Slashdot Mirror
Why Drones Could Be the Future of Missile Defense
An anonymous reader writes "With North Korea's failed missile launch Friday, it is clear many nations around the globe are attempting to acquire missiles that can carry larger payloads and go further. Such moves have made the United States and its allies very nervous. Missile defense has been debated since the 1980's with such debate back once again the headlines. Most missile defense platforms have technical issues and are very expensive. One idea: use drones instead. '... a high-speed (~3.5 to 5.0 km/s), two-stage, hit-to-kill interceptor missile, launched from a Predator-type UAV can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase.' Could a Drone really take down a North Korea missile? 'A physics-based simulator can estimate the capabilities of a high-altitude, long endurance UAV-launched boost-phase interceptor (HALE BPI) launched from an altitude of approximately 60,000 feet. Enabled by the revolution in UAVs, this proposed boost-phase interceptor, based on off-the-shelf technology, can be deployed in operationally feasible stations on the periphery of North Korea.'"
Not a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/navy-ships-out-radar-system-ahead-of-north-korea-launch/
A brief history of SBX-1 — great pictures: http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf
a guided missile is just a disposable drone?
The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else.
However, they can't use it because of mutual assured destruction. Or put another way, they can use it, but the retaliation would be too devasting to contemplate.
On the defense side, a missle defense system disables the enemies ability to first strike on us. This is a good thing, and is the defensive aspect to a missile defense system.
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.
That said, we still should participate in the missile defense race, it would be beyond foolish to let our opponents develop missile defense while we have none.
However, the humanist in me would argue that the minute we developed strategic missile defense that we should give it away. The world will be a better place if NOBODY can first strike on anyone.
The world will not be a better place if any nation, including the US, can first strike with impunity.
No, I understand all too well. The doctrinal notion of MAD, even if absurd, only works when your enemy fears or cares about destruction (as we do).
To paraphrase The Peacemaker, I'm not afraid of the man who wants a hundred nuclear weapons — I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.
Two of the biggest cold warriors in history, Nixon and Brezhnev, decided that missile defense systems were a Really Bad Idea (TM). Down the road of "missile missile anti missile missile" madness lies. Unilateral changes in these kinds of policies are very unwelcome and destabilizing. Imagine the US reaction if China started to pursue this sort of technology.
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity.
Only if you are sure it is going to work 100% perfectly... Or maybe 98% perfectly if you are willing to accept a few cities and millions of deaths as acceptable losses. Against an opponent with many missiles a missile defence isn't that useful.
Against countries with only a few missiles though it is viable. So given that it would probably be best not to develop missile defence systems because it will only force countries like North Korea to build larger and larger arsenals to defend themselves against the US, while affording the US itself no real protection.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.
Nobody wants to risk everything on a worldwide missle defense system that's never been operationally tested. Nobody wants to live in a world where several other continents have been nuked into radioactive ash. Believe me, the people planning and building missle defense systems sincerely hope that they never have to be used. Nobody's imagining it as an enabler for a first-strike capability.
It is all still a waste of money. They are autocracies, the only way to effectively defend against them is to convince 'Dear Leaders' and their cronies that they are number one on the hit parade and they will be targeted and eliminated as the first priority.
'Dear Leader' and his pals do not give a crap about their country or it's citizens they can all burn as long as it feeds the ego and lusts of 'Dear Leader' and his pals.
So all you need to do is convince 'Dear Leader' and his pals, that they will die should they initiate a conflict, no negotiation, no truce, no peace until they personally have been eliminated. Whether by direct conflict or assassination.
The idea that political leaders should be spared from direct personal attack during conflicts is crap. They should be the first on the firing theirs and ours, for their failure to achieve diplomatic resolution and save their citizens lives. Top down attack will see many more diplomatic resolutions and many fewer even zero conflicts.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen