We Need Bigger Armies.

bonkey

Yesterday, on CNN and other places, I noticed that George Robertson and Donald Rumsfeld have basically come out and told NATO that it needs to beef up its military, to combat the growing threat which is terrorism.

This has me confused.

Terrorists, possibly in league with "rogue" states, are almost definitely researching or developing WMDs, or trying to buy them on the black market. Sure, I accept this. I'm not trying to even question or deny that statement.

However, I fail to see how beefing up a nation's military is of any use whatsoever against this threat. Even from a technological perspective, I dont think there is much (if any) benefit to be gained from increased research into defensive measures.

For example, America wants to develop its ABM shield. Fine. Lets also assume that the Aegis system is capable of tracking and shootind down cruise missiles. So, in theory, the US could relatively easily protect its (or any other nations) coastline with a combination of these systems.

So What?

If a terrorist attack is going to use a nuke, the odds of it being strapped to the back of a cruise or minuteman missile are infintessimal. It is far more likely to be in the boot of a car, or a suitcase, or in some other man-portable format. Remember, you can track an inbound missile and know who sent it. Martyr-nukes, on the other hand, will leave no evidence as to their origin by nature of how they work.

And thats just dealing with the nuclear threat. Chemical and biological attacks are equally difficult to be able to counter - there are countless "low-tech" deployment mechanisms for pretty much any gas, powder or liquid you can develop.

So - whats with the call for increased military spending?

Personally, I would have thought that what was needed as improved intel. Nothing more. NATO has the military force to be able to deal with any rogue state or terrorist group in the world.

Personally, I see this as one of the more despicable sides of the whole affair. Just as the RIAA tried to get a "hack permit" rider attached to the anti-terrorism bills, just as many parties saw this as the perfect opportunity to improve the law regarding their "big" brother" capabilities, we now have the military trying to convince us that it needs more money.

None of these measures are about countering terrorism - they are exploitative attempts by interest groups to get what they want, often appealing to public sentiment at a time when it is most vulnerable.

These people are, in effect, attempting to cash in on the emotions which September 11th have created. They are attempting to turn thousands of innocent deaths into no more than a marketing tool.

Shameful.

jc

Sand

Agreed, for the Americans they already have a capable milatary. That doesnt mean it cant be improved (I heard something about those drones they use for reconaissance being refitted with lasers to guide in missles which should prevent any more pilots being put at risk- i.e those prisoners the Iraqis took and tortured) but your right to say what they really need is simply better intelligence. That isnt true of the European members of NATO whose forces are typically badly supported. They have plenty of troops and tanks but dont have the logistical muscle to provide the lift capabilities that the americans have and niether do they have the milatary intelligence capability of the americans. It is to be hoped that a future EU milatary force will be able to provide this capability. Until that occurs the EU will not be able to have a strong say in foreign policy matters.

The ABM shield? Well its feasible to build and it increases security which is a good thing. You can imagine if North Korea ever did get annoyed and fired of a missle or two the americans would really be kicking themselves if they had had the technology but never bothered to build one cos they figured that a state would never ever fire one- not even a clearly insane dictatorship.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
(I heard something about those drones they use for reconaissance being refitted with lasers to guide in missles which should prevent any more pilots being put at risk

Heh - I'm amazed they could build UAVs without putting laser designators on them in the first place. Massively obvious omission - kinda like not putting a designator around the Jesus nut of the Apache, forcing it to bring its entire body above cover in order to target something!

That isnt true of the European members of NATO whose forces are typically badly supported. They have plenty of troops and tanks but dont have the logistical muscle to provide the lift capabilities that the americans have

Since WW2, the European nations seem to have been very careful about building defensive armies. The logistics were intially only about defending a nation's borders. Now, for many nations, its about defending the EU's borders, but even so, the same logic applies.

So, yes, I would agree that European nations need to change their transportation and general logistic structures, but only if they intend to be acting as the aggressor. Again, there is the question of whether this is anti-terrorist in nature or not. The world has always had its "rogue states". Perhaps we are entering an era where the great powers are deciding that rogue states will no longer be allowed to exist, but is this about fighting terrorism?

