Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ted Cruz Proposes Reviving SDI To Counter N. Korean Nuclear Threat (blastingnews.com)

Posted by timothy on from the basement-bunker-weekend-project dept.

MarkWhittington writes: One of the more substantive issues that was discussed during the Republican presidential debate in Detroit concerned the latest threat to come out of North Korea. That country's mad, bad, and dangerous to know leader Kim Jong-Un has ordered his nuclear arsenal prepared and is firing missiles in the vicinity of Japan. The United States and South Korea have started military maneuvers, partly as a result of North Korea's actions. Discussions on deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea have also become urgent. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas would go one step further. He proposed reviving the idea of space-based missile defenses that were part of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative.

57 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. And by that he means by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spending a bunch of money and making it look like we are making great progress in missile defense so that NK bankrupts itself trying to counter the counter measures? Aren't they already basically bankrupt?

    1. Re:And by that he means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't they already basically bankrupt?
       
      Yes, the US is bankrupt. 19 trillion in the hole in wasted tax breaks, welfare and wars.

      Oh, you mean the North Koreans? Yeah, them too.

    2. Re:And by that he means by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't know what "bankrupt" means. It refers to liquidity; you are bankrupt when you can no longer meet your current obligations, which the US government has never been close to.

      You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re: And by that he means by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be amazing if either of you pointed to a source.....

      I guess facts can't be used in political conversation.

    4. Re: And by that he means by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess you haven't seen one of the televised debates lately.

    5. Re: And by that he means by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell, when Democrats passed Obama's stimulus bill, it was about as costly as the Iraq war up to that point. Money only means something to the left, when it's not spent directly benefitting them.

    6. Re: And by that he means by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My source is the federal budget. My figures are actually a little bit off, in that the TANF program (the successor to the old AFDC welfare program) has a budget of 17 billion, not the 10 billion I was estimating, but it's still miniscule.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:And by that he means by halivar · · Score: 2

      The ONLY thing 911 did was make the US (and not JUST the US) say 'enough is enough'.

      I am quoting this portion only to take exception on behalf of the countries that joined us in Afghanistan, even though it wasn't their fight; especially non-NATO countries, who were there for no other obligation than that they are our friends. We were not alone.

    8. Re:And by that he means by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you're talking about Social Security, you also have to include the fact that it also brings in revenue. Yes, eliminating Social Security would reduce the deficit, but not by the amount we spend on it, and it would have no effect whatsoever on our liquidity.

      And "Social Security" is not "welfare".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re: And by that he means by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess you haven't seen one of the televised debates lately.

      You mean those reality tv shows?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re: And by that he means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except your wrong

      Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick.

      The Iraq war tally will easily reach 6 trillion plus we have a ton of Veterans we aren't taking care of which is costing more and more money to deal with. But by all means, let's keep making more veterans, put more people needlessly into harms way to accomplish what?

      Weapons got us into this mess, if we hadn't armed people during Iran Contra there would be a hell of a lot less weapons in the area and if we hadn't toppled the democratically elected Iran the whole region would be a lot more stable.

      I have no idea why Reagan is held up as some kind of standard for Presidents. From what I can tell he united Germany, that was about it from what he did that was good. I'm sure there is more but trickle down economics started with him which was horrible, he helped solve Childhood hunger but then cut taxes so we couldn't afford it anymore. He removed our ability to deduct credit card interest rates on taxes. I would say he probably started the battle with the middle class.

    11. Re: And by that he means by Ryan+McLaughlin · · Score: 2
      According to the SSA https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY1... budget page they spent $850 billion in 2013. Even if spending stayed the same that would be 1.7 Trillion in 2 years. This is not including other public assistance programs

      The food stamp program is $74 billion according to this story http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...

      According to http://www.reuters.com/article... the iraq war has cost roughly 2 Trillion. So the GP is correct.

      Actually I found a better website http://www.usgovernmentspendin... If you add up the Pensions (which the lions share is SSA), Health (Medicare), and Welfare, You get a total spend of 2287.5 billion spent on social welfare programs.

