The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle

Hapster writes " Raytheon has developed the most expensive weapon ever. This ICBM killer hones in on an oncoming missile and, like a bullet hitting another bullet, hopes to smash into it before it smashes into us. " On a sheer technology level, devices like this are some of the most intrinsicly interesting around, although I'm still not quite sure who's the enemy.

Comments

Not sure why we need this new missle?

[shambler snack]

You mad a comment that you're not sure who the enemy is. Let me come up with a short list for you:

Mainland China, which fields one of the largest, if not the largest, standing armies in the world. They may not be the best, but their sheer numbers will make you stop and pause. They're still a threat to their own people, imprisoning desenters, and they have stated they will use force against Taiwan (and think how expensive your cheap computers would get, and how less successful the Internet revolution they drive would become).

North Korea, which despite being closed and near total starvation, has managed to launch two new ICBM missles, the second of which has the range to reach the West Coast. Everyone seems to think that Cuba is the only Stalinist regime left, but Korea makes Cuba look like a workers paradise.

Pakistan and India have been at it for a long time. Both have tested regional ICBMs capable of carrying nukes. They may not be a direct threat to us, but they can upset their region, which is bad enough.

Iraq still ain't our buds. And with holes in the embargo and no UN inspectors, it won't be long before we get a rude awakening from that part of the world.

What's left of the USSR is very unhealthy right now. A war with southern Muslums in Chechnia has heated up, with Muslums blowing up Russian apartment buildings full of people. We went through hell when we lost the Edward R. Murrow building in Kansas City, but they've lost the equivalent of four over the past few months. This type of terror and the economic and political instability are just the ingrediants needed for demagogues and dictators. Think of Berlin and Gernany before the Nazis and WWII.

We've had the Bomb since 1945, and ICBMS with Russia since the '50s. That technology has had a half century to percolate around the world, both as hardware and knowhow. Internationally, the world is as politically dangerous now as it ever was. And we need whatever it takes to protect our borders, and our way or life, including slashdot.

Re:Not sure why we need this new missle?

[Stonehand]

Bah. Why would India and Pakistan sign onto disarmament if the big powers would? Their enemies aren't generally the big powers (and, if we WERE being, for some reason, evil bastards bent on ruthlessly destroying them, we wouldn't need nuclear weapons to do it...). No, it's that Pakistan and India happen to be neighbors with territorial disputes and a long history of conflict.

Suppose, say, Canada were a deadly enemy of the United States. Further suppose that it had comparable conventional forces, of at least sufficient power to stall any invasion but not really enough to successfully mount a hell-bent drive towards Washington. Would, oh, Israel admitting that it had nuclear weapons, but then disarming, have any impact on the US/Canada theatre? No.

Face it: there's really no justification for trying to "lead by example" here. Remember how badly Wilson botched trying to "be nice" w/ the Treaty of Versailles? or, how numerous Lefty traitors/spies apparently wanted the US and UK to demilitarize completely -- but to build up the Stalinist forces, both conventional and nuclear? Does North Korea follow the South's example of sanely leading a similar state, or does it persist in being confrontational by sending commandos for infiltration missions via submarines, and starving its people so it can build nuclear missiles?

And so forth.

What Happened to that Peace Dividend?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You remember that peace dividend we were supposed to get after the cold war? Remember when Reagan was pumping most of our annual budget into the military to outspend the Commies? We were supposed to be able to cut back that spending dramaticly after the Cold War was over. After WWII the US military budget dropped by 90%. Most of that $ went to the Marshall plan to rebuild Japan and Western Europe. It also went to the GI Bill which produced the most romanticized and idyllic time in most American's memories.

But didn't we cut back on military spending after the Cold War and close all those bases? Yeah, about 15% of our top Cold War spending levels. During 1998 we spent over $321 Billion on National Defense. We currently have over 8,600 combat aricraft, 10,000 tanks, 18 aircraft carriers, 120+ subs, 3600+ Ballistic Missiles and over 725000 other missiles. Source

Now compare that to the 50 Billion we spent on education and training, the 23 Billion NASA got and the fact that China, only spent 40-60 Billion on their National Defense. As a percentage of our GDP we spend 6 times what countries in Western Europe (England, France) who have also been participating in our policing operations around the world.