I accept the argument that removing the Taliban from power denied Al Qaeda a base of operations, but look at it from a different perspective. If we are to believe the press reports, then hundreds of Al Qaeda troops were captured or killed in the recent conflicts. But what of the terrorists? Not the standing army, but the infiltration groups like those who brought down the twin towers. These people do not need military training camps, standing armies, or large bases of operation, and these people are the real threats.

The ABM shield? Well its feasible to build and it increases security which is a good thing. You can imagine if North Korea ever did get annoyed and fired of a missle or two the americans would really be kicking themselves if they had had the technology but never bothered to build one cos they figured that a state would never ever fire one- not even a clearly insane dictatorship.

Right, but the point I'm making is that this is being billed as necessary as part of the war on terrorism. I object to the Sep 11 attacks being used as a blanket reason for all sorts of things which are not related. You want an ABM system to protect against China/Korea/whoever, then fine.....but sell it as just that. Trying to include it as part of the "anti-terrorism" movement is just ridiculous - but it is perceived as the best way to win popular support.

jc

Typedef

The mere thought that North Korea would ever start a nuclear conflict with the United States of all places when it can't even feed it's people is such a brain-dead concept as to be laughable. Come on think about it, the US needs a missile defence shield in case North Korea starts and Nuclear war (with it's missile that can just about clear the east cost of Japan and the Atomic weapons it doesn't have) and decides to parachute some troops into Seattle to try and steal the secret formula to the Big Mac sauce and thus abrogate the famine in North Korea, yeah maybe.

The Bush administration when it was attempting to get elected(Bush rigged the election anyway so why go through the theatre of the election?) said that it would build it's missile defence shield despite the ABM and in preference to North-South Korean reconcillation. So what happened is the the policy negotiotation that was espoused by Clinton and his administration was junked by Bush and replaced with the ABM. So now having effectively stopped North-South reconcillation the US has created it's rouge state in North Korea, in fact instead of trying to make peace with North Korea the administration had broken off diplomatic contact for a few months and rather than talking to the North Koreans the Bush Administration labled North Korea a "rouge state". Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy, the US breaks off diplomatic efforts towards North-South Korean reconcillation and brands the North Koreans "rouge", and then because North Korea is such an isolated and belligerant administration (North Korea) is a reason to junk the 1972 ABM.

Lets face facts, the abrogation of the ABM was more to do with the perpetuation of the American industrial military complex then it was to do with any threat, real or implied to the USA.

Politicians in the US and UK have used the bombing of the World Trade Center as an excuse to curtail civil liberties in the respective countries fact. For example the official secrets was brought into the UK during the Great War and was meant to have been removed, but the "hawks" in the UK for want of a better word have managed to have the official secrets act maintained in the UK.

I don't think that a military response is the appropiate response to so-called "terrorism". Example Northern Ireland, neither side won a military victory, in fact had both sides been adult enough thirty years ago to sit down and come to the agreement that stands right now then thousands of people who were killed because of the conflict would still be alive.
My point, the USA can't bomb it's way to a military victory, sure it may kill alot of Al-Queda members, but it will make martyrs of them and martyrs are in some cases a more potent force then a hundred men with guns. The Easter rising was all about making martyrs of the men who rose up, that was what Pearse wanted, for the British to execute the rebels and thus make martyrs of the rebels, ergo a military response to "terrorism" only makes said "terrorists" cause stronger by martyrising the "terrorist". In this respect military action will only make matters worse. "Terrorism" is not a country whose capital you can occupy and declare yourself victor so how can it be conquered by conventional war?

The Son-of-StarWars shiled is of course just another trillion dollar weapon system that the US is supporting it's bloated military complex with, for example in modern warfare things like aircraft carriers and destroyers are moving targets (as the USS Cole proves), still the US insists on wasting money on these bloated antiquated military machines because building these ships brings jobs and is a symbol of nation. There is no military need for the US to have upwards of 3,000 nuclear weapons. The other side knows that each side posesses enough weapons to cause a nuclear winter, so why does Bush want to reinvigorate the US' nuclear complex? I suspect pressure groups are dictating this renewed militarism that the US seems to have been espousing for the last year.
I don't know which I find more repulsive, the fact that people in the US want to build more weapons to support jobs at home at the expense of foreign relations or the fact that the US administration is attempting to rationalise the building of these weapons. Seems to me the decision to withdraw from the ABM and build the Missile System was taken and North Korea seemed as good an excuse as any to do it.

