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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

In essence we are in agreement. The question is "Are you the reader in agreement?"

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?

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.

Originally posted by kmguru
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? 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.

Originally posted by rde
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.

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.

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.



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

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.



-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.


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 ;).

Bye!

Crisp

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.

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.

Originally posted by kmguru
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.[/b]
Assuming you can differentiate between the nuke and the fifteen accompanying decoys.


-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?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.


-NMD means the US will have the capability of launching strikes with impunity at countries with limited nuclear capability
So?? your point?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.


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


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. 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.

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.

Originally posted by wet1
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. 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.

My posting directed to Crisp still stands (page 1) unreplied.

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).

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....)

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.


Think of the word NOW. Then read between the lines.

From what I gather you are saying that we need a missile defense shied to reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile. WE DON'T! If anything this will accidently raise the stockpile, or keep it deployed longer because the Chinese and Russians will build HUGE numbers of nuclear warheads. Sounds familiar? Its called the Cold War, 1945-1991, period of high tensions between the two superpowers. All we need is to have THREE superpowered countries with different aims. Someone will shoot each other, and we don't want that.

To have a successful nuclear deterrent we only need a HUNDRED nuclear bombs at the most. Our highest yield bombs that are actively destroyed would incinerate Washington D.C. its suburbs and break windows in Baltimore. Think of what just two nukes could do to one country. If New York alone was hit by a nuke, kiss America's future good bye. A well placed strike would destroy the financial nerve center of this country and the world. Depression #2, END GAME.

We need to trust, and I use trust loosely other countries. As I said before this makes us look like we're saying hey lets be friends, but don't screw with me. What kind of friendship is this. I hope someone checked out the earlier post I made, that includes a link about future US, Russian, and Chinese relations.

We don't need NMD!

thecurley1 said: "Kmguru why do we have to have NMD to reduce nukes? "


I explained it before. I am sorry to say, if you did not get it, your career in Politics (specially to be the Commander-in-Chief) does not look too promising. If you want to go ahead and make friends with the communists, go for it. Good Luck and God bless you.

(Oops, the communists do not believe in God and hence the word Trust. Hope you do not change out motto from "In God we Trust" to something else)

No offense intended

I had kind of hoped with the last post that someone would say the word warmonger and get me started. Actually kmguru stole part of my thunder. That's ok. It wasn't all.

You see there is a lot here that isn't being seen. Just the surface is there like the iceberg. Not only is the replacement of shielding material a hassle to maintain it is costly. And not just for us.



In the life of the missile it has to have a lot of maintenance to make sure it's ready to go. Every one of them does. That's teams of military people on call 24 hours a day.

The silos are maintenance extensive. Wiring, elevator, communications, food stockpile, air and filtering system, power, computers, all have to be maintained. Every one of them. And frequently tested to verify it works as intended.

The shields are radioactive. Guess what? That's nuclear waste we're talking and it has to be stored. Hauling it in for where ever in the country. You want to talk expensive? This stuff ain't goin' nowhere for the next millennia. And someone has to keep an eye on it. (Talk about a job for life!)

Actually this is the peanuts stuff. But I can go on and on if necessary. Just to give an idea of the scope which leans you to the idea that it isn't free and once it's up and running the expense isn't over with by a long shot.

Then there is the security required. Remember Russia and it's breakup? With money and living costs being such a problem a couple of rouge generals thought it would be nice to have a nest egg. Iraq almost bought one! It was intercepted and the plan fouled at the last minute. Now doesn’t that make you feel comfy? They also bought nuclear triggering devices from the maker for the US weapons. Trigger devices are some of the tightest controlled items and requires a high level of sophistication just to build one. That one was intercepted in route. No nukes would mean none of the above but we're not finished yet.

The SALT treaty, Nonproliferation Agreement, and the ABM missile treaties have to some extent already been broken. No not all of it by Bush. How do you think India and Pakistan got their tech? They would have you believe that they developed it. Nope, certain key points were passed to them to help them along. Strange isn't it, India goes to test its bomb and there is Pakistan a few weeks later doing the same thing. Hate to shatter your bubble but that was not accident. Nor was it coincidence. A big show was put on for the world to believe they developed it. Do you really believe that there are no multiwarhead missiles lying around? With the major powers knowing how to build them? You can bet they're hidden away but available at a moment’s notice. But they are not out on the line to be counted.

Give the man some credit. I don't think he is smart enough to come up with the answers himself. That's for his advisors to do. But it does nicely get rid of aging missiles and make them count for something at the same time.

