http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/missiledefense

It's very long, so that should filter out the morons. It's interesting and at least raises some valid points about the political problems, if not technical ones as well. Anyone who works in defense probably knows how ridiculously wasteful rudderless defense programs can be.

The writer obviously has his agenda, but that fact doesn't invalidate any of his points. (You idiots who think that it does need to come back when you can actually make grownup arguments on the topic)




[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : Maybe not an article]

10/4/2007 12:44:21 AM

I'm not going to read it. 50% of my time at work I spend on the Navy portion of MD through the MDA. The claim that it has never been successfully tested is the biggest load of crap - You *could* make some claims about the Air Force portion having failed tests, but the Navy portion (ie, submarine based) has passed every field test to date with flying colors (feel free to look that up - it's public domain information), is on schedule and budget, and is fairly mature at this point.

I'm not making any claims about it's necessity and I will admit that the Air Force (ironically, the ground based) part of the system has had it's problems, but this guy is fact-picking at the very least to support his agenda.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 12:50:24 AM

Moore's Law

Quote :

"The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades."

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

If it truly doesn't work now, it will. And if I were trying to hide it and prevent an arms race in space, I would hide it in the open by making everyone think it doesn't work. Have you even considered these things?

10/4/2007 12:50:31 AM

The asshat formerly known as Boonedoggle.

10/4/2007 12:54:14 AM

^ LOL!

10/4/2007 1:01:34 AM

^^^^ His technical arguments are indeed some of his weakest. The political ones ring true, however. At the end of the day, politics can eclipse everything else.

That being said, ^^^ this is an weak rebuttal to his technical arguments. This post suffers from the same problem as the original article: someone who doesn't really understand the technical points trying to make a technical argument.

FWIW,
- Moore's law is an observation, not a "law"
- It applies only to raw processing capability and doesn't comment at all on capabilities of software and systems
- Lack of raw processing power is not really an obstacle in missile defense. Science, algorithms, tactics, and systems engineering are the real challenges.


[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 1:07 AM. Reason : 45]

10/4/2007 1:03:53 AM

This part of the piece is actually a pretty fair layman's description of how the system is technically supposed to work:

Quote :

"If the entire layered shield were up and running, and if an enemy were to fire a missile at America, here's how the system would hypothetically work: In the first few minutes of the boost phase, a lot of technology would be brought to bear on the incoming missile. First, the rocket's signature plume would be spotted by our satellite systems -- either at takeoff or, possibly, when it broke through cloud cover. The missile would then be tracked by land-based radar systems that are already in position in Alaska, California, Greenland and England. The information would be relayed to officials at command and control -- probably in Colorado -- who would confirm it as a missile launch and order a response. The boost phase of an ICBM lasts roughly four minutes, a period when the missile is rumbling at its most sluggish. It is the optimal time to blow it up. Unfortunately, the designers of our missile defense shield have yet to figure out a system that is capable of reliably intercepting a boost-phase rocket. The idea that is furthest along -- but still years away from working -- is to mount an airborne laser on a Boeing 747. The plane would attempt to focus a laser beam on the climbing rocket until its metal housing heated up and caved in. Or there's the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, also still in the idea phase, which would swoop down from space, or be fired from land, and crash into a boost-phase missile. Should the missile get past the boost phase, it enters the midcourse phase. If the rocket is short to medium range, it could be shot down from sea by one of the Navy's three Aegis ships -- a key part of the shield -- which use high-powered radar to track and destroy incoming missiles. But if the rocket is a longer-range ICBM, it would spend twenty minutes or so in flight -- giving us more time to hit it. This is where the crew on board the SBX really goes to work. Using the unit's massive radar, the SBX would relay extremely precise information about the rocket's location back to central command. A course would get plotted and one of the U.S. interceptor missiles currently on standby in the ground in Alaska and California would fly toward the target. But an interceptor missile won't have much of a chance of hitting its target if, as most experts assume, the enemy's nuclear warhead is surrounded by numerous decoys and chaff to baffle the radar. An interceptor can currently launch a single EKV, or Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, a device armed with its own infrared sensors designed to guide it on a collision course with the incoming missile. But with decoys and chaff, engineers now envision the interceptor launching MKVs, or Multiple Kill Vehicles. After receiving coordinates from the SBX, the onboard computers of this hypothetical interceptor would track the decoys, discriminating between the fakes and the real thing, and then launch kill devices on independent trajectories to destroy them all. After the midcourse phase comes the terminal stage -- the final thirty seconds or so of a missile's descent. Short-range to medium missiles, which move more slowly than ICBMs, would be taken out by the PAC-3, the latest version of the Patriot interceptor made famous in the Gulf War. Or they could be brought down by Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, a device that looks like a big truck carrying sewer pipes -- except the pipes can tilt back off the rear bumper and shoot down a Scud from 125 miles off. But if the enemy missile is a fast-moving ICBM, then the terminal-phase plan is just that: Everyone within its blast radius dies in a supernova of light that's 3,000 times brighter than the sun. There is no technology exclusively dedicated to stopping a nuke in its terminal stage."