Fidelis

In Switzerland recently, the people voted to keep the army by 79%. I think it's safe to say that this is due to the aftermath of September 11th. I say this because in 1989 the same question was put towards the Swiss people and although it was also rejected, it was only by 64% of the population. At a max. strength of 350,000 (inc. reservists), Switzerland has one of the largest armies in the world.

*A few months ago, the last ever Swiss bicycle platoon was decommisioned. These guys used to cycle around the mountains carrying anti-tank missile systems on their backs

People just want to feel safe and the governments need an excuse to get extra funding for the military. The carnage of September 11th has given them an excellent excuse for more money. It's a shame because the US can now nuke the world to kingdom come and not have a single missile land on their soil. Or at least that's what the American public is led to believe...

Sand

Bonkey:
The elimination of rogue states mightnt be a half bad idea. It would solve a lot of problems at one stroke- the instability they bring to a region, including sponsoring of terrorism, the miseries they inflict on their population- which plays a large part in the immigration the EU currently faces. However elimination of rogue states is such a long term goal that is unlikey to be feasible in our lifetime- not that afghanistan wasnt a good start imo. Youre right that there are other states where terrorists may be sponsored/trained- but the US has sent a signal to any petty dictatorships that if they support enemies of the US they will be treated as such. That should discourage their support of organisations like Bin Ladens.

The ABM was discussed long before the terrorist attacks took place (As far back as the Reagan years, but then in a grossly more ambitious scale).

Typedef: Insane dictatorships have a habit of doing insane things.
Milatary response can be quite effective in beating terrorism.
Aircraft carriers are not ineffective.
The US is building a ANTI BM system, not nuclear weapons.
Russia already has enough to wipe life of the face of the earth- why would it want more?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The elimination of rogue states mightnt be a half bad idea. It would solve a lot of problems at one stroke- the instability they bring to a region, including sponsoring of terrorism, the miseries they inflict on their population.

The only objection I have to that is the classification of what makes a rogue state! I dislike the concept of the western world deciding what is acceptable self-determination, and beating up anyone they can who doesnt toe this line.

For example, Pakistan was a rogue state up until a few months ago, now they're all buddy buddy with the US again. Why? The government is the same as it was, the people are the same, and there hasnt been sweeping reform to remove the injustices. All that happened was that Pakistan agreed to help the US against a neighbour.

This greatly calls into question what a rogue state is. In the same way that I am opposed to the death sentence (great in principle, terrible in practice), I am opposed to the notion of superpowers dictating to other nations how they may rule themselves. Its great in principle, but would be terrible in practice.

Youre right that there are other states where terrorists may be sponsored/trained- but the US has sent a signal to any petty dictatorships that if they support enemies of the US they will be treated as such. That should discourage their support of organisations like Bin Ladens.[

Actually, I very much doubt that it will. I think it will force these terrorist groups to be less arrogant and less public, but it will not stop them significantly.

Fidelis :

It's a shame because the US can now nuke the world to kingdom come and not have a single missile land on their soil. Or at least that's what the American public is led to believe...

Any ABM system is unlikely to be more than 90% effective. Ultimately, this encourages more missiles to be built. By giving a nation the ability to shoot down 90% of incoming threats, you just encourage their enemies to build 10x more nukes in order to "maintain the balance".

An ABM system is therefore of limited benefit against nations with multiple nuclear warheads. While most non-US-affiliated nations have small arsenals, this is partly because until now they didnt necessarily need larger ones. If and when an effective ABM system goes online, expect to see a massive increase in the nuclear capability of the emerging nuclear nations.

This then brings us back to the comment that terrorist organisations are getting more sophisticated. We are led to believe that Al Qaeda, the most organised terrorist group in the world (as well as the richest and largest, AFAIK) could not purchase or build a nuclear warhead, but that somehow there is a near-future threat of terrorists having BALLISTIC missiles.

Now, remember....the ABM system is for shooting down low-orbit intercontinental missiles. It would be completely ineffective against cruise missiles. It would be ineffective against short-range submarine-launces. It would be ineffective against man-carried "martyr bombs".

In short - it would be ineffective against any system the terrorists are most likely to emply, and effective against one type of system which other nations have.

