Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by kmguru, Jul 17, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    I am really tired of listening to non-technical people saying SDI does not work so we do not want to develop one. That is like saying the present cancer or AIDs medicine does not work, so we should not waste our money developing a cure. Let the Bas*** die.

    What is this asinine theory? Where does it come from? Is it stupidity at its best or a propagonda by some nefarious group?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    People no longer trust their government. It is viewed with deep suspicion. And with just reason. After all look at the atomic tests on soldiers done without their knowledge. They had no idea of the effects that could/would occur. They were told go here and we will meet you there. Or the releasing of radioactive gas in the northwest. Without the knowledge of the civilians. It was a let's see what happens to a civilian community exposed to this. That does not inspire trust in my book and I bet it doesn’t in yours either.

    While I do not agree with the policy of MADD there has been no other alternative in the past that seemed to be workable. We are on the doorstep of being able to change this. Much to the ire of our opposition. It really takes a nut to say all right if I can't have it you won't either so let's kill off the human race. Especially you, my opponent. We would be much better served without the capability of blowing up the whole planet and sterilizing it. To have the effective shield, give it to those within the nuclear circle with strike capabilities and at the same time eliminate the redundancy within the arsenals of the world would be a good thing, not bad. I believe that we got off on the wrong foot with MADD, though it has worked, it has had it moments when the world looked on with it's breath held while it's fate was decided by someone else. Would you call this stable and desirable? I don't think I can.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    What if we make this public knowledge that anybody could build it to protect themselves (anybody that has more than 100 nukes). At least that neutralizes the nuclear threat and then we can get rid of the bombs.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    I was thinking more on the line of it NOT being public knowledge. As odd as this sounds after the above topic I will go into why shortly.

    I would envision the "deal you can't refuse". While this may be idealistic, I would think that accepting the knowledge would be tied to eliminating X amount of independently verifiable nuclear capabilities. Depending on a percentage of total capability. Not to totally eliminate a strike back capability but to eliminate the overkill that assures the world perished with the perpetrators. The carrot is the "shield" that provides the ability to neutralize an attack before it becomes life threatening. There is no gain to attacking those who can eliminate the threat before it does it's damage and then still have strike back to the one who had the audacity to think they could obtain some gain from the initiation.

    As to public knowledge...

    I do not believe that such should be unleashed upon the world where every terrorist can protect their training camp to continue to go about their ways while enjoying the fruits of our labors. This is a something for nothing that I do not condone. Nor do I believe that having a few bombs/missiles of nuclear ability qualifies for the shield. There must also be the agreement, foresworn, to focus not upon the destruction of the world but upon the security of that nation. That any weapon of such capability should not be developed. The world has become too small for such development. While this may not prevent any sovereign nation from developing such it would give teeth for the rest of the world to unite against this one power who did so.

    As I said at the beginning this may well be to idealistic for the world as it is. But it is a start in the right direction!
     
  8. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    If you read between the lines, by public knowledge means those who have the capability to destroy us. I would not worry about the little guys and terrorists. The technology is here. In fact, in certain aspects, Russians are probably slightly ahead of us but they do not know that. The problem with growing up in a communist regime is that all the thinking is done for you, you do not have any innovation in your blood.

    Anyway, the bottom line is we should do it (the SDI) and reduce the nukes to a reasonable level.
     
  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    In essence we are in agreement. The question is "Are you the reader in agreement?"
     
  10. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    News today:

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45273,00.html

    Of particular interest the statement:

    Last year, a group of 50 Nobel laureates sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to cease NMD because "the system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests."

    Now here is my question:
    How many Nobel Laureates you know that can operate an oil drilling platform or a refinery or design an advanced refinery control system? OR know anything about "Automated Control Theory" let alone practice?
     
  11. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Nobel laureates are usually highly specialized in one field and so concentrate to achieve outstanding results. I would think that along the same lines that most would hardly qualify for knowing comments on SDI or NMD.
     