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 1:28 AM. Reason : sdf]

10/4/2007 1:28:30 AM

^^ "an weak rebuttal"

1. You made the fallacy of assumption. You know nothing about me, so you certainly can't prove what I know or don't know.

2. You have exhibited two-dimensional thinking. "The Shield" is a system and external advances consistent with Moore's Law will in turn cause advances in the system to be made. And this type of advance has already happened with this system as evidenced by upgrades in its laser technology, for example. In addition, I never posted that "raw processing capability" was the problem (maybe you heard voices in your head?)--I actually posted the following:

Quote :

"If it truly doesn't work now, it will. And if I were trying to hide it and prevent an arms race in space, I would hide it in the open by making everyone think it doesn't work. Have you even considered these things?"

3. Concerning Moore's Law, I simply used the generally accepted title of the "observation" at issue. Maybe you can call officials at Webopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, Intel, Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others to tell them that they're wrong. In any event, the "observation" has proved fairly consistent over the years.



[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 3:27 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2007 3:23:03 AM

while I tend to be a skeptic about secret government plots... I have to say I don't see why Star Wars will not someday soon be a reality. GPS, lasers, guidance computers etc... continue to increase in sophistication and compactness.

There is obviously a need for such a system, its just a matter of time until somebody puts it together.
Also, haven't we already had partial success with the Patriot Missile and that was like what 1991 ? I'd guess a 200 mph car seemed a little impossible in 1905, it takes time to refine technology.

I will say that I do not think weapon's grade lasers are practical yet.

10/4/2007 6:27:42 AM

Moores law does not apply here, why is it being used?

10/4/2007 8:32:32 AM

Quote :

"The claim that it has never been successfully tested is the biggest load of crap"

I assume by "never successfully tested" the article is referring to the fact that we've basically needed to rig the tests to ensure "success."

It's certainly never been successfully tested against any realistic target with countermeasures, multiple warheads, and decoys.

Quote :

"1. You made the fallacy of assumption. You know nothing about me, so you certainly can't prove what I know or don't know."

For practical purposes we have to assume that you're doing your best to argue your point. Given that, it's no assumption to suggest that you have very little knowledge about what you're debating (and very little knowledge about debating in general, for that matter).


The argument is flawed beyond the point of being debated. Allow me to make an argument similar to yours:

Given:
1. Moore's law and observations of related technologies
2. Soup companies use technology

Therefore:
Soup will double in tastiness each year

10/4/2007 8:53:05 AM

IMPRISON EVERYONE!!!1

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2007 9:14:46 AM

Hooksaw: believe what you want to believe. I suggest actually reading the whole wikipedia article about moore's law if you genuinely want to understand what it means. It's obvious that you don't (pay particular attention to the software part). I have no interest in teaching you about it here.

Quote :

"Moores law does not apply here, why is it being used?"

Because it's a red herring raised by someone who understands neither the topic nor Moore's law.

Quote :

"while I tend to be a skeptic about secret government plots... I have to say I don't see why Star Wars will not someday soon be a reality. GPS, lasers, guidance computers etc... continue to increase in sophistication and compactness."

To some extent, this is a reasonable expectation. However, you also have to realize that enemies are changing their systems to counter our defense just as fast, if not faster. Offense is easier than defense. The missile defense system of today will likely be incapable of beating all but the most primitive missiles of today.