Is it better than nothing? Sure it is. Is it anti-terrorist? Nope - not a hope - anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

jc

Sand

Bonkey: My definition of a rogue state would be any undemocratic state which is ruled by some elite which acts in its own interests, and shows little to no sign of "evolving" to a more democratic state. It might be arrogant of the west to assume democracy is the pinnacle of civillisation- but its a lot better than whats in North Korea now, Sudan, Somalia, or any host of other dictatorships in Africa and elsewhere.

As for Pakistan, I agree what the way the US temporarily "forgot" that pakistan is for all intents and purposes a dictatorship is bit....dishonest. However it may be seen as the lesser of two evils, compared to the need to defeat the Taliban/Bin Laden, similar to the WW2 paradox where the US and UK which were nominally fighting to save democracy were allied with the communist USSR.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
The elimination of rogue states mightnt be a half bad idea.

Isn't that what Hitler said about Poland? Or China about Tibet or Taiwan.

My definition of a rogue state would be any undemocratic state which is ruled by some elite which acts in its own interests, and shows little to no sign of "evolving" to a more democratic state.

LOL

they should be like us or wipe them out?

As for Pakistan, I agree what the way the US temporarily "forgot" that pakistan is for all intents and purposes a dictatorship is bit....dishonest.

Same way they forgot that the Northern Alliance is as bad as the Taliban. They didn't forget, it just wasn't in their interest to remember.

similar to the WW2 paradox where the US and UK which were nominally fighting to save democracy were allied with the communist USSR.

My enemy of my enemy huh? That's funny before WW2 Russia weren't the evil commies that the US made them out to be. It was only after.

I believe the UK was fighting because it had a problem of being a rogue state.

As for Terrorism... Oooh Terrorists got the bomb! I blame Hollywood. Your average American wouldn't bat an eye at a terrorist who would do something as simple as a fertilizer bomb or poison people (which is a lot easier then getting even a dirty nuke). Tell them they got the bomb and you can invade any country you want.

American

Originally posted by bonkey
For example, America wants to develop its ABM shield. Fine. Lets also assume that the Aegis system is capable of tracking and shootind down cruise missiles. So, in theory, the US could relatively easily protect its (or any other nations) coastline with a combination of these systems.

So What?

Flexibility. If we learn that an egomaniac, delusional leader, like in North Korea, is about to launch against us, because he's crazy and thinks we won't respond, then it gives us a third choice on how to respond.

Right now we have
Choice 1: preemptively nuke him and kill tons of their civilians.
Choice 2: take the hit, allowing tons of our people to be killed, and then nuke him, killing tons of their civilians.

It would be nice to have
Choice 3: Destroy the nuclear warhead missiles on their way here, then take out the crazed egomaniac with "conventional" warfare, in the manner we have done in Afghanistan, where far fewer innocents are killed and mostly the guilty get deposed and/or killed.

We also recognize that only an ABM will serve as a deterent to Chinese aggression. Yes, they will probably arms race it for a while, then wise up before it bankrupts them like it did the Soviets.

What Chinese aggression? There is a very significant block of military and political leaders that are arguing for nuclear strikes on our forces in Korea just before a takeover of Taiwan.
Additionally, they have targeted our West Coast cities from Los Angeles to Seattle with their nuclear warhead missiles. When there are disagreements with them, this fact makes it more difficult to get them to play nice, and makes it more likely that a disagreement will escalate into a critical situation, for example the EP-3 incident this last Spring.
If they know we can knock their birds out of the sky, they won't feel so bushy tailed and will be more likely to try to bury us with Wal-mart toys rather than nukes.

Do ABM's help us with the problem of suitcase nukes and that form of terrorism? No, of course not. But just because you need air to survive does not mean you should ignore your water or food resources.

bonkey

American, you've missed my point.

I have no major objection to the AB< being built, except that I feel it will return the world into a nuclear arms race. It will no longer be enough to have "the bomb", you will need enough of "the bombs" to get through the other person's defenses.

Even allowing for that, my other objection is that the ABM systems have already been linked to increased security against terrorist attacks and rogue states.

Now, I will accept the rogue states line, but terrorist attacks? Surely not.

Surely we are not seriously being asked to believe that terrorist organisations will go from being unable to procure or build a primitive nuke (as we have been told about what were supposed to be the most advanced terrorists in the world) to having nuclear-tipped ICBMs? And all of this advancement will happen *while* the US is systematically targetting terrorism for extinction?