Now to the problem of the Mexican Standoff. The big problem. This is the delicate part. The thorny one. It will take some serious negotiation to bring this part about. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiation are equal. (No super power or posturing) It is imperative that they understand that the shield will be given to them for the price of removal of a major part of their arsenal. To do this there has to be a working shield. No shield, no deal. All reductions of armament must be third party verifiable. It should be understood that aggression by any party will not be tolerated and the remaining two will turn on the turncoat in self-interest. This should eliminate most of the sub carrying units and the majority of the silo and mobile units. The remaining missiles should be located where all parties can look down by satellite at each other’s units. And it should be heavily defended. Satellites should be setup where there is no lack of overlap in viewing time. We have reached the point were it is no longer safe to war, especially with nuclear devices. We should also act like it.


This may be to optimistic but I have high hopes that self interest should be a driving factor. Recognition of problems, such as Russia's lack of funds to see to it that their part of the deal is upheld should be recognized and dealt with prior to the actual mothballing of this capability.

BRAVO O! Wet1, you outdid yourself this time

Excellently done. The problem with this type of forum is that some have a lot more background information than others who are not working with a full deck. We forgive them because in case of SDI, some informations are classified or generally not known.

If I did not have graduate courses in Nuclear Engineering, and just a 2nd grade teacher, I would not have understood why nukes leak or that what is the difference between U235 and U238 and so on.

During the early seventies I met a few very young and well meaning people that were part of an anti-nuclear rally in Boston. When one of them trying to scare me about the nuclear energy, I asked if they know anything about how they work. I got bits and pieces of true and false information that they were using to make their case. Funny thing about knowledge is that "Little Knowledge is Dangerous" and hence very little knowledge is.....


That is for now....

If this was about reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles, Bush would have said it upfront. Why we are planning to build SDI is really beyond me, because I don't buy the rouge nation threat. Russia has actually done better at reducing their nuke stockpile than we have, the richest country in the world.

The reason SDI is dangerous is because a "minimal intercepting shield" would render China's arsenal impotent since its so small. This would urge them to build a lot more nukes with other commie satellites such as, N. Korea, Vietnam, and maybe another treaty with the former Soviet Union. This proliferation won't stop at just communist nations. We will be fighting a undesirable front through third-world nations. With lots of nukes being available. Iraq and Iran will have nukes soon, Libya, the Palestinians. and God knows who else. Then there could me more weapons given to countries by the west, Taiwan, South Africa, so on and so fourth. We are sewing the seeds to a nuke war between little countries. This would be devastating.

This sparks another arms race we're screwed. We are EXTREMELY lucky to have survived the last one, who knows if we'll be so lucky this time. Every one knows you don't need a lot of weapons to be a threat, that's why we should reduce without a shield. The less weapons, yes, the less expense. Geez, any country that would want to be feared would need ten bombs, let a lone a thousand, or ten thousand in the US's case.

The economy is going south, and the Senate is currently controlled by the democrats who will vote along party lines against SDI. Weather this changes after '02 is different. I hope this never passes.

As for you and me Kmguru, thanks again for your encouragement on me being a politician. Power is a tempting proposition, but I should probably think about this a bit more seriously when I graduate. Thanks again guys for responding, :D

thecurley1: "Why we are planning to build SDI is really beyond me"

IT IS. But thanks for trying to stay in the game.

Bush is not going to say that. Not in politics. Too many toes to step on. Do you notice that everytime a new report comes out it’s somehow a little screwy? A little out of line with the last stance? You’re a bright feller-me-lad, figure it out.

So what’s China going to do while we’re building intercepts? Multihead? Uh, was that a threat? How can you threaten to do something and it have effect when you’ve already done it? What do you think all that crap about Dr. Woo, or whatever his name was, and the unsecure keeping of “sensitive data” was about?

Ummmm,
As far as the economy. The economy does not roll over and do a sustained nose dive. Usually you have this long period of rise and fall. It took that long for Clinton’s policies to have an effect. And there are more coming. It will also take about the time Dubba comes out of office to get it straight. It’s the way the game’s played.

No-one's doubting that nukes are bad. Or that they're proliferating. What I can't see is why y'all are convinced that NMD is a viable alternative.
Bush has stated categorically that this has nothing to do with Russia or China. If that's the case, then the US's nuclear arsenal exists primarily to counter the perceived threats from those nations. Therefore NMD is wholly unrelated to disarmament.