We need to take a chunk of that money and invest in the public infrastructure (education, health care, public utilities, small business resources) in our country and many 'pontential rogue nations' in the former Soviet Union, Africa, Asia and South America. Once our people and other people are able to trade with one another, make a living for their families and provide a future for their children, I garuntee that the liklihood of war is 0.000000000000000000001.

History has shown that we have created many of the dictators we have had to overthow (Noriega, Suharto, Sadam) and we have managed to help countries get on their feet (W. Europe, Japan). We are at that crossroads again and must decide how to spend our money. Investing in Peace is always a better idea than investing in War.

Re:What Happened to that Peace Dividend?

[MattXVI]

You are wrong about almost everything.

You remember that peace dividend we were supposed to get after the cold war? Remember when Reagan was pumping most of our annual budget into the military to outspend the Commies?

The US has never spent most of the annual Federal budget of Defense. Even at the height of the Cold War, when Reagan was catching up from the dangerously wussified Carter 70's, Defense never consumed more than 35 or 40 percent of the Federal budget. Of course, it really doesn't matter. You should spend what is necessary. A newly-freed Eastern Europe and a much-diminsihed threat of nuclear war are both worth a lot of billions.

We were supposed be able to cut back that spending dramaticly after the Cold War was over. After WWII the US military budget dropped by 90%.

We were fighting a ground war overseas, for most of the time in two hemispeherically separated theatres. Of course, it was very very expensive. The Cold War, however, was never that expensive in terms of a percentage of the Federal budget, or of the GNP.

Most of that $ went to the Marshall plan to rebuild Japan and Western Europe. It also went to the GI Bill which produced the most romanticized and idyllic time in most American's memories.

Great! And the Federal government spends much, much more than that now on Federal aid for university students.

But didn't we cut back on military spending after the Cold War and close all those bases? Yeah, about 15% of our top Cold War spending levels. During 1998 we spent over $321 Billion on National Defense...

You are not using Real dollars. There has been inflation since the mid-80's. The big complaint right now from bothe parties in Congress is that the military is underfunded. Defense expeditures right now, as a percentage of our GNP, have not been lower since before World War I, when we were just another pissant republic

Now compare that to the 50 Billion we spent on education and training, the 23 Billion NASA got...

No, totally wrong. First, NASA is obsolete and mostly useless. Private companies will soon so far surpass NASA that it'll just be another very expensive joke. It's funding should be cut and folded into traditional research funding channels. Second, the Federal money for education and training may be small, but those things cost a lot less than aircraft carriers. Historically, the State and local governments run education and training. And they currently spend hundreds of billions on education and training. On top of that, what makes you think spend for Federal dollars on those things will improve them? There is zero evidence of that, and much to the contrary.

and the fact that China, only spent 40-60 Billion on their National Defense.

Well, they don't have to fund their own R&D, since they steal it all from the US. In addition, you really can have no idea how much they spend on defense. They are a closed totalitarian regime. They don't just hand out accurate statistics at the Defense haedquarters to curious foreign citizens.

As a percentage of our GDP we spend 6 times what countries in Western Europe (England, France) who have also been participating in our policing operations around the world.

Incoherent, and totally untrue.

We need to take a chunk of that money and invest in the public infrastructure (education, health care, public utilities, small business resources) in our country and many 'pontential rogue nations' in the former Soviet Union, Africa, Asia and South America.

First of all, our infrastructure in the US is just fine. We fund all that stuff you mention to the gills. Second, those countries you mentioned would be a lot better off if they quit their bellyaching and freed their economies up and did their own development. It's nice to give advice, and to help sometimes, for sure.

Once our people and other people are able to trade with one another, make a living for their families and provide a future for their children, I garuntee that the liklihood of war is 0.000000000000000000001.

Your gurantee is worthless. We have traded previously with every country with which we've gone to battle. We bought oil from Hussein and Ghadaffi, traded with the Soviets all through the Cold War, traded heavily with Germany before both World Wars, and with Japan before WW II etcetera etcetera. History is not on your side.

History has shown that we have created many of the dictators we have had to overthow (Noriega, Suharto, Sadam) and we have managed to help countries get on their feet (W. Europe, Japan). We are at that crossroads again and must decide how to spend our money.

We did not 'create' any of the dictators you mentioned, or any other, for that matter. Sometimes we dealt with them when our interests coincided. Sometimes we hoped we could convince them to open up their countries. We also allied with Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler. Do you think that was a bad idea, too?

Investing in Peace is always a better idea than investing in War.

But investing in Defense is the best way to prevent war.