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is being done. Innocent little comments about "protection from terrorists" are being dropped into anywhere even remotely possible. In effect, the people making these ludicrous claims are cashing in on the events of September 11 to try and gain popular opinion through use of the terrorist threat.

This is what I object to.

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey

I have no major objection to the ABM being built, except that I feel it will return the world into a nuclear arms race.

For a while, that will happen with China, but not with "the world." Only China will think for a while that it should try to built through our defense. But the Chinese are smart, and they are becoming capitalized, and they will eventually see that it doesn't make economic sense.


...the ABM systems have already been linked to increased security against terrorist attacks and rogue states.
This is what I object to.

No argument from me that ABM has nothing to do with defending against terrorism; I don't know who is making that argument to you.
Rogue states is a valid argument. That is how we define North Korea and Iraq right now. ABM's may turn out to be very handy in regard to states like those in the future, because it will decrease their attempts to get us acquiesce in something that is bad for us or for the world. ABM's will decrease nuclear blackmail--rogue states trying to do bad things and getting away with bad things because we are afraid they will wipe out a couple of our cities if we don't acquiesce.
And China is a real threat and a growing threat to us. And the only way to turn away that threat is with ABM's. If we don't do ABM's, we face a future where we will have no option with them except a return to mutually assured destruction. And that will mean a return to a very nervous and upset world of people who can get caught in the cross fire.
We don't want to return to that. We want to convince them it is useless to try to dominate/defeat us that way; that they should turn their energies to dominating/defeating us economically.

adnans

We don't want to return to that. We want to convince them it is useless to try to dominate/defeat us that way; that they should turn their energies to dominating/defeating us economically.

since when is america in war with China and N Korea? what planet are you living on? what the hell is wrong with you in thinking that everyone is against america and wants to bring her down. just listen to yourself, youre practically stuck in the cold war era still.

i would agree with bonkey that the current US government is taking the Sept 11th fear of terrorist's attacks to ensure their policies are implemented when it has nothing to do with combating terrorism, but with other issues which they are trying to disguise in the form of terrorism.

is this what youre trying to explain

adnans

bonkey

Originally posted by American
ABM's will decrease nuclear blackmail--rogue states trying to do bad things and getting away with bad things because we are afraid they will wipe out a couple of our cities if we don't acquiesce.

Actually, I completely disagree with that belief.

Nations who have made the decision to "go nuclear" have done so for one of a few very simple reasons, and usually a combination of several. The most typical scenario is that they build it for defensive purposes. Strange, but true.

Why is this? Simple. The US built nukes. The US used nukes. The rest of the world looked at this and said "if we dont match them, they can essentially rule the world by threat of nuclear weapons".

End result - the US and the USSR ended up in a stalemate of MAD, each assured that the other did not have the military might to threaten them.

China *needs* nukes, not necessarily so that it can use them, but so that it can hold the US at a standoff should the need arise. More likely, it needs them because its large next-door-neighbour had a rather large arsenal of nukes sitting there, aimed at Beijing.

The nuclear threat is all about MAD. MAD is the only real reason that the nuclear threat has remained nothing but a threat. The US seeks to unbalance that.

OK - you can look at it and say "but we must protect ourselves from the <insert people of choice>", but I think you're wrong.

There is no documented case in history of some "power mad dictator" unleashing a weapon of mass destruction at a nation capable of reducing everything inside the borders of his own nation into its constituent atoms.

Do you really think there are people that stupid out there? People foolish enough to believe that the US wont reduce them to ashes in retaliation? People who's lives, accumulated power, and nationa;otoes mean so little to them? And you think these people are running nations?

Exactly what evidence do you have to support this belief?

Take Iraq - the much touted prime rogue-state of today, run by good ol' Saddam. Lets say he builds a nuke or three. What is he gonna do? Do you seriously believe he will use them? He will allow his entire nation to be reduced to ashes for the sake of his unjured pride? Even if he wasnt in Iraq, how much effort do you think the US would go to in order to find and execute him if he were to carry out such an act. Sure, he may declare the US to be Satan, but he's not actually that stupid.

