Ballistic Missile... Indefensible

[Andem]

Ballistic Missile Indefensible
By Ryan McGreal
Thursday November 18, 2004

The Government of Canada is negotiating possible Canadian participation in the planned US Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) deployment.

Defending Canada's planned participation in a BMD, Defence Minister Bill Graham insists that it would work, deter other nations from developing ICBMs, protect us from likely threats, and won't advance the weaponization of space. All of these claims are false.

BMD Won't Work

Scientists, engineers, and analysts worldwide have concluded that a BMD simply cannot defend North America against real attacks. The technology that might do this hasn't even been conceived, let alone developed.

It's a seductively simple premise: track incoming missiles and launch "kill vehicles" to intercept those missiles before they detonate. Unfortunately, the real world is more complex.

First, a real BMD would have to identify an incoming ICBM traveling at super- or hyper-sonic speed, on an unpredictable flight path, in any kind of weather - and deploy an interceptor in time to stop it.

Original CanadianContent Article: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_722.html

Ryan McGreal is the author of this article, he's written some really good articles in the past and this is on you shouldn't pass up! Basically reinstills the facts about Star Wars and it's waste of federal money on a Reagan dream... the last thing Canada wants to do is tie it's self up even more with brutal American policies.

*edit: fixed article url reference*

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Ballistic Missile...

I've always been a big fan of Droolin' Ronnie and his insane dreams. Reagan was a man you could disrespect with honour.

George W. Bush isn't even worthy of disrespect, just derision. He's a man so small that he thinks a visit to the hog barn, pants around his knees and his tongue hanging out, on a Friday night is normal.

 

[Neodim]

RE: Ballistic Missile...

The documentay every concerned with such an issue should watch is called

WAR GAMES

It is a realistic simulation of chaotic conditions of a nuclear attack on Britain. It was made in 60s in Britain and before it could reach the public it has been banned by the authorities.

If your imagination cannot deliver you shivers down your spine - watch this movie and be ready to lynch ANY politician who advocates for proliferation of nukes.

 

[Andem]

Diman!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Ballistic Missile...

I'd love to see that, Neodim. Even without it though...most of us grew up with the knowledge that we could be vapourized (if we were the lucky ones) on a moments notice.

When I was in grade one in Alberta we were still practicing drills where we hid under our desks in case of nuclear attack. When I finished that year in Saskatchewan they weren't even bothering with that anymore, they'd given up trying to convince us that it'd be okay.

The reality of nuclear war is that we all die, most of us slowly and painfully.

 

[Neodim]

RE: Ballistic Missile...

The ride towards the Nuclear mayhem seems to be unstoppable - wouldn't it be compliant with the evolution of humanity after all?

When at the cost of sacrifice of 80% of population humanity might learn to appreciate Peace after all?
May be we NEED desperately this Armageddon?

The history of this planet shows that evolution was getting a boost after every global disaster - here is the hidden meaning of 'praise your enemies' directive.

I believe that in any case we should stand up against the destructiveness of the few thus fullfilling the prime objective of the Life itself - live, learn and prosper.

 

[Gonzo]

There is no defense against missiles, so Canada thinking of joining in on the missile defense plan is a waste of money. Instead of building bigger bombs, fake defenses that don’t work, we should be working to diffuse the situation.

 

[HeatSink]

Ballistic Missile Indefensible
By Ryan McGreal
Thursday November 18, 2004

.. snip ..

First, a real BMD would have to identify an incoming ICBM traveling at super- or hyper-sonic speed, on an unpredictable flight path, in any kind of weather - and deploy an interceptor in time to stop it.

Original CanadianContent Article: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_723.html

.. snip ..

I'm not educated enough in the arguments before or against such a a system to make a comment on the system either way. I do find this little snippet interesting though.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase 'ballistic' as in 'Intercontinental Ballistic Missile' refers to the inability of the missile to be guided in any fashion once it is released. A 'dumb' missile if you will, much like the catapults of old except the range is drastically better.

This being the case - I believe that Ryan is wrong - the path of the missile would be predictable. If it wasn't then there would be no hope of it hitting its target anyhow, no?

