Kanemano: Wouldn't this work better?


My guess is that the approaching missile has to be too close for that option to work well over a heavily populated area. I've seen that system mounted on US warships, but in their case they can hit a missile when it's just a few hundred yards away, and it just falls into the ocean.

wrs1864: Following your link, I see that Reagan's SDI program was morphed by Clinton into something more reasonable, part of which was used to create a more advanced version of the PATRIOT missile system. The original PATRIOT system was started long before Reagan.

So, no, SDI didn't spawn the PATRIOT missile system.

I just noted that Clinton morphed the program into theater defense instead of nation defense.

The PATRIOT program was originally designed as an anti-aircraft missile - it changed to missile defense during SDI. Then it was tested in action during the first Gulf War, and when it looked like it worked, Clinton changed the goal of the program and renamed it in the process. The PATRIOT program existed, but the missile to missile system of defense didn't exist before SDI. 

Why is any of this controversial? We spent a trillion dollars trying to figure out how to knock missiles out of the sky. Is anyone surprised that one small part of it eventually worked?

mongbiohazard: The arguments against SDI were always..... less than convincing. I think a lot of people just didn't want it because Reagan wanted it.

I think it was the fact that even if it were 90% effective (and that was an optimistic estimate) the Soviets still had enough missiles to turn every major American city into a glass parking lot multiple times over with the 10% that got through.

shower_in_my_socks: In defense of the "Star Wars" supporters: I think the goal of similar programs now is not to defeat a massive nuclear attack by a major power like Russia, but to defend against a smaller "rogue state" attack from North Korea, Iran, etc. where there might be a handful of missiles launched, vs. thousands.

That's been the focus since Clinton renamed and re-purposed the goal of the SDI program in the early 1990's. The new entity was called the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and its primary focus changed to theater defense. Then Bush II renamed it the Missile Defense Agency and apparently left the focus vague enough that it can work on whatever the hell it wants.

CujoQuarrel: It was never supposed to be able to handle all of those Russian missiles and the Russians knew it. It was to be a deterrent for those with smaller countries that would only have a few they could fire. Like NK or Iran.

So right now we got nothing.

There are 3 classic principles to nuclear strategy, all chilling to think about:

1. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
2. Offense is defense, defense is offense.
3. Weapons that kill weapons are bad, weapons that kill people are good.

Basically, it goes like this:

Any asshole can kill a city. It's an easy target to hit, and the 'assured' part of MAD comes from the fact that, if you have enough of the damn things, you must inevitably be able to wipe a city out. And since the distances involved are too great for instantaneous surprise attacks, there's just no way for one side to get the drop on the other without someone being able to push the button. The side that strikes second may be dead by the time their missiles arrive, but arrive they will. Guaranteed. Therefore, assuming that all actors in the system are rational (ie, they don't want to die horribly), so long as I can kill you and you can kill me, we cancel each other out.

The problem arises when one side tries to develop first strike capability. If one side could figure out a way to use surprise and/or technology to get around the A in MAD, they might start thinking if they hit first and hard enough, the other side couldn't respond and they could 'win' a nuclear war. Given the sheer number of warheads out there, this view is a fallacy. You CANNOT win a nuclear war.

But that didn't stop both sides from trying. Missile submarines, cruise missiles, stealth, and star wars were all ttmpts to get around that A. The problem is, from a strategic perspective there's no difference between a hyper-stealthy bomber than can drop smart nukes onto enemy silos with pinpoint accuracy, super-quiet submarine that can launch its missiles from 100 miles away, and an orbiting laser that can wipe out the other guy's missiles mid-flight. They are all equally attempts at first strike capability, and they all equally destabilize the system.

And American Presidents were especially bad for this. Yeah, they called it a 'missile defense' system for the home audience, but all the Soviets saw was a mavericky fellow who ran his mouth and was dumping a fortune into a nearly maintenance-free first-strike weapon. Of course they had to respond. We may think now that Reagan was a genius for getting the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion, but the debts he raised have never been paid off, and he wouldn't have looked so hot if the Soviets had flinched just a little more in 1983.

So now you take an already dangerously barely-stable system and you plug some tinpot dictator like Kim Jong Un into the mix. Yeah, you may think that missile defense is intended against them, but even if it is, the Russians can't wait to see. If it gets used, they almost have to strike, because of the very limited timeframes imposed by MAD.

Star Wars: it not only doesn't do what Reagan said it would, it also almost triggered exactly the sort of war it was intended to prevent.

Lsherm: theknuckler_33: Lsherm: theknuckler_33: Lsherm: FlashHarry: yeah, that's not star wars. more like better-working patriot missiles.

The Patriot missile program was developed as part of the Ground Based Programs - Extended Range Interceptor section of the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars". It is very much part of that initiative, people just forget that it had other components besides space based interception.

Hi Subby1

Not subby - I was just pointing out that Patriot missiles were born out of that initiative. Since most of Fark is apparently too young to remember SDI, most seem to think it was only about space lasers.

Well, hopefully you are reasonable enough to recognize that referencing Star Wars in the headline was pretty stupid considering the program being talked about is a massively scaled down theatre system vs the massive global/continental ground-based system envisioned by Reagan (not to mention ignoring the space-based aspect of Reagan's idea).

It WAS pretty stupid, but quite frankly there's a lot of selective history going on in this thread, none of it particularly intelligent. Subby may be an idiot, but so are a lot of other people posting here.

And I'll do you a solid for reasonableness: The ground-based portion of SDI that the Patriot program grew out of didn't really hit its stride until the Clinton administration when they renamed SDI to BMDO and explicitly changed the goal of the initiative from national defense to theater defense. Clinton took what looked like it might work and refocused missile defense on that.