  12. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    It's my feeling that you don't need to be an SDI/NMD expert to know the following (feel free to counter...)
    -NMD isn't intended to counter a full nuclear strike; it's only meant to stop a single - or at least a handful - of missiles
    -It won't stop anyone bringing a bomb across the border in a suitcase, or building one in situ
    -All 'rogue states' are fully aware that when they launch one bomb at the US, they will cease to exist within 24 hours
    -NMD means the US will have the capability of launching strikes with impunity at countries with limited nuclear capability (debatable, I'll concede).
    -In order to counter future advances in NMD ability, nuclear states that fear the US will have to increase their own nuclear capability in order to maintain the status quo.
     
  13. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    One more time, I can design a single anti missile gun that can take out 10 missiles per minute. If we have a window of vulnerability of 25 minutes, that is 250 missiles. Now we can add more guns and deploy at NATO properties to get an early warning, so essentially we can cover the nukes.

    -It won't stop anyone bringing a bomb across the border in a suitcase, or building one in situ

    True. What that has to do with price of rice?

    -NMD means the US will have the capability of launching strikes with impunity at countries with limited nuclear capability

    So?? your point?

    -In order to counter future advances in NMD ability, nuclear states that fear the US will have to increase their own nuclear capability in order to maintain the status quo.

    Again, So? More likely they will quickly develop their own NMD

    By the way, how do you know that China or Russia are not working on their NMD and already have it? One does not need to shoot at something to test it. You can test it in two completely separate phases so as not to be picked up by our satellite or evesdropping devices.
     
  14. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi all,

    Why do you need a NMD anyway ? (apart from the economical consequences of a running war industry). The argument of "rogue nations" that the US governement uses is quite a weak one IMHO.

    The political leaders of these rogue nations are not suicidal. They will not push the red shiny button since they *know* the US will retaliate. So the argument must be based on terrorists from these rogue nations, right ?

    Well, those terrorists would never be able to launch 200 nukes at the US, at most two or three. Since these rogue nations are on the other side of the globe, the time of travel a nuke carrying missile would need would be like... 20 minutes ? Given the fact that launches are immediatelly detected, this leaves quite a good margin to scramble some fighter jets and let them hunt those missiles down. And why would terrorists want to launch them in a ballistic missile anyway ? It's way more easier (and more chance for a successful detonation) to smuggle the parts into the US.

    So this basically leaves us with one good reason to build the NMD: if the US is confronted with dozens of nukes at the same time (the other scenario's can be covered). To my knowledge there are only two countries that have that kind of nuke arsenal.

    Well, when Bush visited Europe to gain support amongst "the allies", he promised here that the ABM missile treaty from 1972 would not be broken. Two days after his visit, the Powell declares that the treaty will be broken sooner or later... And now it's more or less a certainty.

    Contrary to what Bush might think, we're not complete idiots over here in Europe (our celebral capacity does extend beyond 2 days of memories). I am not saying that the US will attack other countries with nukes, but it raises some questions about the credibility of the present administration in the US.

    Okay, this is circular reasoning; if there wasn't a NMD in the first place, nobody would have to develop anything new on the nuclear area. What struck me most in this whole situation is that appearantly the 1972 treaty was based on the fact of "guaranteed mutual destruction" - if one country would nuke the other, the other would have the ability for a total retaliation. It was this fact that slowed down the nuclear arms race and assured "stability" between the east and the west. This balance is now disturbed, and hence it is logical that new nuke developments start in the non-NMD countries.

    Anyway, I completely fail to see the use for a NMD. I am pretty sure that even while we speak the "rogue" nations already know how the NMD detects and reacts. And I am 100% sure that they will come up with a way to circumvent the detection.

    Note: In case you hadn't noticed, I am opposed to the NMD. I don't wanna sound hostile to anyone, it's just that the whole situation just pisses me off. To me personally, the reason for the existance of the NMD is clear, and I take the fact that Bush doesn't even try to cover the real reasons as an insult

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2001
  15. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    I totally agree with Europe, Russia, and China...

    Just because I'm an American, doesn't mean I like Bush, let alone want a Missile Defense Shield. This could trigger another arms race between the Chinese and the US. The largest power that would be directly threatened by NMD would be China. If there was a Cold War style arms race we may not have to build more nukes, but increase the size of the defense shield. That will cost a lot of money, and with a sinking US and global economy thats all we need to do is invest 100s of billions of dollars into an antiquated system.