If the US does build a defense-grid or ABM system, then what you have is a breaking of MAD and a climbdown from the Mexican standoff.Its now a "pinned in the corner" problem. I will bet my bottom dollar that nations will look at the corner they have been penned into by uncle sam and find a way out. I know my mother always told me that a cornered animal was the most dangerous.

Their options are to change the delivery systems to non-ballistic ones, or simply to build more and more missiles, to give a realistic chance of actually getting through the grid. In both cases, the ABM systems will be nothing but expensive toys.

While I deplore the very existence of nuclear weapons, I acknowledge that while one nation has them, then all nations who want them should be allowed to have them. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the MAD principle. In fact, MAD has saved us from nuclear holocaust on countless occasions when Soviet and/or American defense monitoring stations reported false launches from the other side. The belief of "this cant be real" is what stopped it from becoming real.

Here's the horrid truth - the Soviets were as scared of a nuclear holocaust as the Americans, only we never generally heard that side. We heard about the Soviet threat which NATO bravely kept us safe from and that was it.

Now that they are no longer a threat, we have the emerging "rogue states". Suddenly they are the new madmen who will kill us all with nukes. They are the new "Soviet threat" which we should stomp into the ground.

Ya know what... I bet they are as terrified of US nuclear weapons as you are of theirs. I bet they are more terrified of US conventional military than you are of theirs, and they need something to make them feel a bit more secure.

jc

Koopa

anti-missile technologies are nowhere near 90% effective.. if any nation had anything near 90% efficiency against nuclear missiles, it would be in their interest not to tell anyone, cos the more the enemy knows about how your defence works, the easier it is to bypass it.

the more noise you hear about america's anti-nuke technology, the more likely that it doesnt work (go on, mention the patriot missile they used in iraq, you know you want to)

Koopa

by the way, ABM is against ballistic missiles,
if a country knew that america had a 90% efficient anti ballistic missile system in place, it would be EASY for them to slightly modify their missile, and make the last stages of its journey "powered" rather than "ballistic"
very easy, considering the effort they went to to produce the nuke in the first place

there is no defence against powered missiles, they can travel faster than bullets

bonkey

Originally posted by Koopa
there is no defence against powered missiles, they can travel faster than bullets

Ballistic missiles, particularly of the typical sub-orbital ICBM variety travel at approximately 5 times the speed of a bullet once at terminal velocity, which happens in the upper atmosphere.

It is not practical to make them powered, because once on their re-enty path, they are travelling so fast that any lateral thrust would be enough to completely destroy the missile from lateral g-forces. If the change was slow enough to avoid this, then the problem remains the same, in that you use a land-based guidance system to roughly track the incoming missile and to fire counter-measures, then an on-missile targetting system (probably laser based) for fine-targetting.

As for the Patriot system, you can find out why the 1991 version of the missile was so poorly successful here. This problem has since been corrected, and more recent patriot tests have been highly successful against a number of systems, including Scud systems.

The 90% efficiency, by the way, is not necessarily the kill-probability of a single missile, but rather the kill probability for a single target. As such, 90% is hopelessly low.

Ballistic missiles are very predicatble. You get a long tracking time, and a highly predictable path. You get plenty of opportunity to shoot it down. MIRVs complicate the issue, but not that much.

Historically, the problem was the accuracy of the guidance packages - low computing power coupled with a relatively short-range on-board "final targetting" system. Computing power is definitely not a problem, and I would imagine that the final targettng system range is the only major technical hurdle to be overcome at this stage.

I believe an ABM system is possible....it may take a year or three, but its no longer pie in teh sky, especially cause Dubya isnt hung up on Ronald's Ray Guns any more.

jc

Koopa

grr i wrote a big reply, annoying cookie-based identification these boards use messed it up..

what i meant to say was, powered missiles can change direction, and they are moving faster than bullets, so how are you going to catch them?

you mentioned patriots.. patriot missiles dont try to catch the enemy missiles (its THAT hard to do, and thats only ballistic missiles)
patriot missiles rely on covering the path of the incoming missile in shrapnel, confusing the missile into exploding early, or else deflecting it from its path - this is useless vs nuclear warheads because deflecting the missiles 5 miles from your city, or exploding it above your city, are both pretty useless.