      Considering that our total 2015 budget was 3,650.5 billion, that means we spent 62% of our budget on welfare programs. If my math is correct.

      Now look at military spending for 2015 and it is 820.2, smaller than either SSA, or Health spending. and only 22% of the budget. If my math is correct

    12. Re:And by that he means by budgenator · · Score: 2

      The main attack was on the World Trade Center, which was located in the Host City for the Headquarters of the United Nations, it really was an attack on western culture and values, not just a country.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:And by that he means by AlterEager · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow. Re-write history much? I'm not going to argue that going in to Iraq wasn't a mistake -- it was. But that's based on hindsight.

      You are re-writing history. Many people said it was a mistake before the war. Hindsight wad not needed.

    14. Re:And by that he means by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.

      That is rubbish.

      Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014

      Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2014: Government Spending Trends in Graphics, Tables, and Key Points

      Share of 2013 Spending

      23.55% Social Security
      18.33% National Defense
      15.53% Income Security
      14.41% Medicare
      10.37% Health
      06.39% Net Interest
      04.02% Veterans Benefits and Services
      02.65% Transportation
      - truncated -

      The US spends a great deal on public assistance / social welfare. The additional spending for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a minor portion of the defense budget, and was dwarfed by social welfare spending every year. And please note that this is only Federal spending. States, counties, and cities also have their own budgets for social welfare spending.

      --
      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
    15. Re: And by that he means by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      "Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick."

      Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy

      Now, I'm not oblivious to the need. But the federal government is perhaps the worst method to provide the needed assistance. LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels. People are just as damned cold if Congress fails to authorize funding, or the bureaucracy squanders more of it on administrative costs, as they would be if they had no program at all. Let these programs be run by local government, where need is recognized better and responded to with less waste and failure.

      And yes, if your norther community refuses to care for the poor and needy, either someone else will, or the poor will move where they have a chance.

      Remember, even if your miserable community lets the poor freeze in the dark, it's no different than if the Feds merely misallocate funding. Just as cold. Just as dark.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    16. Re: And by that he means by Bartles · · Score: 2

      No, The Costs of War Project at Brown U thinks the cost will be 6 trillion over 40 years including interest. That's clearly a group without an agenda. The cost of public assistance over the same time period will be at least 80 Trillion, not including interest and maintaining current levels of spending. Sorry, you lose.

    17. Re: And by that he means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know what alternate reality you're living in. Social Security and Medicare are not Welfare.

      I pay into Social Security and Medicare. While there's some small chance I may be deluding myself that I will ever get any of that money back, I am paying into it with the expectation that I will actually be getting it back. Some day when I start to draw Social Security, I will do it knowing that I paid for it.

      You're truth needs a reality check.

    18. Re: And by that he means by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, to answer your question literally, we'd have to go back to the 1930s, but that's skewed by the Great Depression, so let's look at Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs.

      In 1959 the poverty rate for blacks was about 55%. Ten years later it was just over 30%. The poverty rates for whites + hispanics was about 17% in 1959, and about 10% ten years later.

      Now saying the Great Society reduced poverty is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. We can't know that for sure. But the one thing we can conclude is that the public assistance programs of the 1960s didn't mire people in government dependency -- at least most people who were targeted. It's conceivable that this may have happened to some people, just as some people are injured by vaccines.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:And by that he means by larkost · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your NY Times reference appears to be be disagreeing with you. You are technically correct in that there were things that could be called chemical weapons in Iraq, but "All munitions found were left over from pre-1991 Iraqi program". Many of the reports about these weapons were very clear that they were in no way serviceable, and were so dangerous to handle that they were often incinerated on-site to reduce the danger to those handling them.

