'll be able to stop 50% or more of any anti-shield equipped missile. We won't know unless we try. And every bit of progress drops one more small threat out of the equation, leaving us free to concentrate of the big threats.

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

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".

Hmm

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Not to sound too critical, but this Russian rocket zig-zag pattern is done on purpose right, not because of bad engineering and poor quality construction?

What about an EMP?

[ShamusYoung]

What I've never been able to figure out, is why are we trying to get a missle that can hit another missle? That is HARD. Laying aside the question as to whether the entire system is a good idea or not, why not design an EMP-based weapon that will detonate NEAR the other missle? Nukes are complex and can't detonate without some sort of computer running the show. Instead of trying to detonate the missle (and spreading its radioactive payload all over the place) it seems like it would be better to kill the computer and keep the weapon confined to its impact crater.

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:star wars 3.0

[AuMatar]

Its simple, really. We re-edit the war so we shoot first.

This is incorrect

[j. andrew rogers]

This all makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the new ABM systems that are incorrect. First, the "zig-zag" trajectory is definitely NOT a problem for the terminal guidance package, which was designed to track and destroy agile and evasive targets and is currently deployed in other very successful weapon systems. A ballistic missile has nowhere near the maneuverability and agility of other types of targets this guidance package has a 90+% kill rate on. The primary failure in the ABM tests is in a brand spanking new rocket design that has had numerous problems getting the guidance system where it wants to go due in large part to its extreme performance envelope. It is worth noting that the sensor and discrimination characteristics of the terminal guidance package are much, much better than most people are assuming and is largely impervious to spoofing and decoys. Again, this is well-tested in other weapon systems that use the same underlying terminal guidance technology (e.g. AIM-9X), or in anti-ballistic missile tests on more reliable rockets.

Regardless of whether it is a good idea to have an effective ABM system in place, the technology will work. The rocket problems (which are a decade past due) are eventually being worked out, as several unrelated weapon systems are dependent on the same rocket technology working correctly. The question is not whether it can work (it can) but whether or not deploying and maintaining a comprehensive ABM system is worth the expenditure, which it may not be. The money spent on the guidance package is widely reused, and the rocket technology is slated to replace many existing rocket powered systems, once they work out the kinks. In that respect, the military research has not been a waste as the primary components are or will be used in many other places. The new ABM systems they are testing have very little relation, either in design or technology, to the old existing systems; most of current "ABM missiles" like the Patriot are anti-aircraft systems where they hacked the software to hopefully hit missiles outside the original design envelope.

This really should be a policy and fiscal argument, not a technology argument, as the technology will eventually work as originally designed. The argument that there is something fundamentally wrong with the design is a loser and poorly informed, but a much stronger argument can be made about the mission of such a weapon system.

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.

Re:star wars 3.0

[Rei]

We really should just work on lobbying the government to switch to a "Faith-Based" missile shield.

Re:North Korea

[Chokai]

North Korea's subs are based on technology from the mid to late 1950s, specifically the Soviet Romeo and Whiskey classes and some possibly from the Foxtrot. These were in turn derived from the German type XXI u-boat which was deployed in the last days of WWII. The basic design is over 50 years old. How many of these subs are even capable of operating is a matter of some conjecture but that they lack fuel for even basic training operations is well known. Add to the fact that the North Koreans have no experience whatsoever at handling missiles on a sub at sea. Although they could of course if it was "Hollywood Style", but whether that would work even as a one off is debatable.

To put just how far the US is ahead, even China's "top of the line" subs which are nuclear are on technology from the 1960s are so far behind the US that we apparently do not assign attack subs to follow them full time as we did to Russian subs during the cold war. They can be found easily at any time, case in point: US subs have followed Soviet/Russian SSBNs for thier entire patrols (90+ days without being detected), read Blind Man's Bluff for a fascinating overview of US Sub operations & espionage.

Re:star wars 3.0

[timster]

I think it makes sense.

1. It's easy to prove that humans are not capable of producing something as complex as a modern missile. Consider the temperatures required to work metal and you'll realize that anyone's hands would burn off if they could even heat the metal enough by blowing on it, which is unlikely. Besides, supposing that a missle could be manufactured requires the materials to become more organized, which is against the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Since humans cannot make missiles, all missiles must have been made by God.
3. Missiles made by God would obviously not work against those with faith.