🚀 go-pugleaf

hancock@Trade-Zone.msfc.nasa.gov (T. Hancock) wrote:
>
> In article Marty Busse writes:
> >
> >	First of all, BMD will only defend against ballistic missles.  
> 
> That`s why they call it Ballistic Missile Def.
> 
> Other delivery systems (SLCMs, "terrorist" groups, bombs sent as diplomatic
> >packages to embassies waiting for the signal to go off, etc.) can circumvent
> >it. 
> Agree and..

OK, so the questions are:

1 - why are the Newtonians proposing to spend a few gazillion
dollars responding to hypothetical 3rd World ICBM threats in the
absence of corresponding responses to actual problems, such as
truck bombs.

2 - what purpose is severed in putting a roof on a house (ie BMD)
that has no walls or doors (ie, can't stop truck bombs). The asserted
benefits of BMD (ie, Blue Horde aka Sole Remaining Superpower[tm]
remains un-deterred by the Wogs only holds true if other delivery
means are also rendered ineffective.

>  >Second, it won't be perfect: even if 90% of the missles are stopped in a
> >hypothetical attack, the remaining 10% will wreak havoc. 
> 
> Depends on the number of missiles in the attack.  Say, 10 launched from
> the Peoples Democratic Republic of "insert name here" should be stopable
> (spell).

1 - No, 90% is still 90%, regardless of what number it is 90% of.

2 - The way BMDO expresses it, it is x% confidence that y% of
missiles will be intercepted (your mileage may vary). So as with
any other probabilistic function, there is some non-trivial risk
that the system might under-perform, or as with Patriot in DS,
more or less fail completely (in that the failure mode is not
merely random but rather the result of a systematic fault, as
in Patriot's discrimination and lethality problems).

3 - The question remains whether the President is/should-be
prepared to bet American cities on the efficacy of BMD. Given
our profound unwillingness to be even a few American soldiers
on the ground in Bosnia or Somalia, the propositiont that we
would bet millions of civilians on BMD working perfectly seems
pretty remote.

> >Third, assuming it does work perfectly

Which it will not...

> >and no one does any of the things I discussed in point 
> >one, all it does is make it easier for a conventional war to begin

Well, this is the whole point: the Blue Horde is all dressed up
with no place to go. The US spends as much on its military as
the Rest of the World combined, but in the absence of compelling
national interest is totally unprepared to sacrifice blood or
treasure. The only way DOD can envision using our parade-ground
troops is if they can guarantee that no US persons will be killed,
hence the need for a Magic Peaceshield[tm].

> >deterrence
> >would be far less robust in a non-nuclear world.  

DOD's concern is that deterrence is far _TOO_ robust in a nuclear
world, in that the Blue Horde is easily deterred.

> Depends on what you mean by the threat, the days of MAD are gone.

Mutual Assured Destruction is a _condition_, and the fear at DOD
is that WMD proliferation will keep the Sole Remaining Superpower[tm]
in a deterred frame of mind. TMD/NMD is still the same attempt
to escape the condition of MAD that we saw during the Cold War,
and it will just as it failed throughout the Cold War.

> Today the threat is Iraq or N. Korea etc.

OK, so just why will the President be prepared to see NYC blown up
in a war with these folks when the Peaceshield is only 90% effective?

> Also why put you populations at risk if you don't need to?

Great, if you have figured out a way to _guarantee_ that there
is no way that the bad guys can truck bomb DC/NYC/LA/etc, that
is one thing. But the bottom line is that our population is at
risk if we get in a war that poses existential threats to these
regimes. I agree, we shouldn't put our population at risk, but
BMD ain't gonna change the risk factor one way or another (at
best) and (at worst) will increase the risk factor if some
President actually is tricked into thinking that these toys might
work, and so stumbles into a war...

> >
> >	Fourth, BMD provides a way for a nation to launch a first-strike if
> >it possesses a BMD system and its foes do not. 
> 
> Possible, remember Pres. Regan offered SDI to the soviets in the 80's.

1 - Yeah, an if you believe that I've got some land in Florida I'd
like to sell you.

2 - I haven't heard Bill offering TMD to DPRK.

>  It is more than a defense: it
> >can also be a counterforce weapon. 
> 
> Interesting, please post how.

Well, the whole point is that shields make swords more usable. If
the Blue Horde wanted to launch a counterforce attack against a
Rogue State, the TMD/NMD would try to attrit the residual ragged
response.