Honestly, the only reason I even knew the Patriot program was borne out of the SDI is because it's all they were reporting during the first Gulf War in 1991. It's not like it was a controversial claim 20 years ago.

It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.

theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.

FYI, Lsherm, that sounds far more confrontational than I intended.

theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.

No, but people credit the Space Race for all kinds of things - correctly - and it was an outlandish idea. SDI was a research initiative, it's not surprising that some good came out of it. Nor is it a sign of weakness to admit that ERMAGAWD, even a bad program from Reagan had an upside years down the road.

theknuckler_33: theknuckler_33: It was not a controversial claim that the patriot system evolved out of an idea that was completely unfeasible. It is still not controversial to say such a thing. What is controversial (and stupid) is to write a headline that is basically saying "hurr durr Reagan was right, Star Wars works!" because after 30 years a small-scale missile defense system was developed from an outlandish idea. People don't credit the TV show Star Trek for things that eventually came to be in a modest sense.

FYI, Lsherm, that sounds far more confrontational than I intended.

I didn't take it as such, no worries.

StinkyFiddlewinks: What "shiat that was working in the 1960s?"

He must mean missiles. Missiles were definitely working the 1960's. Otherwise, I'm not sure what he's referring to. Maybe radar tracking?

The Soviets figured out they lost the Cold War with SDI.

Nice. Better than duck and cover. Phasers on Searching, Seek, and Destroy!

tuckeg: shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.

I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.

There was no proposed system - only ideas about a system, which is why it was a research project. The "split warhead" was a big problem no one managed to deal with (and that was reported in TIME, so if it's what you are referring to, that cat is long out of the bag).

tuckeg: shower_in_my_socks: I see subby has been sufficiently shamed for his ignorance. We had less complex Patriot Missiles shooting shiat down like this 20 years ago, and it's gotten even more impressive. But it's a giant leap from this to shooting down ICBMs.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer and project manager in the space industry from the 1950s into the late 1980s. He was on the Cape and at Vandenberg. His opinion was that the Star Wars and other anti-ICBM "shooting a bullet with a bullet" projects were foolish and would never work. That's one engineer's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. But even if we pull it off, there are ways for our opponents to fool the system. It is a very expensive "arms race" to be engaged in, over something that may never work.

I worked at an Air Force research lab in the mid-80s and your grandfather was exactly right. There was a fundamental flaw in the proposed system. Not sure how much info is in the open so I'll leave it at that. Everyone at the lab knew it was not workable. The problem that Israel has solved (to some extent) is very different from intercepting an ICBM.

Patriot Block-3 has been doing this for a while.

Hitting a missile with a missile (aka bullet with a bullet) is something we've been doing for decades. Aegis can counter ballistic missile threats.

Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.

whidbey: Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.

Don't they have state-sponsored health care?

RyogaM: Star Wars type, space based weapons missile defense would never work because the first thing an major opponent would do in the event of a first strike is to first destroy the satellites which are part of the missile defense. Crippling satellites is just as easy if not easier than using multi-independently targeted warheads and thousands of dummy missiles. Even with a minor opponent, such an all-encompassing system would not work because they would just sneak a couple nuclear warheads on cargo ships near the coast and detonate them, rather than launch them from thousands of miles away. Even mino level threats, if they can handle ICBMs could engage in anti-satellite operations. Bottom-line, the instability in MAD caused by Star Wars was never worth the benefit it promised.

First, taking out a satellite has never been a trivial exercise. Even the recent Chinese example involved low-orbit intercept. If you have enough dummies to make sure a weapon gets through to the satellite, you may as well just forego intercepting the satellite and just launch all those weapons against the US directly because you'll overwhelm whatever defenses we have anyway.

Second, people are unlikely to try to use a cargo ship because it is unreliable, leaves the weapon outside the control of the launching authority, and generally not how any state will deploy a nuke against us.

Third, ICBM capability is nowhere NEAR anti-sat capability. Just like launching something into orbit != ICBM capability.

vygramul: whidbey: Ah, Israel. The only civilized country that's politically farther right of the Republican party. God bless 'em.

Don't they have state-sponsored health care?

Not for those Palestinian dogs.

tuckeg: Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..

Ha! Now I'm intrigued!

Tracking a cold object against a cold background? Because I worked on that back in the day on a public project. Unfortunately, our experiment didn't work, but it's long since been declassified. I'll still leave it vague, though.

Mi-5: naughtyrev: Let me know when they start shooting down rockets with space based lasers.

DING DING DING. Thread over.

Thanks for playing, Dumbmitter.

Well, don't forget Brilliant Pebbles - the part of SDI that considered using kinetic kill vehicles.

The Lone Gunman: Liberals didn't say "Star Wars will never work, Reagan is crazy". Liberals said 'Star Wars is unnecessary, Reagan is wasting billions of dollars on nothing".

Pretty sure we also said it was an unworkable idea and that Reagan was a nut for believing we were going to put a network of defense satellites in orbit when we weren't even serious about getting out into space, period.

tuckeg: Lsherm: tuckeg: Completely different problem. There was a proposed system, how it was to be implemented was being researched. However the same fundamental problem had to be overcome by any implementation and could not be. Enough said, I guess the cat is still in the bag..

Ha! Now I'm intrigued!

Tracking a cold object against a cold background? Because I worked on that back in the day on a public project. Unfortunately, our experiment didn't work, but it's long since been declassified. I'll still leave it vague, though.

You are in the ballpark.

Tracking a cold object against a cold background is not a problem in the 21st century. The threshold is surprisingly low nowadays.