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?"
The big problem is not that it makes Russia mad, but that with further development it could make America not MAD. Without mutually assured destruction, the nuclear peace will come to an end. It's like the US is deliberately trying to force a WW3. It's about time to realise that the cold war is over.
I concur - the simple facts are that we have a hand-full of anti-missile missiles. Russia has hundreds. They can overwhelm the system trivially. The system is only good against bad actors with a small number of missiles, i.e. North Korea and potentially Iran. Russia is more likely pissed off about the Radar near their borders being able to see stuff they shouldn't, but they use the anti-missile aspect of it as the whipping boy.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
is a cryptographic protocol between the ballistic missile and the interceptor:
Scenario 1:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: Huh?
US missile shield: **BAM**
Scenario 2:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile here to wipe out New Jersey. Here's a message digest signed by my private key.
US missile shield: Oh... well, OK.
Scenario 3 (imposter):
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile. But you see, I'm afraid the dog got a hold of my...
US missile shield: **BAM**
Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?
Two probs:
1) "block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles" I'm going to take a wild guess that culturally they Might prefer using a Toyota pickup truck or a shipping container or a standard passenger jetliner as a delivery vehicle. In the US we've forgotten why we're fixated on missiles, its because the USSR couldn't realistically, say, drive a truck over here with a H-bomb, so it ends up being missile vs missile.
2) SM series is "standard missile". Its really hard to specify how much work went into ballistic missile defense vs plain ole blowing stuff up. So political types will charge it as either thousands to billions depending on which axe they have to grind. So.. that vim editor... how much money was spent on editing Python? Well, you could evaluate what percentage was used in the field for Perl vs Python. Or you could look at bugs filed. Or some BS about test suites. Fundamentally its just a pretty darn useful editor. Much as a SM is a pretty darn useful wide envelope missile. It is emphatically not a "ballistic defense only" weapon.
3) There's endless rumors and BS about how SM series can be hacked into hitting seaskimming cruise missiles, but fundamentally you're better off with fast acting projectile weapons. You don't get much warning...
I would assume "they" would put their bomb into the vehicle "we" (well, we as in we are merely a province or whatever of Israel, always acting exclusively with their interests in mind, according to our leaders) are least suited to defend against. I suppose with the possible exception of WWII era strategic bomber, I can't think of a less likely delivery vehicle than a ballistic missile. I would guess its almost infinitely more likely that an off the shelf Iranian submarine gets as close to the USS Enterprise as physically possible before the deadman switch is released, or a shipping container is delivered to the port of L.A. or whatever thats marked as Couscous but actually glows instead...
There ARE interesting things for Iran to do with ballistic missiles. Nuke is not one of them.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You have to understand that anything the US does makes Russia, or rather its "national leader", mad. The anti-American rhetoric on the Russian TV today is virtually identical to that during the height of the Cold War. It is also worth pointing out that today the level of state control over Russian TV is not much lower than it was back then.
To the Russian leadership the US is the whipping boy. According to them, the US State Department has organized and financed the protests against massive election fraud that are happening in Russia as we speak. According to them, all the problems in Russia are not caused by corruption and total disregard for the law or human dignity, but by the US. Therefore, anything the US does on the international scene will be immediately labeled a threat to Russia and loudly condemned.
Editors, this article is a complete troll. This has nothing to do with "News for Nerds", and it's not even newsworthy.
For the record, it was recently published that President Obama is in talks with Russia to give some classified tactical information about United States nuclear missiles in return for Russia's approval of the missile defense systems.
Outsource ABM systems manufacture to China.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Yes. He's the one that ordered development of missile defense... except... wait... he wasn't. This all began under Reagan (I'll wager it's certainly been considered earlier). So WTF with Obama? I don't understand this blaming of the current president for technology that's been under development for the last three or four of them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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! --
President Obama flat turned them down. President Medvedev was not happy, and recorded a very stern video explaining why rejecting Russia was bound to escalate tensions along the EU-RF border. (In other words he didn't like hearing "no" to being part of the missile shield.)
I can't figure it out. Why would President Obama say no to a potential partner and ally in this endeavor? It was the kind of thing I would expect from Bush not Obama.
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010. Russia resisted, and came back a year later demanding that NATO legally bind themselves to never aiming the system towards Russia, which the U.S. and other NATO countries rejected. Most recently there has been some noise about sharing technical data with the Russians to assuage their fears, but I haven't seen any concrete information on what exactly was being offered, or even if there if there ever actually was a formal (or informal) offer.