      That link says nothing about Iraq having the ability to ramp up production, and I have never seen any evidence that that was so. There is no denying that Sadam talked about wanting/having it, but that was just talk (and many intelligence agencies said so). And the Bush administration's main justification for going to war was that they had an active program (no evidence at the time, and we now know they did not), with some vague references to them talking to terrorists (al-Qaeda specifically) with the idea that Iraq would be arming them. At the time it was known that there had been a meeting, but all of the intelligence agencies were pretty sure that despite having common enemies, the two groups despised each other on basic grounds (e.g. the Suni vs. Shia strife that is playing out now).

      No one is ever going to argue that Sadam Husain was a good man or leader, nor that his son's were going to be when he passed the reign over. But he was holding Iraq together (brutally), and without major civilian casualties. We destroyed the military that was holding it together, and then disbanded all of the local police forces on the theory that they were loyal to the previous regime. Only counting the first 4 years the estimates in Iraq are between 151,000 to over a million civilian deaths. If we had not invaded, those would not have happened.

      There was really nothing for us to accomplish in Iraq, and the only thing we did was to open up a cesspool and set fire to the middle east for the next generation or so.

    20. Re: And by that he means by blue9steel · · Score: 3, Informative

      The SS receipts aren't general revenue despite the fact that politicians have played fast and loose with the rules over the years.

    21. Re: And by that he means by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are aware that social security is a retirement plan and medicare is the medical plan that goes alongside it and that participants get distributions based on how much they contributed? It isn't welfare.

      Medicaid, that is welfare. Food stamps are welfare. I'm not saying it is welfare I'm opposed to, I actually want to go to my grave having supported making the world a better place. Having grown up the child of a single mother who needed both of those things and having received medical care only because of them as a child they no doubt contributed greatly to me being where I am today.

      Are there losers and deadbeats on the programs? Sure there are, most of them, but then that is true of most of those holding large wall street power accounts as well. All the red tape thrown up trying to prevent abuse and minimize these programs costs more in administrative overhead than the abuse itself creating a self-fulfilling prophecy on the inefficiency of government.

      If you want to reduce the cost of these programs stop fighting the public option and start fighting to cut the costs and complexity of bringing medical devices and drugs on to the market that keeps the large scale healthcare industry entrenched and raises the barrier to entry.

    22. Re:And by that he means by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014 [heritage.org]

      Of course, Social Security and Medicare are not part of the federal budget They're an entirely separate organization funded from an entirely separate income source. We pay into those programs in exchange for a promise of income or health coverage later, which means these programs cost the government nothing, because every penny in those trust funds is owed back to the people who paid into it, and thus cannot legitimately be used for anything else other than the operation of those programs.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re:And by that he means by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      And lets not forget that Bush had a hard on for getting Iraq, someway, somehow.

      Security briefing on day 1 of Bush's presidency: "How do we get Iraq?"
      Security briefing on 9/11 attacks: "Can we use this to get Iraq?"

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
      http://www.timelines.ws/countr...

      1/30/01
      Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

      8/10/01
      Major air raid on Iraq. (air defense installations destroyed)

      Sep 2001
      Curveball granted German asylum, ceases cooperating. British spy agency MI6 has told CIA that "elements of [his] behavior strike us as typical offabricators." [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]

      9/11/01
      Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]

      9/12/01
      According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, "[Bush] told us, 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]

      9/20/01
      British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: "I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]

      9/20/01
      PNAC letter to Bush: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]

      11/21/01
      Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."—Bob Woodward. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]

      12/9/01
      Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

      12/12/01
      Rumsfeld demands plan for war against Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks proposes softening up Iraq: "I'm thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary. Spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity." [Date the public knew: 8/3/04]

      12/28/01
      Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]

      Feb 2002
      "I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'"—Sen. Bob Graham. [Date the public knew: 3/26/04]

      March 2002
      "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."—Bush to Rice and three senators. [Date the public knew: 12/8/03]

      3/13/02
      Bush on Osama: "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

      3/22/02
      Downing Street memo: "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincingWe are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from IraqRegime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

      3/24/02
      Saddam "is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."—Cheney on CNN

      3/25/02
      Downing Str

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    24. Re:And by that he means by sjames · · Score: 2

      The report says just under 5000 total. Of those, a significant number were unusable and another significant number of them were already intentionally disabled (likely as part of compliance with their obligation). Another significant number had never contained the actual chemical weapon.