    This is a Balistic Missile Defense shield, which doesn't guard against land, or even sea launched cruise missiles. Russia and China have cruise missiles. The Tomahawk Cruise Missile, the US Navy's premier cruise missile is capable of carying a 1,000 lb warhead. Guess what, you can pack a hefty nuke under a thousand pounds. Since they only fly a few hundred feet above the ground, well below radar, they couldn't be intercepted by the missile shield. There isn't a cruise missile intercepting device that I know of. Even if there was, the MAD policy ensures that nukes probably won't be used.

    BUSH IS AN IDIOT FOR PURSUING THIS. Hopefully Congress doesn't approve funding or the technology fails. If this isn't stopped the world is in deep trouble.

    Sry, bad spelling to lazy to check.
     
  16. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Hi Crisp:

    I can tell, you are against NMD. I do not know if you have any nukes in your backyard, but we do. We live in USA surrounded by nukes that leak radiation. I do not want them. You may have your memory more than 2 days, we will start losing them.

    Our nukes also travel on our highways, and they leak, which I do not like. Most Americans do not know this, otherwise all hell will break loose. It is an environmental hazard. That is why I am a supporter of shoot them up missile technology (whatever you want to call them). I sincerely hope that Russia and China develop their own version. It is a defensive weapon and therefore I support them. Soon the chinese will have them, because some material leaked out to them from Los Alamos. I do not think we have a treaty with them.

    We must have them so that we can get rid of these aging nukes in the warehouse. Unless Belgium wants to store them there. You are not proposing that? Are you? We need a NMD to cleanup our house. It has nothing to do with who is specifically targetting us. We unilaterally can not get rid of our aging nukes without something to replace with and that something can only be NMD.
     
  17. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Assuming you can differentiate between the nuke and the fifteen accompanying decoys.

    You asked why NMD was considered useless at defending against a nuclear attack. I think this is a pretty good example of it accomplishing the square root of fuck all.

    My point is that 'rogue states' have approximately a zero chance of launching a missile, knowing that they'll cease to exist shortly thereafter. Thus NMD is designed to counter a threat that doesn't exist.

    But no-one has that intention. All they'll do is build more missiles.

    I don't. I also don't know that they're not planning nanotbots to destroy the fillings in all our teeth. The fact that it's theoretically possible is no reason to spend billions on countermeasures.
     
  18. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    I would like to put a question to those who disagree.

    If you had your choice between a weapon and no defense; or a defense and no weapon, which would you choose to use to ensure world peace? Either is going to cost you a bundle. So do not consider price.
     
  19. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I haven't a clue what you mean. How would you categorise NMD?
    NMD isn't a defense with no weapon; it's a defense for a weapon that doesn't exist; specifically, a small number of missiles coming from a country that's willing to be bombed into the stone age in return for a small chance at harming one US city.
     
  20. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    My posting directed to Crisp still stands (page 1) unreplied.
     
  21. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    I've just reread your original post, and I'm impressed by your optimism. However, you're the only person I've encountered who thinks that GW will use this as an opportunity to reduce stockpiles. He's stated categorically that while he's happy to lower the number of nukes, he's got a lower limit, and that limit is (IMO) still ridiculously high (well, it's greater than 0, so obviously it's too high, but you know what I mean).
     
  22. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Dear rde:

    We really can not talk about (atleast publicly) our problem with nukes. I am sure russians have the same problem. But they do not value the life of their citizens as much as we do. (Both are guilty, if you ask my opinion).

    As you know, weapons grade Uranium has a higher energy density which can degrade any shield over time. Then the radiation leak occurs. That is why, most nuclear power plants replace/repair their heat exchangers about every 18 months. So a perfect shield will be to drop them under the bottom of the ocean.

    Now, unless somebody has a better idea as to how we can drastically reduce our stockpile in a face saving way, I am sticking with my NMD program which will discretely allow us to reduce our aging pile.

    And if anybody living in US complains, all I have to say to them is I hope you die in cancer by getting your radiation while driving.
    (My whole family passed a leaking truck while travelling from Wichita to Dallas, from that point on, we are so scared....)
     
  23. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    SDI or NDS

    Think of the word NOW. Then read between the lines.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page