Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Ballistic Missile Weapons?
Rolan asks: "With the recent development of Anti-balistic Missile Technology, and it's obvious ability to be expanded to an Anti-Satelite/Spacecraft Weapon, I've begun to wonder what exactly happend to the treaties we made reguarding these weapons. Specificially I know that, during the cold war, we made treaties with the USSR that prohibit both parties from developing such weapons. Has the disolving of the USSR Nullified/Voided these treaties, or have we simply decided to froget them? Or is there actually a loop hole that alows these weapons? "
1) Polyus (I think that's right) was a Soviet orbital weapons platform they did indeed launch in the 1980s. Reportedly the booster carrying it up malfunctioned and it never reached orbit, but still, they tried breaking the treaty first.
2) The treaties involve explosives in space. The two anti-missile weapons I'm familiar with right now involve:
-- a) A projectile that, instead of exploding in front of an ICBM, merely rams into it. It has no explosives, it's just basically a huge cannonball fired with great precision. Breaks no treaties for having weapons in space. I mean, the only way to really ban it would be to ban anything that could be pointed at another object and rammed into it, which would ban ICBMs anyway.
-- b) Lasers mounted in the noses of 747s that would fry holes in ICBMs, causing them to plummet back to Earth. The theory here is, 747s kept in constant flight could respond immediately to a launch, firing at ICBMs in less than 30 seconds and causing them to fall back onto the country that launched them. Again, this puts no weapons into outer space, and banning it would basically be banning all military aircraft.
So, basically, it seems that the U.S. is still respecting its treaties.
---
I'm not a real anonymous coward, I just play one on TV.
The new anti satelite, anti spacecraft technology is based on Nikola Teslas research into directed energy weapons. Numerous US military bases at antipodes bouce EM pulses between each other through the earth and then direct them upwards and away from the planet. STS-48 is footage of a shot fired from the Exmouth US military base in the North West of Western Australia. For more info about the West Australian tests (although they go on all over the world) read... http://www.millenngroup.com/repository/secret/brig htskies.html
As I understand it, the ABM treaty was inherited by Russia. Interesting question: Do the breakaway republics have to honor it?
A better question is, can such a system actually work? I doubt a massive launch could be stopped; but it should be possible to stop the "lone missle" scenario.
A neat solution would be to build a "Global Missile Defense" shield; that would automatically target and down ICBM's regardless of the point of origin.
The problem with a global shield is that the UN could get its knickers in a twist and decide not to allow ANY space launches.
Other problems with a missile defense - it does NOTHING to stop any of the following:
- suitcase nukes
- cruise missiles
- (surface) ship carried nukes
- car transported nukes
- bio weapons (any of the above delivery mechanisms)
Species wise, we need to get off our collective buts and stop keeping all of our eggs (humans) in one basket (earth).
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
Most treaties the U.S. signed with the Soviet Union are still in force as agreements with Russia. The Russians are really ticked off that the U.S. are apparently completely disregarding the ABM Treaty, and have threatened to freeze any further arms reduction talks (e.g. START III).
I am not aware of a treaty signed with the new Russian Republic that brings over all treaties that we (the U.S.A. for your ferin' types) have signed although I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have slipped such a thing in without going to the Senate for ratification. I know that lots of the START treaty that we've subsequently signed was continued from negotiations with the USSR but those are new treaties for all intents and purposes.
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing.
That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead. Additionally, there are specific exemptions in the ABM treaty that allow ABMs to protect specific areas for each side. The Soviets have a large array of ABMs around Moscow but I don't think we ever deployed ours. To allow our continued development, we could still operate under the explicit exemption in the treaty for a limited protection net.
One area where there is no treaty control is space-based weapons. We can thank Ronald Reagan and his willingness to walk out on Gorbachev to protect "Star Wars" development. This would be a better approach, albeit more expensive and difficult, because it stops the inbound ICBMs before they start re-entry and can "MIRV", thus reducing the number of targets that must be tracked an intercepted. As you may recall, to nullify the notion that this was a tactic the unbalance the arms balance, Reagan offered to give the technology to the Soviets in return for negotiating a complete ban on all nuclear weapons. This one-two punch was the straw that broke the camel's back for the USSR.