Let's suppose there are lots of rogue nations out there, all hell-bent on nuking Washington. Let's further suppose that there is no NMD. How will a few more aging nukes in the US' prodigous arsenal act as a deterrent? Does anyone really think the US is in danger of running out?

Disarmament, if Bush wanted it, could take place without NMD. Again: NMD is wholly unrelated to disarmament.

Hi all,

First of all, kmguru, your reply to you post a while back (sorry, I was quite busy the last days).



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.

Well, as a matter of fact, we have about 40 (yes, forty) of US nuclear missiles piled up at a military base at about... 40 km/30 miles from my home. I just happen to know an ex-commander of that base, and the things I heard of him really scare the hell out of me: About 6 or 7 years ago he told me that one day the nukes were loaded to several aircraft, waiting for a "go" to get deployed. It never happened - luckily enough. (As a sidenote: I do not entirely fully believe that story, but there's always a bit of truth in there). These kind of situations make me oppose nukes in the first place.

However, I prefer nukes in my backyard above a NMD.

The reason why there are nukes in your and mine backyard is because there are ridiciously many nuclear weapons in the world (I am pretty sure we can flatten the earth a few hundreds times over). This is ofcourse a direct consequence of the cold war and the nuclear arms race. However, several actions have been taken since the 70's to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and if I am not mistaken, former president Clinton was taking several more steps to reduce the number of US and Russian nukes. If there are less nukes (let's say the US and Russia both have 200) there's no need to store them anywhere near civilians. After all, the Russians and the Chinese are allies (something I am not sure Bush realizes) so why should there be nukes at the west coast of the US pointing to the Russia and China ? If only rogue nations in the middle east are the problem, then it hardly matters if the nukes are stored somewhere in the dessert and have to travel an additional 500 or 1000 km. Rogue nations barely have the ability to construct a nuclear weapon, let alone create their own private NMD to destroy US warheads (by which I want to say: if the US should retaliate, the rogue nation *would* be flattened).

Now, a NMD is being developed, and Russia and China will certainly increase their number of nukes. I am pretty certain that the US will eventually follow, just in case the NMD should fail in case of a nuclear event, so an equal retaliation can be done. Consequence: more nukes in both our backyards.

Conclusion: The three major nuclear forces in the world just need to lower their nuclear arsenal to a few hundred nukes - more than enough to flatten the world one time (well, no nukes would be ideal, but I don't think any political leader would agree). This would mean:

Less nukes in our backyards.
There's still a "mutual asserted destruction".
World stability


With a NMD:

More nukes.
Still a "mutual asserted destruction" (you don't really believe ALL nukes will be destroyed by a NMD in case of a nuclear war?)
World instability


This is perhaps a simple picture of the situation (I know myself enough to know I am naive and optimistic), but I think the essence holds.

About your U235, U238 question: The U238 used for shielding is "depleted" uranium (this means that it contains only a small fraction of the more radioactive U235). The reason why it has to be depleted is because the Uranium found in nature essentially contains two isotopes of Uranium, U238 and the dangerous U235. U238 is still radioactive, but it is a very dense material, which is exactly why it is used in airplanes, sailing boats and less peacefully, in bullet shielding. Because U238 is so dense (the densest material known I believe) the radiation emitted is re-absorbed by the U238, leading to a negligible amount of radiation released to the surrounding (by negligible I mean that the radiation is a factor 10 or 100 lower than the standard background radiation). As a sidenote I would like to add that the absorbing effect of U238 is lost when the material is vaporized (for example: in a bullet impact... ) - but that's another story.

U235 on the other hand is the dangerous stuff. The U235 used in nuclear weapons is enriched, meaning that as much U238 as possible has been removed. I am not completely aware of the biological effects of radiation (perhaps I *should* take that "Medicine for physicists" course next year ;)), but since U235 does not have the absorbing character U238 has, so much more radiation is emitted to the environment. So concerning the leakage of radiation by nuclear missiles: ironically you can only hope they are shielded by the same material that gives them their explosive power (shielded by U238, explosion by U235).

Comments/Corrections are welcome ;).

Bye!

Crisp

NMD is wholly unrelated to disarmament


Ah, but it isn't. It's a matter of perception. Why do think everyone is disagreeing? I can not think that there is one in this discussion that would think if they had a choice and could totally wipe the knowledge of such warfare out of humankind’s abilities that would not. (This includes the offending weapons)

I think part of the problem here is that the vision is a little shortsighted. Another part is that this is a razor-thin balance in which any tipping of the seesaw is scary ground. We're talking survival here. But to get out of this dilemma we have to do something or sooner or later we will be back to cold war days as some political entity or government goes to fill the gap.