      All were manufactured prior to 1991.

      As for the rest, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That was the first big lie that got America involved in yet another costly (in money and lives) and unnecessary war.

    25. Re: And by that he means by dinfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy

      Please explain how more sick people is better than or equivalent to fewer sick people, with regard to the economy, even taking into account the cost of the financial aid.

      Additionally, I'd like to reiterate an oft forgotten point. Poor people are great at putting their money to work for the economy. Give a poor person money and you can guarantee that it will be spent almost instantly, locally and generally on something that we consider part of the real and essential economy (yes, some of them buy drugs, but on average it goes to food, clothes, transport and other necessities). They sure as hell aren't going to put the money in a bank in the Cayman islands or import Russian caviar.

      LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels.

      Anecdotes, my friend. Do you have any argumentation towards why a federal government cannot efficiently do this on a fundamental level?

      the poor will move where they have a chance.

      The only place poor people can easily move to is the street. And that is exactly what happens in places like the US. Americans coming to our 'socialist' country always (with great surprise) ask us where all our homeless people are. The number of homeless people, let alone the many people obviously on the brink of being so, I saw when I recently visited the US was disheartening and morally disgusting.

      "But our country is different!'
      True, many Americans have a very Darwinistic view of how a society should work (which is ironic, given how few people 'believe' in biological evolution). They fail to see that even though it feels really unfair, it is objectively better to spend money to have 'moochers' sitting at home than to leave them to fuck up their lives and those of friends and strangers around them by roaming the streets, committing crime and seeking refuge in terrible drugs. And that doesn't even take into account the (economic!) benefits to society when poor people actually use the aid to grow and become tax-paying members of society.

      I will readily admit that even in our 'socalist paradise' the exact same lack of insight is all too present, but as always: everything is bigger in America.

    26. Re: And by that he means by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well yes, there's always confounding factors as I noted. But I think the argument that welfare automatically makes people dependent on government handouts isn't supported by the data. That it may make some people dependent I don't doubt, but if the effect were as powerful as commonly suggested then you wouldn't see so many people lifting themselves out of poverty during the heydey of the welfare state.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re: And by that he means by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Much funding for Sunni groups comes from the very rich denizens of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries. ISIS would not have gotten anywhere, for instance, without Sunni support. Even though the CIA money may well have contributed, I think you're vastly underestimating the support groups like ISIS get from sources more close to home. The CIA has definitely done some things in its history, but it hasn't been supporting these fighters since Reagan.

      Remember, the support for the Afghan mujahadeen dried up after the Soviets left. While the impact of this money didn't go away, and indeed provided a base for groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the stream dried up at the end of the 1980s, almost 20 years ago.

      The problem with just going cold turkey with any involvement is that there is a reason we are in the Mideast, and it is not because we're trying to fund holy wars. While we're not trying to "steal" oil, we are definitely trying to keep the area stable enough so that no one can grab it and hold it for ransom. That is why we need forces in the region and why we need to remain interested.

      However, that by itself, is not fueling the issue, it is merely a glaring example that the Middle East can't police itself without help. Some people there hate that, and still more people there want us gone so they can fight their wars.

      The people in the Middle East hate each other in a way that few people elsewhere can appreciate. Sunnis hate Shiites, Shiites hate Sunnis, Turks hate Kurds, and then there are tribes out there that hate each other. I'd hazard to say that if the West hadn't been there with the mandates and protectorates, this would have all ended with a gigantic regional war which would have led to either a new Persian empire, or two regional Sunni and Shiite superstates. As much as the West didn't help, I see no evidence that they would have made it any better on their own.

      Look at Iran. The shah was more than a little bit of a dick, but under his regime, Iran was relatively peaceful, prosperous, and Westernized. Women could and did go to school and participate in daily life. But there was always that religious group in the hinterlands who wanted to go back to what Iran is today. Even if the shah wasn't something of a tyrant, sponsored by the USA, you'd still have that dynamic.

