Star Wars Today?

[Lancaster]

In 1983, President Reagan suggested the creation of a space-based defence system against nuclear missiles. The response was the inception of the Strategic Defence Initiative (commonly known as 'Star Wars'). This system would eliminate the Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy, and would give us the upper hand in a Nuclear War. Unfortunately, SDI was never really implemented, and the idea of missile defence systems has grown into a much smaller priority since the collapse of the Soviet Union. But now, with the growing threat of the North Korean and Iranian missile programs, shouldn't we reconsider a space based missile defence system? Do we now, more than ever, have the technology to do it?

[ronthepon]

It definitely is very important, but it should be in the hand of a universal benefit oriented body, like the UN, instead of a body which is standalone.

[pgrmdave]

While the threat of an ICBM is great, I think that the threat of a terrorist obtaining nuclear weaponry is far greater. It is much more likely for a nuclear bomb to be smuggled into this country than for a nation to launch a missle. A large part of that is because if a nation launches a missle, we know who to attack. If an organization attacks us, like Al Queda, it is much more difficult to attack. Since the threat is much greater, I think that more should be done to secure the current nuclear weaponry in the former Soviet Union.

[Lancaster]

That's a good point, I seriously think we need to instate a national identification system, where you are fingerprinted at birth and givin a card you must renew periodicly. This would make sneaking into the country much more difficult.

[Racoon]

I agree with pgrmdave here. Yes North Korea poses a dangerous threat, but it is more likely that the terrorists will smuggle in a device, (perhaps one from North Korea) or detonate a device at a harbor(s) in a container. Or a chemical, dirty bomb attack...

The reason we can't really do anything about N. Korea is because they have a Big Brother in China. :)

:evil:

Heres some Googled info:

 

The SDI system was originally planned to provide a layered defense employing advanced weapons technologies, several of which were only in a preliminary research stage. The goal was to intercept incoming missiles in midcourse, high above the earth. The weapons required included space- and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams, and computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns—all under the central control of a supercomputer system. (The space-based weapons and laser aspects of the system gained it the media name “Star Wars,” after the popular 1977 science-fiction film.) Supporting these weapons would have been a network of space-based sensors and specialized mirrors for directing the laser beams toward targets. Some of these weapons were in development, but others—particularly the laser systems and the supercomputer control—were not certain to be attainable.

 

The total cost of such a system was estimated at between $100 billion and $1 trillion. Actual expenditures for SDI amounted to about $30 billion. The initial annual budget for BMDO was $3.8 billion.

[Lancaster]

Our deficit would be a major hindrance of the program was resurrected. I'm just thinking in a few decades, we may wish that we had started the program now, when N. Korea or China could have full nuclear capabilities. Then again, there could be worldwide peace in 20 or 30 years.

[Buffy]

Reagan's strategy worked like a charm: Just do research (quite a bit, but it has side benefits for commercial apps), and scare the Soviets enough to get them to spend themselves into the ground. People complain about Reagan's intellect, but the current administration seems clueless about this strategy, and are now bent on spending *us* into the ground, because there's a 1% chance that someone might launch a missile, although its much more likely that a dirty bomb or delivery via boat/plane would be used, especially by terrorists. Side note, that 1% number is an actual policy outlined in Ron Susskind's new book The One Percent Doctrine http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743271092 covered in yesterday's washpost http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/19/BL2006061900578.html; its kinda scary!.

 

Its expensive, its got an error rate that's so far from usable that its a complete waste of money. I have a friend who used to work on it at TRW, and he's confirmed a lot of the negative reviews on the intercept software...

 

Strategically, missiles are moribund. If N. Korea or Iran were ever to really push the button, with the current administration there'd be no doubt that we would incinerate every person in those countries instantaneously. The bomb in a shipping container is much more likely and almost eliminates retribution: if I were the Koreans, I'd use that route too! The missiles are just for boasting about their technological progress, which we can safely laugh at.

 

I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir, :phones:

Buffy

[Lancaster]

That's true. Reagan was a smart guy.

 

...Sigh...

It would have been cool though.

["Kal"-ee-'for-nyah]

indeed. but some people would still point out every possible flaw, and poke every hole they could into it.

[Lancaster]

With Nukes? I don't know about that. I sure wouldn't fire nuclear weapons at the only superstate with a missile defence system.

[Mercedes Benzene]

The "Star Wars" missile defense system is not at all necessary today. If for some reason, we got into another "Cold War" situation with another country, I would say go ahead...

But today, we do not have to worry about missiles as much as we do acts of terror. Just like racoon said, dirty bombs are in.... ICBMs are out...

 

Let me also point out that the United States has a fantastic missile defense system, capable of destroying almost any ICBM threat....

...it just isn't nifty lasers. :naughty:

[Lancaster]

Haven't heard of that.

 

Got a link?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Got a link for what?

[PetsTheCatfish]

A large part of that is because if a nation launches a missle, we know who to attack. If an organization attacks us, like Al Queda, it is much more difficult to attack. Since the threat is much greater, I think that more should be done to secure the current nuclear weaponry in the former Soviet Union.

 

A dirty-bomb is a much more credible threat, nations have too much to lose; however, we can nullify that by making it clear that we will hold the suppliers accountable. Every bit of uranium/plutonium has a signature. We can narrow down where the materials came from through isotope ratios, impurities, and probably some more methods.

 

As for our missile defense system, it's lacking. A failed intercept test comes to mind. But beyond that one incident its hit percentage are far too low to be acceptable and we don't have enough of them to intercept a strike that would occur from anyone. I'd rather we have one than not at all but in terms of threats a missile attack is unlikely along with a full nuclear blast. Dirty bombs are the most feasible thing.

 

Now why I necroposted:

What do you guys make of the Israeli airstrike on that Syrian facility?

-Flexing of muscle to show that they can pierce the Anti-aircraft systems in Iran(Syria uses the same Russian-made systems)

-North Korea selling its technology to Syrians

-Other(please discuss it)

[Buffy]

What do you guys make of the Israeli airstrike on that Syrian facility?...

Totally off the topic of the thread and out of place in the Computer Science forum.

 

If you want to discuss this, open a new thread in Social Sciences! ;)

 

There is a tunnel at the end of the light, :)

Buffy