Today are just a few missiles; tomorrow may well be a SDI with laser or particle beam defense. Cost, that is thrown around by all of us needs also to be looked at in maybe a different light. Through out history governments have financed that which has been too expensive for individuals and businesses. Can you imagine what a boondoggle people of the time must have thought of Queen Isabelle financing a trip looking for the Indies route? I'm sure there are better examples but the mind is not cooperating this am.

Originally posted by wet1
Today are just a few missiles; tomorrow may well be a SDI with laser or particle beam defense. Cost, that is thrown around by all of us needs also to be looked at in maybe a different light. Through out history governments have financed that which has been too expensive for individuals and businesses. Can you imagine what a boondoggle people of the time must have thought of Queen Isabelle financing a trip looking for the Indies route? I'm sure there are better examples but the mind is not cooperating this am.
1: Certainly cost shouldn't be an overriding factor for projects that are for the betterment of humanaity as long as they've a reasonable chance of working. I hate using phrases like 'cost/benefit ratio', but they are applicable. However, this won't better humanity, and the cost - not just in research, but in concomitant escalations - will be ridiculous.
2: SDI with particle beams? Great. Then the Chinese and the Russians will send anti-satellite weapons into orbit, and we've got a brand new arms race. Granted, this is happening at the moment to a minor degree, but SDI would mean a major escalation. Is this really worth having 5% fewer nukes on the planet? (a proposition, btw, on which you still haven't convinced me).

I guess what I'm after is a way to reduce the amount worldwide of necular material used for destruction. At the same time to increase the security of the world, especially the nations with a multitude of this capability of destruction vs those without. It is after all a prickly issue even when veiwed by the responce to this thread.

So now it is time to ask the readers of these posts because I can not believe that everyone is satisfied with status quo. In fact in the long haul I refuse to believe that something esle can not be come up with that is workable to all envolved besides MAD. If we are to live and continue to do so for future generations then something has to give.

I didn't mean that the whole SDI idea was above me in intelligent, but I do think its a stupid pipe dream that could do serious damage to the world if it succeeds. This whole damn mess started out with Regain's proposition, even then it was flawed. SDI didn't work in the traditional sense.

But the SDI program did work in ending the Cold War, and subsequently the Soviet Union before the 1990s. Though the Soviet Union's economy was on the verge of collapse in 1983 when this was proposed, it really went down hill when they tried to create their own SDI and build more nukes. I think this was more a cleaver ploy to bankrupt the Soviets by having them build more weapons to counter a defensive shield by the US and her allies.

We don't need a SDI shield! Disarmament can continue without any protection, MAD insures this. Why any country with more than fifty nuclear weapons should be scared about reducing their stockpiles is stupid. Nukes are such potent weapons that they haven't been used since the end of WWII because they will destroy unimaginable amounts of land, and millions or billions of people in the long run. A nuclear war is "unlikely". Could it happen, of course. But we survived fifty plus years of relative peace time with thousands of nuclear bombs ready to blow, why with a few less bombs we are ready to politically destabilize the world is just retarded.

In the years when this is finished, we will all be extremely sorry to see what has happened to the world. THIS IS GONING TO SPARK AN ARMS RACE AND THE SECOND COLD WAR WITH CHINA IF THIS ISN'T SHOT DOWN BY CONGRESS. I didn't want this with Clinton, and I don't want it with Bush.

We are going into a recession, Bush, Greenspan, and Toucan Sam couldn't stop this if they tried. We'll be in less happy times for the next few years, no big deal we've had worse. Actually maybe this will make some people realize how lucky they had it and teach them not to squander money.

Please all of you take an un-biased look at SDI, I hope you draw the conclusion I have.

P.S. Russia and China signed a Friendship Treaty, theres a Reuters' link in one of my earlier replies. This doesn't look good. Please check it out.

I'm kinda butting in here but...

Isn't the ABM Pact between Russia(or Soviet Union) and the US? So isn't it possible that as we speak China could be developing some ABM program. I am sure they have secret projects. One of my friends told me a few years ago that they were making lasers to blind enemy pilots.

Deadwood:

China is building and stock piling nukes. They are getting better by virtue of latest microprocessors they can yank out from Sony playstation (I think 128 bit). Same with Laser. The anti-SDI people argue that just as Russia and US are under a MAD program, as soon as China has an equivalent number of nukes, we will be in a threeway MAD program whether we have signed any agreement or not. And hence SDI will not buy us anything and we will spend a few billion unnecessary dollars.