And the larger point is that technical issues are not the biggest issues with the system.

Quote :

"Also, haven't we already had partial success with the Patriot Missile and that was like what 1991 ? I'd guess a 200 mph car seemed a little impossible in 1905, it takes time to refine technology."

This was actually described accurately in the article. The 1991 "success" was pure propaganda. If we did ever shoot down a scud back then (you can count these on one hand), it was by accident. It was an almost complete failure back then, but the military spun the crap out of it.

Coincidentally, if a scud ever hit it's target back then, it was by accident.

Quote :

"It's certainly never been successfully tested against any realistic target with countermeasures, multiple warheads, and decoys. I assume by "never successfully tested" the article is referring to the fact that we've basically needed to rig the tests to ensure "success."

Your first sentence is accurate, the second accusation of "rigging" is unfounded. The tests build in difficulty as previous tests prove that we can accomplish a list of feats that are necessary to kill more complicated targets. This process is called engineering and applies to most anything:

- You're not going to get everything right in version 1.
- You learn by doing, often learning the most from mistakes.

This iterative approach is not inherently nefarious, as the language you used implied


[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : sdad]

10/4/2007 9:21:53 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't. It's a red herring raised by someone who understands neither the topic nor Moore's law."

Right. Moore's law applies to processor speed via number of transistors. It has nothing to do with anything else. That's not to say technology doesn't constantly increase, but Moore's law has NOTHING to do with whether the missle defnese shield will ever work.

10/4/2007 9:31:24 AM

If this thing worked 100%...why the hell would we tell people? To let them know they need to start smuggling their nukes in instead of launching them? Fuck that. I'm pretty sure this thing works a lot better than you and I think.

10/4/2007 10:45:43 AM

Riiight

The whole point of a missile defense is to let everyone know you have it.

Sort of like a Doomsday Device



[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 11:06:41 AM

Quote :

"Right. Moore's law applies to processor speed via number of transistors. It has nothing to do with anything else."

that's not really correct either. 1) it doesn't apply to processor speed, and 2) it has to do with a lot of things
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/moore.ars

but, then again, having only read bits and pieces of this thread and none of the Rolling Stone article, I have no idea why we're debating Moore's law in a missile defense thread.

10/4/2007 11:20:55 AM

Quote :

"The whole point of a missile defense is to let everyone know you have it."

No. Thats like announcing you have a bullet proof vest on...instead of now aiming for the biggest target on the body, they'll aim for head shots.

10/4/2007 11:23:38 AM

It's announcing that you're behind a foot of steel. That way, they just won't shoot at you. Or pick a fight with you.

It's designed to aid in traditional warfare against a traditional opponent, which is why it's pointless in the first place.

Any group that would bring a suitcase bomb into the country was never going to develop an ICBM in the first place.

10/4/2007 11:30:33 AM

Quote :

"The whole point of a missile defense is to let everyone know you have it."

there are a couple of ways to look at that, even assuming it works 100%.

if it works something less than 100%, that's another variable to consider.

10/4/2007 12:00:46 PM

I'd say it would be more likely some turrist gets a nuke into this country then having WWIII go down. I think most likely the Missle Defense program is an inflated budget item filled with pork and riders.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason : l]

10/4/2007 12:08:15 PM

Quote :

"I assume by "never successfully tested" the article is referring to the fact that we've basically needed to rig the tests to ensure "success." It's certainly never been successfully tested against any realistic target with countermeasures, multiple warheads, and decoys. "

Well this claim seems silly to apply to a system that is still in development. The system has successfully dealt with countermeasures.

That would have been like claiming the same thing about the space program of the 60's because it was never successfully tested that we can land on the moon. Eventually the system will get to that point, but it's just not there yet it's still in development. Development that is moving along nicely.

Quote :

" This was actually described accurately in the article. The 1991 "success" was pure propaganda. If we did ever shoot down a scud back then (you can count these on one hand), it was by accident. It was an almost complete failure back then, but the military spun the crap out of it. Coincidentally, if a scud ever hit it's target back then, it was by accident."