Russia just said that because they knew the US would refuse it anyway. And it's not "EU trading partners", it's NATO. They are welcome to invade Sweden and Finland, but don't mess with Norway!
They have been major trading partners (including arms sales) with Iran, Syria, etc. for a long time, and have no worries about Iran firing missiles at them. It's all politics.
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.
Since you clearly don't understand wtf with Obama, let me help you out.
Obama is responsible for the daily price of gas.
Obama is responsible for the effect that the Bush tax cuts have had on our economy.
Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican-led deregulation of the financial industry.
Obama is responsible for the Lewinsky scandal.
Obama is responsible for AT&T's terribly-implemented "unlimited data" plan.
Your favorite restaurant just hiked their lunch buffet up to $11.95, and Obama made them do it.
Obama is responsible for Newt Gingrich's congressional ethics violations (unless you're talking to Newt, in which case they never happened and/or he was completely exonerated.)
Have you, or has anyone you've ever known had cancer? Thanks, Obama.
Obama is responsible for the Reagan tax increases.
Obama is responsible for Iran-Contra.
Obama is responsible for funding jihadists during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and thus responsible for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Obama is responsible for Barry Goldwater.
The Vietnam war is just yet another example of Obama's complete incompetence.
Obama IS responsible for due process free execution of several American Citizens based on a secret legal memo (repeat of the GWB policies toward due process free detention).
Obama IS responsible for Yemen's continued imprisonment of a news reporter. His sin? Most likely:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/singleton/
Seriously, you make light of Obama's failings with things that clearly aren't his fault, but that only serves to obfuscate the fact that he's taken everything that GWB did that was considered radical and dangerous, and made it the new normal. In a world of asshole murdering civil liberty destroying shits, Obama is president.
Here's a partial list, address some of that before you defend this guy:
http://nothingchanged.org/
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican led deregulation of the financial industry"
You do know that some of the more catastrophic deregulation was a bipartisan effort and was led by Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin, especially repealing Glass Steagal and blocking derivatives regulation. You seem to be doing them same thing you are ridiculing, saying its all the other parties fault. Its entrenched power and greed that is at fault, and both parties have it in equal measure.
@de_machina
knew
Actually, that should be "believed". The shield doesn't have to work to provoke a nuclear war -- it's sufficient that people who make decisions believe it to be effective. Beyond that, it could just as well be an Angry Birds style slingshot.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
First of all, I am a finn. If you know any finns that would "in polite terms disagree with me", they are a minority and below you'll find out why.
You see, as with any small neutral country stuck between two grandiose empires that could stomp us out and not barely notice it throughout our independence (which is what they thought of us, namely Germany, USSR and later on NATO), we had our shills for all sides. During cold war we had our Soviet shills, and our NATO shills. I'm guessing you've been talking to descendants of the latter. Notably their numbers are in low 30 percentile and have been going down steadily across the country for almost a decade now as people with severe phobia of anything Russia-related due to WW2 part of our history die out of old age and we get more and more Russian tourists bringing good money into the economy.
On topic of disinformation, that either wasn't it, or if it was, it sure fooled everyone (including some medium level NATO attaches who were spying for us). In here, when you build a building that houses more then a few people, you have to, BY LAW to build a bomb shelter in it with mandated level of low ABC proofing since early cold war. Every big city has one to several bomb shelters typically dug into solid rock rated to survive a 20 kiloton tactical nuke explosion directly above itself. Note the payload, it was exactly what we were expecting NATO to drop on us in potential conflict and the goal was the classic Finnish pragmatism - to allow as many of our people as possible to survive to fight another day even at significant additional costs to economy. During peace time, they're used as hokey rinks, swimming pools and so on. I go to one such swimming pool weekly - the entrance is less then 500m from my home. They are also required by law to have a plan on how to prepare it to function as a bomb shelter within 4 weeks.
Do note that we had near zero nuclear treat from Soviets due to geography - any nukes in southern Finland where biggest cities are and where biggest shelters are built mean a likely fallout in 5.000.000 people city of Leningrad.
All in all, your argument is that of a classic NATO shill. "You had two wars with Soviets, therefore anyone opposing them is a force for good!". Except that opposing force was about as "evil" from our point of view, and the only meaningful difference for us independents caught between was the direction in which guns are pointed. Which was usually at us, from both sides, because both followed the "if you're not with us, you're potentially against us" doctrine. In the end, we survived independent because we played both sides against one another, just like we played Germany against USSR in 1944 to stay independent in spite of suffering the heaviest Red Army assault in the entire war.