My point is not based on MAD but pragmatism. If we develop SDI, then Chinese will do the same, which is OK. But for Chinese to do that, their industry infrastructure needs to get beefed up (because of the complexities involved). To do that they will be buying a lot of stuff from us. May be Chinese will sell us a few SDI weapons. My point is let the whole planet have those. Then if there is a asteroid stike, we can blow them apart on a planetary scale.

Yes, China does have heavy Laser research and the rumor is that they flashed on to one of our clandestine operations.

To everyone who has contributed to this thread,

I've just read the whole thread and have been shaking my head in disbelief (and fear). I am not a feminist, but with this topic, (and I'm not saying I understood everything that was written), I'm scared to death that the decision makers relating to nuclear weapons and defense issues are predominantly men. Do you think that if Governments of all countries were run by women this thread would even exist? I don't think so. Sure, there are some women who are aggressive, but the percentage is small and most of us would rather take care of Mother Earth than destroy it.
I'm not looking to offend any of you but, the subject matter is really frightening. "Peace on Earth and goodwill to man" sounds pretty good to me.

Teri ... You've got to be kidding!

Sure, there are some women who are aggressive, but the percentage is small and most of us would rather take care of Mother Earth than destroy it.
Old Mother Nature has made sure that ALL females, mammal ones at least, are a hell of a lot more aggressive than any male under certain circumstances - Particularly when protecting their ankle biters - and homo sap. isn't excluded.

The thing of it is, they're a lot smarter too! So they send their husbands and sons off to battle. And it's been noted for a long time. Why else would Homer (I think) have the scene where Mom tells her son who's going off to battle "Come back carrying your shield ... or on it."

Yeah, the 'gentler, less aggressive sex'! Tell me another one.

Actually, Teri, I would have to disagree. I have thought about what the world would be like if mostly women were in power. I came to the conclusion, and my mum helped me with this to, that when you give women power they are usually are picky to those underneath them. Also, women talk a lot behind each others backs, to see an example just watch big brother. All of the females bitch behind each others backs. Most of them in the Australian one were worried about the house being "one big bitch fest". I have gotten all of this info so far from women.

Also, it is mostly women who suffer from road rage. When something doesn't go their way, women don't like that at all. Women are also less compomising (in my experience anyway).

Also, if mostly women were in power, they would descriminate men and patronise them. This is from experience also. Women like to talk amongst themselves and care only for their gender. All men are responsible for their problems. If only their were no men then all of the worlds troubles would just go away.

Also women take things a lot more personally. Which is how I know I'm going to get flamed. To give a life experience. One english class we were all told to write down the things that come to mind about the opposite sex. While the guys say what they wrote dosn, you say all the girls mouths open wide in surprise and disgust. Then when it is their turn, all us guys just burst out with laughter. The girls gave us worser, but hey we just found it funny and in good humour.

Now I know I am going to get flamed heaps for what I have written, but I get this info mostly from women I've spoken to and personal experience.

Interesting to note, that if all I said were aimed at men, there would be no problem, but since its women I'm going to be called sexist. Oh well.

I am in agreement with Chagur and Deadwood, sorry ladies, based on my experience in the business world. While women are intuitive in certain matters (like business projections), my experience is that they can not handle being the boss.

Just one example. I had a lady programmer who was very good at what she did and took the initiative and leadership among the peers. I promoted her to be the supervisor of the team. We had several other female members in the team. It became so bad that in 2 months I had to demote her otherwise everybody would have quit. I have many personal experience like that.

Everyday, it was a soap opera. I could write a screen play on it.

From Worldbook 2000: "Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - Western analysts believe that China's real defense spending is several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere." They are spending a lot more cash than we think. Maybe so much in the military that they are already setting the PRC up for bankrupcey. Who knows. I still don't believe in an SDI system.

I still think lowering stockpiles can be achieved w/out SDI. If you build SDI for reducing nukes, isn't that more money than its worth?

I thought you were a student of history.

Don't you remember Eisenhower's caution re. the military/industrial complex as he left office? Who will benefit most from the money spent? You? Me? Any of us who are not involved with the military/industrial complex in this country?

Although, I don't think it's the military/industrial complex any more ... I think it's the Pentagon/industrial complex. The 'grunts' aren't going to see much of a benefit either.

Originally posted by Chagur
[Although, I don't think it's the military/industrial complex any more ... I think it's the Pentagon/industrial complex. The 'grunts' aren't going to see much of a benefit either.