      Complaints about the CIA are honestly like complaining about the conquistadors now. They're a part of history. They had their impact, but their active involvement in the events of today pales in comparison to the forces now at work. Your Middle East trials and tribulations today are fueled mostly by their own money and anger. Whether it is directed at the West is irrelevant. You can see this today where ISIS is about Caliphate first, attack the West second. This violence is fueled directly by the profits on oil which are being spent by the regional actors themselves and it won't stop until they can be convinced to stop, or more likely, they run out of money.

  2. Technology continues its rapid advance by Nova+Express · · Score: 2

    Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.

    I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Technology continues its rapid advance by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.

      I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.

      You do realize that the costs involved with developing missiles capable of carrying nukes (which again have to be designed for use on missiles which also costs a lot of money) over the necessary distance means that unstable 3rd world dictators and Islamic theocracies are very unlikely to even bother developing said technology, much less use it, right? The only use SDI had in the Cold War was to help bankrupt the Soviets who were trying to copy everything the US was doing.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Technology continues its rapid advance by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meanwhile, more and more unstable third world dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are either on the path to developing or already having nuclear weapons.

      This is what happens when you won't get along with your neighbors. Trotskyist Neocon Nirvana.

      Anyhow, thanks for revealing your fearful nature.

      I support missile defense because I trust American engineers far more than third world lunatics.

      They've all been replaced with H1-B visa holders from India. Make certain you trust them.

      The original Star Wars was a feelgood pork project. A new version would be much the same. The problem of course is that you have to kill the missile early in the boost phase of operation. That phase doesn't last long, and if you go detonating your enemy's missile over another country, you almost certainly make yourself another enemy. If it makes it to your airspace to be detonated, you still have a failure what with EMP and radioactive snowflakes and all. How are people going to access their facebook? Ooops, sorry, cheap shot.

      Are we any better now? Electronics certainly is, but there still isn't much time to react. And in a country where everything is considered "too expensive" any more, And the political situation abroad, I don't think planting the equivalent of ABM's right against the borders of our enemies - which in your case, appears to be everyone - will happen.

      These considerations are't even political - they are some physics issues, which in the past have proven remarkably resilient to votes on whether they were true or not.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Technology continues its rapid advance by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      This is why there are all these crazy plans to colonize Mars... Those are the people that are ready to say "You want a war, go nutz! I'm out of here, go fight with yourself."

    4. Re:Technology continues its rapid advance by whodunit · · Score: 2

      I typed up a nice long reply that just vanished because my browser crashed, and Pale Moon doesn't deign to backup form data. So you know what? You're gonna get the reply you deserve. For starters, you're wrong. The SM-3 missile is an ABM missile launchable from US Navy warships, which means we can - and have - posted ABM capability offshore anywhere we can park a destroyer, including, most recently the Med. Secondly, we can put this weaponry in shore installations, like the one we are building right now in Romania, which is pretty much at Russia's doorstep when it comes to them threatening the area with nukes: http://news.usni.org/2015/12/1... Furthermore, it's no longer the 80s. Terminal intercept is a licked problem, as the Army's Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system's track record demonstrates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Just in case the continued excellent track record of Iron Dome didn't clue you in. Furthermore, hitting a missile does not make its nuclear payload detonate, as evidenced by multiple Broken Arrow incidents where the conventional plastique in the bomb detonated without causing a nuclear blast.

      Anyhow, thanks for revealing your fearful nature.

      Maybe I'm just a poor lonely neocon nutcase clinging to my guns and religion, but in a world where China - which has developed extensive CONVENTIONAL ballistic missile weapons - is drawing closer to a seemingly inevitable confrontation with the US: http://www.theatlantic.com/int... and a newly aggressive Russia (currently invading the Ukraine) currently threatening to use their nukes to counter any tactical, conventional defeats: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/2... and sending nuclear-cruise missile armed subs to patrol right off the US East coast, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08... I think I'm entitled to some moderate level of concern. In fact, you'd have to be a god damned idiot to not feel some concern.