We should continue this policy because the cost of entry into the nuclear club is now low enough for any 3rd world nation and many individuals to afford. If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
We don't set a good example, and our government (& big business) doesn't really care so long as we run things one way or another, supress those we don't like, and support those we do -- and keep our companies stronger (or apparently so) than the competition. Part of that big business is the military, and it's good business to build weapons, defense systems, and promote the occasional conflict to boost sales.
But, the real crux of the issue is this:
Those treaties were signed as part of detente. At a time when the USSR could be as capable as we were, at any given moment, of possibly figuring out how to put together an ABM, or a more effective ICBM, treaties were a way of diplomatically legislating around not-so-mutually assured destruction. To deploy such inventions would be breaking the treaty. Breaking the treaty could start a war, and possibly a nuclear exchange, and the end of the world, (etc.).
There is no M.A.D. now. If the treaties are broken there won't be a war or a nuclear exchange. There is no country out there (and it would be difficult to find an alliance of them even) capable of waging an effective war against this country -- and none crazy enough to launch a massive nuclear strike (of the few capable). So the treaty is unenforced. The detente ideology which got us to the signing table is gone. The treaty is worthless to us, and unenforceable. Screw it (say the talking heads).
Shades of Manifest Destiny, certainly, but those now-flimsy treaties stand in the way of very big dollars and more visible world domination -- backed up by a manufactured mandate to eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism from "rogue nations like Iraq, N. Korea, Libya, etc."
So, the abolition of the treaties is in America's industrial interest (both by increasing the flow of money in the defense industry, and by potentially making our government force other governments to trade with us more readily), in both major political parties' public image interests, in our nation's military interest (reasserting ourselves as the biggest boys on the block), and in the interest of the American people (by decreasing the likelihood that an ICBM will obliterate some number of them).
While it's all well and good to be a bleeding heart wishing for a better world, the global economy and the stage of foreign diplomacy are run by the strongest nations. Whenever a people give away power they are eventually conquered (in the past it was by military might, today it is more often economically) without remorse. I am personally glad to be a citizen of the most militarily/industrially/economically powerful nation this world has ever seen, and (even though I don't agree with most that I let the government get away with -- and am fighting them when possible on a number of fronts) think it is idiotic to try to stop them from maintaining our power.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Remember that when the concept of ABM was introduced, the only way to intercept a warhead that was in space, and a relatively insignificant, almost untrackable target was to blow up a nuke in it's general vicinity.
So the ABM treaties were introduced because if nuclear war sounded bad enough, atmospheric nuking and a non-perfect intercept percentage just wasn't desirable.
The clinton administration is currently trying to get Russia to change those treaties. I was just reading another article about it today. Looks like France, Russia, and France are all getting pissed. Here is a that article
9 -10/31/141l-103199-idx.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/199
Take Kosovo for instance. The UN backed by the US goes in to righteously stop a genocide and help throw down an evil dictator. After a war in which no friendly soldiers lose their lives, the politicians declare a victory. Everybody feels happy and confident in the powers of the US and UN. But what about the second genocide that has happened in Kosovo? Where the Albanians are now attacking the Serbs and forcing new mass exoduses? Well . . . those are swept under the rug as life goes on in American politics. A country in ruins and no true resolution to a conflict between to ethnicities, all so that the politicians could bump themselves up a few points in the polls.
You may be wondering what all this has to do with treaties. Well . . . the answer is simple. Treaties in general are nothing more than policitial tools. People listen to them as long as they are convenient and that they can break them without getting in trouble. The only times that treaties in themselves have any use beyond symbolic purposes is when policitians drag us into another war. Treaties can then be used as a justification for attacking the "evil" forces of our enemies.
So in summary: if you think you can find safety behind the walls of a treaty (particularly one related to weapons), you will find out that you are wrong the hard way. There will always be some evil schmuck who will be breaking the treaty, either with or without the permission of their government.
Actually, in fact, not one SCUD was shot down by a Patriot missle. The simple fact is the SCUDs were built during World War II and litterally fell apart in the air.