Notably USSR gave us very good trading terms during Cold War, we were classified in the "Warsaw pact countries and Finland" category. Something that even NATO liked to use to trade with USSR and vice versa, because it meant being able to indirectly trade for things you couldn't trade directly due to political fallout through a politically stable country with a culture that valued privacy of such deals.
So in short, most Finns that actually live around here would tell you, in actually polite and laconic terms, to stuff it. We're the only country in Molotov-Ribbentrop that succeeded to stay independent, we succeeded to stay independent during Cold War in spite of pressure from USSR and NATO to join one of them, and we'll stay independent now if current polls about desirability of NATO membership are anything to go by. That is because history taught us one thing: empires only care about themselves and allying yourself with one of them would likely cost you independence as most unbalanced deals with the devil do.
P.S. It may surprise you to find out that we also have quite a few statues of Lenin around here. They're usually tactfully hidden, but we do remember who it was that gave us independence for first time in our history. So if you think that our history together with our neighbours started in WW2, you're sorely mistaken.
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010.
Russia has no nuclear-capable "potential enemies" except the USA. China is very safe, and Israel's arsenal is purely defensive. Russia has good relations with both. Europe is not interested in wars. India and Pakistan are focused on each other. However the USA habitually wages wars and throws its weight around; in part that's necessary to sustain the dying economy and falling dollar and the armies of unemployed. Therefore sharing the early warning data would be useless. Russia would need some sufficient control over interceptor sites to be sure that they are not targeting Russian launch sites. But NATO would want to cover Russia as well, even though it is not very effective. The danger here is that what is not sufficiently effective for a general might be sufficiently effective for an ignorant, half-crazy President (like John McCain, for example.) US voters are perfectly capable of electing such a person.
The latest talk is that Obama gives Russia the specs on interceptors (as if Russia doesn't have them already, which I presume.) I do not believe there will be any agreement unless Russia can know for a fact that its territory is not covered by the shield, one way or another. The need for that is caused by existence of WMD in all involved countries. If we look at the history, the Mad Fuehrer rose to absolute power in Germany within about a decade. The same unfortunate event can, theoretically, happen in any nuclear country - and therefore MAD has to remain for now, to keep such a budding dictator of the world in check.
True. Sweden coordinated its defences with NATO in secret during the cold war era (and probably still is).
Swedish soldiers were trained to shoot at the tanks with a red star on them, not to stop and think about who the enemy was.
And at the same time Sweden was oficcially neutral, which is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that is Swedish foreign policy.
Sweden was officially neutral during WW2 also, but still allowed German troop transports through Swedish territory. This was partly out of fear of being invaded, but it may also have been because a lot of Swedes, including politicians and businessmen, were sympathetic with Nazism and hoped for a German victory.
I will clarify the following remark:
On one hand your "open secret" is absolute baloney, i.e. nonsense.
It is directed at your proposition that NATO's intent would be to "backstab" Finland and the implied hostility toward Finland as opposed to defeating Soviet military units operating in Finland. Clearly NATO had no meaningful dispute with Finland during the Cold War, but would not ignore Soviet forces operating from conquered Finnish territory to attack NATO and allied countries. If the Finnish military lost control of a major facility or area to Soviet forces, there would be little chance they would get it back. The best they would be likely to manage would be sabotage operations which would be unlikely to seriously impede Soviet operations.
It is well known that NATO was willing to use nuclear weapons on its own territory to defeat Warsaw Pact forces if necessary, and any NATO nuclear munitions detonated inside of Finland would have been for the same purpose: to defeat Warsaw Pact (most likely Soviet) forces, not to "backstab" Finland. Thankfully that was an issue that never had to be faced. I notice you had nothing to say about Soviet nuclear weapons, or the prospect of indefinite occupation of Finland by the Soviets without NATO assistance in defeating them. (It's not 1939 any more.)
Food for thought:
Sweden Secretly Assisted Nato's Cold War Defense
Finnish-US military co-operation during cold war
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Finland did not collaborate with the Nazis. Finnish troops never crossed the Finn border to advance upon Leningrad no matter how much the OKH (and Hitler himself) begged and pleaded and whined and cajoled.
Finns did not round up their Jews, or their Communists (in fact, even communist Finns who had actively participated in the Russian invasion were pardoned).
Even the Finnish volunteer SS battalion (Finland's only semi-official contribution to the Nazi war effort) was not accused of any war-crimes. It was established in 1941, fought until 1943 and was disbanded, having fought with honour for the agreed-upon two years. Compare and contrast with Norwegian, Italian, Romanian or Hungarian contributions.
Germany, in return, never actually put its full might behind Finland.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.