  3. Rods of God by swb · · Score: 2

    Seems like the ideal weapon to use against DPRK launch targets. Enough destructive power and penetrating ability to use against primary launch sites or bunkers, yet almost undetectable enough against a country like DPRK that you might even get away with plausible deniability and blame target destruction on a mishap.

  4. Might actually make some sense now by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This actually makes a bit more sense than it did in the 1980s. The technology has improved but more importantly this will be only defending against a small number of missiles. One of the big issues was that it wasn't feasible to scale up a system that could defend against a massive number of advanced missiles with good countermeasures and decoys from the USSR or China. But this would only need to defend against a very small number of missiles without sophisticated countermeasures. Probably not worth the cost but it at least makes more sense than it did in the 1980s.

    1. Re:Might actually make some sense now by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unable to achieve 100% intercept rate with SDI was not a "big issue". It was hyped as a big issue by people wanting to discredit the effort, mostly by smart-ass journalists and other ivy-league "intellectual" types to mock Reagan and make him seem like an imbecile. Achieving even a 10% intercept rate would be materially useful and save millions of lives, 50% tens of millions, and 75% a few hundred million.

                That's what they were mocking - a man trying to save American lives. In the end, he ended up more-or-less ending the threat of world destruction from the Cold war.

                Brett

    2. Re:Might actually make some sense now by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.

    3. Re:Might actually make some sense now by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.

      Wasn't it more the fact that the Soviets had so many nuclear weapons that it simply wouldn't have mattered? And SDI really only works against ICBMs. Even if it had a 50% intercept rate that still leaves thousands of missiles. There there are aircraft armed with nuclear bombs/missiles, submarine-based nuclear missiles, you name it. The best case scenario had we fully developed SDI and there was a nuclear war was that you would have a slightly better chance of not getting bombed but would probably still end up dying from the fallout/long term consequences of having half the country nuked.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Might actually make some sense now by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, how close you get to 100% matters, and the amount it matters depends on the scale of the threat you're dealing with.

      Suppose you are 90% effective. That's well worth it when you're talking about an adversary with the capability of striking you with ten, or even a hundred warheads, especially if they're small and unreliable. Russia currently has 1800 deployed warheads, with a stockpile of some 8500. But let's say conservatively in a period of high tensions the Soviets have a thousand warhead targeted at the US. 90% effective would mean we get hit with about 100 warheads, which in the Soviet era ICBMs were in the 3-5 MT range, or 200x to 300x the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Two or three, or even a half dozen such warheads would be survivable for a certain value of "survive", but a hundred would mean a highly probable total collapse of our society.

      Now at the risk of sounding like a scare-quotes-intellectual, you really ought to consider how the opponent in this game will perceive and react to your missile defense system. If a hypothetical missile defense system is 100% effective or very close to it, it's game over; your enemy's missile arsenal is just useless junk. But if we're talking 90% effective, we're talking about a system which cannot stop the enemy arsenal from destroying us, provided that arsenal is intact.

      So if you are a defense planner in the Kremlin, what is your assessment of this situation? That the Americans are stupid? Or that they intend to whittle down your arsenal with a first nuclear strike and then whittle down the survivors with the missile defense system? And if you are in a tense situation with the Americans, how does this affect your decision making? Do you use your arsenal early or risk losing it later?

      So yes, those of us "intellectuals" with the handicap of being educated do rather think how close a missile defense system gets to 100% matters quite a bit. How close it has to be varies by situation of course. A 10% effectiveness rate would be materially useful against North Korea; it would have been merely destabilizing against the Soviets.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Might actually make some sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you understand how many bombs and missiles Russia had during the Cold War. In 1988, Russia had ~45,000 nuclear devices, spread across ICBMs, submarine launched missiles, bomber dropped bombs, etc. Many of them were MIRV designs, which had up to 14 active warheads (and possibly dozens of decoy warheads) in them, all of which were substantially more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.