As it stands no country, that I am aware of, currently has the capability to "shoot down" a missle of any type with any viable accuracy. The only defense to missle attack at this point is a missle which detonates in close proximity to the inbound missle showering it with shrapnel, thus disabling the inbound missle. But, this does not have an acceptable destruction ratio--far below the 80% accuracy mark.
As for the assumption of this technology being manufactored with the former USSR's status as a threat, this is not true. The reasons that these types of weapons are being produced is quite frankly that other countries, who took no part in the treaty, are producing nuclear weapons--and our nations must be ready to defend against nuclear attack.
Keep in mind, the anti-ballistic missile is being designed for one purpose, defense from an air threat. This is not a weapon of attack, and therefore should not be infringed upon by any treaty.
As for the implication that this type of technology could be used as a type of anti-satelite/anti-spacecraft weapon, this is quite possible. Think of the reasons that this could be a good thing. Assume that the U.S. intervenes, at NATO's insistance, into another country's small war. This country has spy satelites, which can pin-point the U.S. troop movements and positions. The U.S. then would have the option of "blinding" this other country's satelites, insuring less U.S. casualties and allowing for a greater likelihood of a swift success--with less bloodshed. Would this be a bad thing? Considering the fact that the U.S. is sending their troops in at the world's request, I think not.
Also, let's remember, these weapons are meant to be a deterrent. Just because we have them does not mean we will use them, unless of course it is unavoidable. Knowing that your enemy has the means to defeat an attack, makes it far less likely that you will be the aggressor.
Finally, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, many less that politically stable countries and terrorist factions have increasingly been found to have access to cold war weapons of mass destruction. From biological agents to nuclear warheads, both of which can be delivered via ballistic missile. So, it is in every country's best interest to explore means of protection against this threat.
The world, as it stands right now, is not a simple friendly place. It is complex. There are conflicting religions, political structures, and morals. In these turbulent times, with such hatred in existance, each country must prepare to defend their way of life, virtues, and beliefs. As they can no longer depend on another to do so, without political or financial benefit.
Quotes from the explanation:
"The Treaty permits each side to have one limited ABM system to protect its capital and another to protect an ICBM launch area. The two sites defended must be at least 1,300 kilometers apart, to prevent the creation of any effective regional defense zone or the beginnings of a nationwide system."
"The most recent Treaty review was completed in October 1993. Following that review, numerous sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission have been held to work out Treaty succession -- to "multilateralize" the Treaty -- as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union and to negotiate a demarcation between ABM and non-ABM systems."
The United States is in fact working closely with the Russian government to create this new technology. It is true that the Russians are upset, but we have agreed not to deploy the defense systems unless the same technology is deployed in Russia simotaneously. The idea is that many countries other than the United States and Russia are gaining ICBM technology, and those countries are not bound by the treaty. Thus, we want to make sure that we are defended against them.
For those who don't understand the treaty: The only way we were able to prevent a nuclear holocaust during the cold war was through MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction), meaning that neither side would launch because they knew that they would have been destroyed themselves. If one side had built a nuclear defense system that completely defended them against nuclear attack, MAD would have been no more, and nothing would have stopped that side from destroying their opponents. Fortunately, the leaders of both countries realized this and created the treaty before anything bad happenned.
-------------
the USA and the USSR [now Russian] still have many treaties from the old cold war era. Specifically SALT [Strategic Arms Limitation Treats] I and II as well as the START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] and the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty that effects the current fiasco. The ABM Treaty is signed by both countris and is still in effect with Russia Instead of USSR.
The ABM treaty allows origionally 2 ABM Defense Zones each nation with 100 Interceptors [ABM Missiles] which was reduced to 100 Interceptors at 1 Defense Zone [At this point I belive USSR picked Moscow and the USA picked a missile range but not sure which one]. It was later reduced to allowing no ABM.
However, the critical points of the treaty are [those that effect us anyway:
1] Both Parties May Agree to Amend The Treaty
2] One Party May Withdrawl If They Provide a 6 Month Notice
3] It allows the research but not actual deployment of any kinda
The US is trying to get around this by going through either of the two routes, with the first more likely the perfered one:
1] Talking with Russia to allow the deployment of a limited one for testing
2] Pull out of the treaty [Remember, the 6 Month]
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!