a ballistic is basically any object in free-fall, ballistic missiles are travelling under gravity and air-resistance with an initial speed, and no other acceleration - school children could predict their path, once given the initial settings, and yet nations are having trouble shooting them down, imagine how hard it would be to shoot down a powered missile.

as for unfeasability, thats not true, you could have the missile programmed to change directions occasionally while travelling to the target.. as for destroying the missile, thats only because you are looking at current ballistic missile designs - those missiles do not need to be reinforced laterally, so they arent, so they are not strong laterally, simple as that.. they look like pencils and they behave like pencils - strong against forward pressure, not lateral.
all these things are pretty easy to change, after all, people could build aeroplanes which travel at mach 6 back in the early 80's,
they had no problems turning.. even the stealth fighters travel at mach 3.5 or so

Koopa

oh yeah,
ive read that website, i remembered the text from about a year ago,
it doesnt present the full picture as regards missile defence

eventually, once computers are cheap enough, you will get anti-missile systems that try to adjust to everything the missile does, and you will get missiles that adjust to everything the antimissile does, the missiles will always have an advantage though..


http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~rwynar/THAAD.html

is a pretty good picture of the current situation,
the guy who wrote that reckons itll be 10-20 years before they get an effective anti-BALLISTIC missile system, no comment about any other type of missile

JustHalf

Ah, my 800th post. And what am I doing to mark this event? Why, correcting nonsense, of course! (bonkey, delete n-word where applicable)

Typedef:
It is good that that aircraft carriers are moving targets, as opposed to stationary targets. It is good that the US resorts to conventional warfare, as opposed to nuclear warfare (is this what you were suggesting? It's very difficult to find out what you're saying a lot of the time).

Also, the USS Cole, which you claim proved that aircraft carriers and destroyers were moving targets was stationary at the time of attack.

I'm ignoring the rest of the post in this response.

Hobbes:
With regards to this -
My enemy of my enemy huh? That's funny before WW2 Russia weren't the evil commies that the US made them out to be. It was only after.
I think you'll find that Stalin was evil all throughout. Do you remember how Russia got into the war in the first place?

Or are you implying that somehow evil Americans lied about the great, pure Commies.

Sand

Isn't that what Hitler said about Poland? Or China about Tibet or Taiwan.

Are you comparing the coalition forces in afghanistan to Nazi Germany or Communist China?

LOL
they should be like us or wipe them out?

Em yeah, corrupt and despotic elites should be wiped out. You do agree on that dont you?

Just Half beat me to it but I just want to say three words
Joseph.
Stalin.
Purges.

bonkey

Originally posted by Koopa
after all, people could build aeroplanes which travel at mach 6 back in the early 80's,
they had no problems turning.. even the stealth fighters travel at mach 3.5 or so

The Lockheed SR 71 was the fastest jet ever built. It travels in excess of mach 3.5, and below mach 4. "Conventional" military jets rarely exceed mach 2.

The only things which could possibly have approached Mach 6 were the experimental rocket-planes. These, like the SR71 when going flat-out were straight line craft. Why? because at those speeds, turning would have ripped the airframe apart.

Please - I *know* this stuff. I dont need a lecture on ballistics. No craft could withstand the lateral forces of turning inside the atmosphere at the speeds a ballistic missile attains. Even if it could, the turning circle would be so massive that any incoming "takeout" threat could deal with it.

Why do you think they built cruise missiles? Because ballistics can, in theory, be shot down, and the next best approach was low, slow, and silent. If "powered missiles" would have been a viable option, they would have been invented about 25 years ago. The fact that they werent should give you some indiciation that it wouldnt work.

Regardless....we're wandering off topic. Feel free to reply, but I'm not going any further in a discussion on weaponry in the politics forum.
jc
jc

Koopa

fair enough,
i didnt know the mach 6 planes actually did have turning problems.

the ballistics yoke wasnt really aimed at you, by the way, it was just background info for anyone who wanted it

JustHalf

Mmh...

What board *do* we discuss weaponry on?

bonkey

Science, I guess.

Or maybe Counterstrike

jc

Victor

Isn't that what Hitler said about Poland? Or China about Tibet or Taiwan.

It should be noted that China considers Taiwan a rogue province (Taiwan has never 'declared' 'independance'). Not that I want to come down on either side of that argument.

What board *do* we discuss weaponry on?

Context is important, but generally they (we?) are banished to the Wargames board under games.