      In a full scale nuclear war, most of those would be launched. If you took out 99% of them, that would still be 450+ nuclear detonations substantially more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. If civilian population centers are the main targets, and they managed to hit each of the 450 largest cities in the U.S., that's a detonation in every city from Scranton, PA up, covering a huge percentage of the population with direct explosive effects, and the suburbs of these cities would all be within the range of lethal radioactive fallout.

      And that's before we get into the nuclear winter issues. The models for a nuclear winter that could devastate global food production (a drop of several degrees Celsius) only require about 50 Hiroshima sized detonations in a "small", regional exchange. If 450 U.S. cities burned to the ground, and a similar number of Russian targets, it would cause a decades long ice age. And that's with 99% success rates shooting down missiles. With a 75% success rate? You're dead. Live in a bunker in the middle of nowhere? Better have enough canned food to last a few hundred years, and seed stores for your great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren to plant.

      Sure, it's better than the whole planet's surface being nuked directly. But it just encourages your enemy to build even more nukes (you'll notice, the Russians hit peak missiles at the end of Reagan's term in office) to get through the defenses. Which raises the risk of a malfunction leading to a missile launch, or one of the many missiles getting lost (or stolen, or sold for profit to terrorists). If either side had wanted to destroy the world, they could have, and SDI (particularly 1980s tech SDI) was never going to change that.

  5. Presumably so he can call them "Cruz Missiles" by Jahta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm here all week :-)

  6. Re:Why not? The Star Wars movies no longer suck. by bkmoore · · Score: 2

    ....Why not? The Star Wars movies no longer suck....

    I vote for the Chewbacca defense against North Korean aggression.

  7. Crazy Cruz by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A small government conservative proposing pork barrel politics to counter a non-realistic threat in order to seem like he is the big man on the international stage solely for the purpose of getting elected.

    As has been mentioned a lot of times before Kim thrives on crazy threats, and China needs a relatively stable NK (that doesn't actually carry out stupid shit) in order to maintain a buffer.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Crazy Cruz by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...China needs a relatively stable NK (that doesn't actually carry out stupid shit) in order to maintain a buffer.

      This brings up a fun question:

      A "buffer" against... what? Puny South Korea? A Japan that is too demographically old/rich/disinterested in China to bother invading? The Philippines? Mongolia?

      Historically, I get it - post-WWII, fears of Japan and such were rather justified. But it's been what, 70 years and a metric shitload of geopolitical changes? Pretty sure the whole buffer idea is a bit, shall we say, outdated.

      The main reason for the existance of NK was to break up Korea and prevent a unified Korea from being an economic powerhouse dominating North Asia.

      People look at NK today and its a basket case. But if Korea hadn't been broken up and that unified Korea had been under an economic management such as developed in South Korea, the agricultural wealth of the south and the mineral wealth of the north would have resulted in a nation which would be able to challenge even China, would have dwarfed Japan and would have been seen by the Soviet Union as a threat to their Eastern maritimes. South Korea has been doing pretty well industrially, great shipbuilding and other heavy industries. But thats nothing compared to what Korea COULD have been.

      Consequently it was in the interest of all the regional powers, including the USA, to ensure that Korea was broken up.

      For the Chinese, NK isn't a buffer in the normal sense of the world; its a handicap they are imposing on Korea as a whole.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  8. I doubt SDI was ever really shelved by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

    All Cruz proposes to do is admit that the research never really stopped, and take a look at deploying what we have. It would certainly be prudent to do SOMETHING to defend against rogue states (Iran, NK).

  9. Re:We should do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although I share your sentiment about the ludicrosity of SDI, I would like to debunk the myth of massive civilian benefit from defense spending. Money purposefully invested in civilian research programs (antibiotics, medical imaging, public health strategies providing healthcare for all Americans if I might be parochial, roads, bridges, trains, and space and lasers as you say, etc.) would have a much LARGER impact than hoping for trickle-down technology from Halliburton, after they enrich themselves.