Wow .. just no. The Patriot missile system was working well even before the Iraq war in testing and performed well out in the field as well. My Dad worked on the Patriot system out at Space Command

Yeah I realize this is alot of appeal to authority .. but honestly I don't care enough to locate 'fact filled articles and sources' atm.

Quote :

"I'd say it would be more likely some turrist gets a nuke into this country then having WWIII go down. I think most likely the Missle Defense program is an inflated budget item filled with pork and riders."

Now this I wouldn't necessarily argue against - well at least the first part. Although NK is the only rogue nation in the foreseeable future that would be able to realistically launch a Nuke at US soil - there are possibilities such as Iran in the somewhat more distant future being able to launch a Nuke at Israel. Although then again if I were them I'd try to get it in in the form of a Bomb, etc, if this system actually existed over there.

The likelihood of this system ever being 100% failproof are astronomically low, so a Nation such as China or Russia really isn't going to ever be very 'deterred' by this.

I don't know shit about the MDAs budget so I wont go there :o In my opinion could we have spent this money better elsewhere? Yes. Although we are learning alot while developing this system so even if it never is actually used to deter a real-world threat at least that is knowledge in the bank.

Here's the two most recent press releases I found at my work regarding the most recent public testing.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/070623.asp

http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/2006/060623.asp

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 12:42:02 PM

This thread is amazing.

People still put stock in Rolling Stone articles about politics?

10/4/2007 2:27:57 PM

Quote :

"However, you also have to realize that enemies are changing their systems to counter our defense just as fast, if not faster. Offense is easier than defense. The missile defense system of today will likely be incapable of beating all but the most primitive missiles of today. "

That sounds like the only way a missile shield will really be practical would be a very intelligent computer system that's capable of doing the entire process on its own, except for the launch command.

Hopefully, the investments in missile defense for AI will pay off in the long run, but touting the missile shield as an actual shield, like politicians/media like to do, seems disingenuous at best.

On the other hand, I guess in the extremely unlikely event someone chooses to lob a missile at us, I guess something is better than nothing.

The money would be better spent I think for programs like the DARPA Grand Challenge though which I think will do more for humanity than the nebulous benefits of a mythical missile defense shield. Or at least, funnel it directly in to pure research rather than trying to force the fruition of a product that could never be practical.

10/4/2007 3:45:54 PM

Quote :

"That sounds like the only way a missile shield will really be practical would be a very intelligent computer system that's capable of doing the entire process on its own, except for the launch command"

Quote :

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."

But seriously, I had mixed feelings about this article. For one, Rolling Stone is not exactly the pinnacle of balanced investigative journalism. I mean the article practically starts off with OMGWFTBBQ!!!!! and it uses convoluted phrases like "postmodern military existentialism." That being said, it does raise very good questions about the effects of a corporate-friendly administration on the very real military-industrial complex. Having worked with contractors I can assure you that, while many of the workers are ostensibly patriotic, they're largely in it for the $$$, and that attitude goes all the way up.

10/4/2007 4:17:26 PM

Quote :

"Well this claim seems silly to apply to a system that is still in development. The system has successfully dealt with countermeasures. That would have been like claiming the same thing about the space program of the 60's because it was never successfully tested that we can land on the moon. Eventually the system will get to that point, but it's just not there yet it's still in development. Development that is moving along nicely."

The fact that we're just now catching up with 60's era warheads is refreshing.

Money well spent.

10/4/2007 4:21:30 PM

Quote :

"The fact that we're just now catching up with 60's era warheads is refreshing. Money well spent."

Wow, reading comprehension anyone? I wasn't talking about warheads from the 60s... Not to mention we've successfully tested against missiles very similar to the main ones this system is going to be deployed against in the current and foreseeable future - those missiles coming from rogue nations such as NK.

Considering the bulk of recent development on this system started less than four years ago I'd say it's come a pretty long ways quickly.