I hope as a country, we are sensitive to the needs of the 'grunts'. Some of my friend's kids are in the military at that level. They are barely making their ends meet. May be we could incorporate SDI in a new infrastruture that improves the performance and quality of the grunts on and off base.

This is a whole different topic , we could start a thread on.

You bent my arm so we'll get back to SDI.

Found this interesting bit in today's London Times that falls right in with the SDI and Pentagon/industrial complex bit:
THE Pentagon admitted yesterday that the “Son of Star Wars” missile interception test flight over the Pacific on July 14 succeeded partly because the target, an unarmed Minuteman II ballistic missile warhead, had an electronic beacon on it to help to guide the “hit-to-kill” weapon. Didn't hear anything about this on the news this morning so I decided this would be an appropriate time to post it.

Jeez thats great, maybe when Bush goes to China he can convince their military to lo-jack every nuke warhead so we can find them easier.

This is why SDI won't work in the future, if ever. Its too easy to overwhealm, and trick.

/me rolling on the floor, laughing out loud :)

Bye!

Crisp

I'm unscribing too all threads need time off, see you all later.

We will miss you, thecurly1.
The info below comes from the Lockheed Martin website.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/images/spotlight/missiledefense/missilemain.jpg

The U.S. Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has identified four programs as "the bedrock of the theater ballistic missile defense architecture." They are the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD); the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system; and the Navy Area Defense (NAD) and Navy Theater Wide (NTW) programs. The U.S. Air Force is pursuing the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL) programs to provide the boost-phase element of the missile defense family of systems. Finally, the international Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program will provide future military forces with a highly mobile air and missile defense capability.

Lockheed Martin has major roles in all of these high-priority programs, ranging from the prime contractor and systems integrator role to the development of critical technologies such as hit-to-kill, infrared seekers, precision pointing and tracking optics, radar and signal processing. Through its involvement in these and other missile defense programs, Lockheed Martin is contributing to every U.S. land-based, airborne, naval and space-based missile defense initiative.

wet1:

Goodwork. Even though, they are improving PAC-3 performance, we still need a ground based high energy laser system for a coordinated defense system. While ABL is a good idea, it will not be very effective unless there are several ABLs after the same target. I favor ground systems where you can provide massive energy through multiple capacitor banks.

Like it or not, we will have what I said from the beginning....and rightly so....

Next step will be DU based Gatling gun using magnetic propulsion and supercavitation (just a speculation folks....dont kill the messenger...)

Does anybody know if the technology from SDI can be used for NEOs or potentially hazadous asteroids?



http://www.chromodynamix.co.uk/pix/image2_small.gif

Biggles:

Under the umbrella of SDI, there are more than 50 different projects are going on. It is a system than a specific gadget. So someday we will have such a capacity. Today, we could send nuclear missiles aboard space shuttle or rockets but its results may not be 100%.

From Fox News:
Pentagon Opens Missile Talks With Russians

U.S. officials opened talks at the Pentagon with their Russian counterparts Tuesday, making President Bush's case that his missile defense plan won't be an obstacle to cuts in nuclear forces.
But even before the two-day, closemouthed meeting began, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said not to expect too much at first.
Rumsfeld said the talks, which begin Tuesday, "will more likely be an exchange of information rather than an exchange of views."
He will go to Moscow next weekend to follow up.
The talks are the first in a series of three rounds designed to implement an agreement President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin reached July 22 in Genoa, Italy. That agreement links U.S. planning for a missile defense system with large cuts the Kremlin wants in the two nations' still-massive nuclear weapons arsenals.
After the Genoa meeting, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, went to Moscow to elaborate on U.S. strategic thinking. Rumsfeld said Friday this week's talks are a chance for the Russians to give the results of their review.
"They will have, one would hope, a much more detailed understanding of the kinds of things we're thinking about with respect to our offensive and defensive capabilities and the various ways that our two countries can cooperate," Rumsfeld said.

Looks like old Mother Nature (or whatever gods or goddess's there be) has thrown Homo Sap another curve.
Does anybody know if the technology from SDI can be used for NEOs or potentially hazadous asteroids? Project NEAR and dear little Eros pointed out a little survival problem. Although it was already considered that blasting apart a large asteroid might not be the brightest thing to do ... the difference between a single bullet and a shotgun blast ... and that a nudge to have it miss Earth might be a more appropriate ... We're now faced with the question: What do you do with an asteroid that is already a shot-gun shell load?

You can't nudge it off course!!!!!

Sleep on that one.