  10. Re:Trump 2016!!! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why Bill went to Monica.

  11. Launch phase by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    The threat is against South Korea and US forces in Japan. Seems like launch phase rather than ballistic phase interception would be best. Star wars wouldn't work. Need Navy or Air Force systems.

  12. Re:We should do it by convolvatron · · Score: 3, Informative

    my guess is you weren't involved in the last SDI development effort.

    just contractors lining up at the trough. an unequivocal waste. they tried to
    keep it open for as long as they could after notable people came out and
    said it will never be useful, but they had to shut off the spigot eventually.

  13. Riding the corpse of Zombie Reagan by Beavertank · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know the GOP is the party of pimping out Zombie Reagan, and they're favorite past-time is cherry picking things about the man to back up what they want to do now, but reviving Star Wars? Really? They're not even trying to pretend they didn't jump the shark now.

  14. Re:We should do it by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Yes, defense spending has yielded some very impressive technological results. That does not, however, mean that a reasonable return will be had on any specific investment. Some people have made a lot of money playing professional poker - does that mean playing poker is a great investment? Only if you ignore the losers...

  15. Too much high tech by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    We should just build a wall around NK.

    And get MX to pay for it.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  16. Re:rescue the people of North Korea . . . by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

    A tiny smart bomb, aimed at the Supreme Commander's location could save the lives and well-being of countless deprived citizens of N. Korea. It might be the greatest humanitarian action of this century. It would cost almost nothing to accomplish. Or we could do what we always do and kill citizens and soldiers by the thousands while leaving evil kings and dictators to continue their course. Even if our smart bomb missed the little guy it would give him something to think about and an incentive for him to change his attitude.

    Ok lets see.

    Millions of starving people kept in check by an oppressive regime. Remove repressive regime. Whats millions of starving people, who now have no overwhelming political or military control directing their lives, going to do? What could possibly go wrong? My guess is they'd eat one another. Then eat the South Koreans, Chinese and Russians.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  17. MDA? by jasnw · · Score: 2

    So, has Senator Cruz not heard of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)? Still alive and kicking, although they do have their own problems. However, one very big reason for MDA and its presence in Alaska is our good buddies in North Korea.

  18. The Japan trump card by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Actually, China is the key to this particular issue - North Korea playing w/ nukes. While I'm not against space based missile programs in principle, I'm not convinced that it's the necessary solution for this particular case.

    I agree w/ Charles Krauthammer on the solution to this one. What do you do when you have such a weak hand? Play your trump. The US trump vis a vis China is JAPAN. The Chinese are still obsessed w/ their centuries old domination of the region, and their old enemies. Their main enemy in their mind is Japan. Nothing would make them take notice more than Japan suddenly reasserting its power.

    Here is what the proposed solution is. Since WWII, Japan was forcibly de-militarized, and it's not a nuclear power. One thing that the US could do is get together w/ Japan and re-define that treaty, and DROP the requirement that Japan be de-militarized. Nothing would get Beijing's attention more than Japan being re-asserted as a military competitor to China - the way it was in the 1930s. They have their memories of Nanjing, and such a move would really cause a meltdown in Beijing.

    So if THAT is done, China will stop at nothing - would even march into North Korea and dethrone Kim to get the US to stop re-arming Japan. But that won't likely be necessary - North Korea survives purely b'cos of China. China doesn't want a unified Korea - that would potentially give South Korea a work force even cheaper than what China can provide. Which is why they tolerate, if not encourage, every one of Kim's antics. But if they suddenly saw the re-emergence of Japan, that would cause a major panic in Beijing, and they'd do everything they could to rein in Pyongyang

  19. Re:What? by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love when some amateur internet "economist" dismisses a great economist as an idiot and, as proof, holds up public assistance programs as if they are net wealth creators.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  20. Sure.... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, Ted, that would be a great idea.. if SDI actually worked. All tests done demonstrated that it didn't work reliably at stopping missiles. Republicans: still offering imaginary solutions to real problems. What do you expect from people that still think the earth is only 6000 years old?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.