Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Missile Defense Against Iran Makes China/Russia Mad, Might Not Even Work
An anonymous reader writes "The United States, since the 1980s, has been trying to make missile defense work. Billions of dollars spent, tons of political capital spent, and not a lot to show. The U.S. does have two viable options: the SM-2 and SM-3, although neither are perfect. The U.S., with European allies, has been deploying missile defense in Europe to block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles (even though they have not made nukes or the missiles to carry them). One problem: such defenses could, in theory, also block Russian and Chinese missiles. Russia is now planning to make more missiles to counter such defenses and could pull out of the New Start Treaty. They may also stop helping U.S. forces to supply themselves in Afghanistan. Is this all worth it for something that might not even work?"
Therein lies the problem. Russia and China should be buying into the ABM system, not the other way around. Who knows what crazy thing will happen if north korea goes to the next level of crazy, or pakistan or saudi or egypt, algeria, or the like.
An ABM system isn't so much a problem for today. It's a problem for '10 years from now the next guy in charge of somewhere could be completely mental and we can't risk them shooting first'.
In 1930 the nazi's weren't in power, or, well, in anything. 10 years later they were dancing in Warsaw and Paris. One of these days Iran, North korea, algeria, egypt, saudi are all going to suffer dramatic political upheaval. I have no idea what that upheaval will translate into (which is sort of what's going on in algeria and egypt at the moment) and nor does anyone else. But a nuclear armed north korea, that decides it wants to blame their friends in china and russia for whatever is wrong with them this week is far more dangerous to the world than a north korea who are pointing big guns at south koreas big guns. Iran, under the ayatollahs may be willing to play by MAD rules (with israel and saudi) but if that government starts to fall can you still count on that? Will they go down in a blaze of glory and take the conspirators (Saudi) and the infidels (Israel) with them? Will they be replaced by someone for not being conservative enough and for having not launched a war with israel?
The world can play out in very strange ways. ABM might be a waste of money. But it might not. And that can be said of fire trucks, aircraft carriers and police body armour. How much ABM should be 'worth' in the grand scheme of things I really don't know, but I'd tend to think it should be more than a few grad students pontificating on forum posts when they should be working (says the grad student pontificating on a forum post).
That doesn't mean ABM is the only measure we should ever rely on, or that ABM won't be so absurdly expensive that it can't work. But I don't really know what the crossover point is on cost, or how much more or less value you get against a relatively abstract potential future threat.
At one point, I worked in the mil side of weapons at Boeing.
The correct answer is not "might not". It's "will not".
Everyone in the industry knows what actually does work, and what we're talking about for the EU is not in the "workable" solutions choices.
Unless you think a 10 percent success rate with 90 percent getting through if they use all standard countermeasures is a "good thing". In real world operations with real weather, not faked tests.
Not that Iran could hit the broad side of a Polish barn - that's a fiction too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Not sure how this rambling mess made insightul but I assure you "selling stuff" is not the major issue. It may be "a" issue but it is way down on the list.
The U.S. doesn't have to use nukes to acheive their goals. All they need is A) a credible first strike offensive capability Russia and China can't stop and B) a credible defensive capability that has the potential to stop Russian and Chinese weapons.
It is extremely tacky on the part of the U.S. to be developing defensive missile capabilities on one hand while they are asking Russia to reduce its arsenal with START treaties, making it more vulnerable to a defensive shield.
If the U.S. has a credible chance of winning a nuclear war, it doesn't have to fight one to win. It wins when it can dictate global policy on everything, economics and economic systems, commodities(oil), who runs which third world country, etc. and no one can say NO. Russia in particular is furious the U.S. toppled a close ally in Serbia with military force, and is on the verge of doing the same to Russia's allies in Syria and Iran.
If the U.S thinks it can win any confrontation, it can start dictating terms without ever resorting to an actual military confrontation.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the U.S., especially the neocons, began proclaiming the U.S. as the worlds sole remaining superpower and acting accordingly. If they ever develop a real shield against nukes they will be even worse. That's why the Reaganauts and the Neocons keep spending staggering sums trying to develop one.
To counter my own argument it is totally NUTS for the U.S. to think they CAN develop an effective shield against nukes. There are simply to many countries with them, too many ways to deliver them and they are too smal. You have low flying cruise missiles, hypersonic air breathers, stealth, a tramp steamer or fishing boat sailing in to the harbor of a major coastal city, a pack mule walking across the Canadian border, etc.
@de_machina
Not at all welcome. The "open secret" of NATO's plans for USSR attack on Finland was to use tactical nukes to cripple the country's infrastructure. Basically to backstab the country that tries to defend itself at the critical moment.
That's why most finns are rather sceptical on NATO trying to show itself as the "good guys" during Cold War.