10/4/2007 5:16:32 PM

Quote :

"Wow .. just no. The Patriot missile system was working well even before the Iraq war in testing and performed well out in the field as well. My Dad worked on the Patriot system out at Space Command Yeah I realize this is alot of appeal to authority .. but honestly I don't care enough to locate 'fact filled articles and sources' atm. "

Have you asked him recently? Contractors and military officials close to the project claimed a lot of nonsense when the first war happened, but independent analysis from different sources criticized the pentagon's methodology and presented their own analysis that showed much lower effectiveness. A congressional investigation reviewed all of this and concluded that the pentagon's figures were grossly exaggerated (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1992_r/patriot.htm).

As a result, the military stopped repeating hard claims of success rates. Raytheon trotted out ad hominem attacks on the critics, but could provide no real accounting of its performance to rebut the criticisms.

The simple fact that the scud often broke up into many pieces on reentry makes claims of 50-70% success unbelievable. Debris is not something we can handle well even today. In fact, the targets used in the pre-war tests did not break up like the scuds did in real life, accounting for the system's poor battlefield performance when faced with something different.


[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 8:25 PM. Reason : 456]

10/4/2007 7:59:39 PM

Why would you say that the fact that the Iraqi scuds were breaking up was 'something different' that the Patriot system couldn't handle? Of course it wasn't designed to handle broken-up missiles. Why would you want to even attempt to hit a missile that has already broken up? Even if the warhead manages to detonate on the ground at that point in time it's not going anywhere near it's original military target.

I had always heard that the success rate claimed by the Pentagon was based only off of non-defective scuds which were heading towards their target successfully.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 8:46:59 PM

you know what, forget Star Wars type missile defense systems and associated basic research in science... lets put the money into public schools, that way we'll really get something for our $$$.

10/4/2007 11:13:47 PM

^ Who do you think recruits heavily for engineering schools? Many good advances have been made from missiles/missile defense type systems

10/4/2007 11:43:31 PM

Quote :

"Hooksaw: believe what you want to believe. I suggest actually reading the whole wikipedia article about moore's law if you genuinely want to understand what it means. It's obvious that you don't (pay particular attention to the software part). I have no interest in teaching you about it here."

evilbob

And here we have Exhibit A: a typically condescending retort from the computer science/engineer type du jour. Unfortunately, your approach is self-referential--you don't even bother to consider the larger systems in which the system at issue operates.

Your post reveals autopoiesis at its finest.

Quote :

"For practical purposes we have to assume that you're doing your best to argue your point. Given that, it's no assumption to suggest that you have very little knowledge about what you're debating (and very little knowledge about debating in general, for that matter)."

Boone-Tard

Ah, we are joined by TSB's head fool, the master of revisionist history. The point I made was above your head--go jingle the shiny bells on your funny cap, fool.

Your post was nothing more than the usual agitprop-tinged blather.

10/5/2007 12:36:39 AM

^ Iit's been CLEARLY established in the Global Warming thread that you have no grasp of either science or math, why are you trying to force your meaningless point on everyone? Several people MUCH more knowledgeable than you have concurred that Moore's law is barely nebulously related to the topic at hand. Just STFU about it, and you might save some face.

10/5/2007 1:29:33 AM

^ Fuck you, motherfucker. You don't know shit about what I know or don't know--piss off. And you're so smart that you managed to address nothing in the post above.

Simply declaring that you have proved something does not make it so, dumbass. "Save face"? Shut your stupid metaphorical mouth.

10/5/2007 1:37:24 AM

Quote :

"Wow, reading comprehension anyone? I wasn't talking about warheads from the 60s... Not to mention we've successfully tested against missiles very similar to the main ones this system is going to be deployed against in the current and foreseeable future - those missiles coming from rogue nations such as NK."

By 60's-era warheads, I was talking about decoys.

I mean, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense#Recent_developments

...is not very promising. In 2002 we shot down a single warhead with only three balloon countermeasures. Since then it appears we've been batting a .500 against missiles that still don't feature any realistic countermeasures.

Quote :

"Of course it wasn't designed to handle broken-up missiles. Why would you want to even attempt to hit a missile that has already broken up? Even if the warhead manages to detonate on the ground at that point in time it's not going anywhere near it's original military target."

Because the missiles weren't aimed at 10-meter military targets, they were aimed at 50-kilometer cities. And from what I've read, broken up scuds are pretty good at exploding on impact.

10/5/2007 9:13:41 AM