 

[Gonzo]

The path is predictable, but there is yet to be a weapon that can intercept a ballistic missile. In the first gulf war, all those scuds that were supposedly shot down never were. The scuds merely broke up. That’s a huge lie on Bush senior, and many american soldiers were killed because they thought the patriot missiles would shot down the scuds, they never went for cover.

 

[DasFX]

The fact that the proposed Missile Defense Shield currently does not work and is not likely to work is an important fact.

However, say they were to make it work, would it be a good idea?

An Earth based shield would really be nothing more than a updated and responsive DEW line. The real question concerns the need of such a shield.

Who is the threat? During the Cold War this would have been a good idea, but in today's world I don't think this shield will protect us. The US Admin states it is a defense against rogue states and terrorist, which is good. But, these rogue states and terrorist do not possess ICBMs. Launching an ICBM is no easy thing; designing and building one is even harder.

Let's look at North Korea and Iran; both have been labeled Rogue States. If NK were to attack anyone, it would be Japan or South Korea, countries relatively close to them. As for Iran, they would have taken out Iraq before, but now if they really had to blow someone up it would be Israel.

ICBM that can go half way around the world is not that easy to make. India's bombs could barely make it to the other side of Pakistan and this is from launch sites close to the border.

As for terrorist, from where are they going to launch this missile? The ICBM launch sites in Russia and America are not small. If anything, terrorist will use smaller dirty suitcase nuclear devices, something the BMD cannot protect against.

So despite the concerns of if working and how much it costs, the real question is do we need it and will it really protect us.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Ballistic Missile...

Even if it did work, it wouldn't work against the only countries able to attack North America with ICBMs. The system, if working perfectly as it is designed, will not be able to destroy multiple missiles. China and Russia would strike massively if they were to strike at all.

This system is designed to do two things...advance the weaponization of states and provide massive funding to the military-industrial complex in the US.

Paul Martin wants to get involved for two reasons...too make Georgie happy, and to provide massive funding to Canadian companies who want very much to be part of the military-industrial complex.

If Paul Martin cannot listen to the Canadian people on this issue, he should step down.

 

[HeatSink]

The path is predictable, but there is yet to be a weapon that can intercept a ballistic missile. In the first gulf war, all those scuds that were supposedly shot down never were. The scuds merely broke up. That’s a huge lie on Bush senior, and many american soldiers were killed because they thought the patriot missiles would shot down the scuds, they never went for cover.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[tofocsend]

I'm pretty sure that the phrase 'ballistic' as in 'Intercontinental Ballistic Missile' refers to the inability of the missile to be guided in any fashion once it is released. A 'dumb' missile if you will, much like the catapults of old except the range is drastically better.

This being the case - I believe that Ryan is wrong - the path of the missile would be predictable. If it wasn't then there would be no hope of it hitting its target anyhow, no?

Just to clarify: the multiple re-entry vehicles of advanced ICBMs are independently deployed and contain motors for manoeuvring and course correction - hence independent targeting.

Add in designs that minimize radar signature and the presence of chaff and decoys, and it becomes very hard to predict where those re-entry vehicles will go until it's too late to stop them.

See http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2003/02.html for more details.

Regards,
Ryan McGreal

 

[HeatSink]

I'm pretty sure that the phrase 'ballistic' as in 'Intercontinental Ballistic Missile' refers to the inability of the missile to be guided in any fashion once it is released. A 'dumb' missile if you will, much like the catapults of old except the range is drastically better.

This being the case - I believe that Ryan is wrong - the path of the missile would be predictable. If it wasn't then there would be no hope of it hitting its target anyhow, no?

Just to clarify: the multiple re-entry vehicles of advanced ICBMs are independently deployed and contain motors for manoeuvring and course correction - hence independent targeting.

Add in designs that minimize radar signature and the presence of chaff and decoys, and it becomes very hard to predict where those re-entry vehicles will go until it's too late to stop them.

See http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2003/02.html for more details.

Regards,
Ryan McGreal

Wow, neat article. Thanks - now I know a thing or two about ICBMs.