The Shotgun Blog
« Press Review | Main | That James Carville, Such A Nut! »
Monday, November 15, 2004
Screw the bullets. We got us some lasers.
The bankruptcy in the logic of those who oppose missile defense has always been obvious by the way they, on one hand, argue that the technology will lead to a new global arms race as nations build increasingly sophisticated weapons to evade the missile shield, and on the other, that the missile shield will never work anyway. (Most of them also think it means putting weapons in space, but those people are just ignorant).
Here's Carolyn Parrish proving my point:
• The technology to “shoot down a bullet with a bullet” is not now available and is not likely to be perfected anytime in the reasonable future. The first tests are not scheduled until 2007.
• The continued pursuit of this technology is making the U.S., and any coalition of partners, less secure in that it encourages others to rise to the BMD challenge with more and newer technologies, and increases the possibility of accidents
Pick one.
My advice? Go with the arms race argument. It's lame, but betting against the military technologies of the U.S. is always a bad idea. Besides, it makes you sound like one of those old-tyme stick-in-the-muds that used to predict in the fifties that television was just a fad.
Especially since the U.S. has already moved waaaay past the whole bullet thing:
"The United States has reported a successful ground-based test of an airborne laser meant to intercept ballistic missiles.
The Missile Defense Agency said the megawatt-class laser underwent a successful test on Nov. 10. The Pentagon agency said the laser was operated in a ground-based demonstration at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
Officials said this marked the first time that a directed energy weapon meant for use in a Boeing 747 aircraft has been demonstrated.
The test, which lasted a fraction of a second, involved the simultaneous firing of all six laser modules and associated optics that comprise the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser. Officials said the modules,built by Northrop Grumman, performed as expected."
I have no clue what a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser is, but I feel safer already.
Posted by Kevin Libin on November 15, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83457493569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Screw the bullets. We got us some lasers.:
» Spaghetti Logic from small dead animals
Reminiscent of enviro-leftist warnings about the "devastating flooding created by not enough water to fill the dam" Rafferty-Alameda project here in Saskatchewan in the 1980's, Kevin Libin wonders if the Missile Defense Shield Antis might refine their ... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-11-15 3:46:05 PM
Comments
5 words: Strategy of technology - Possony - Pournelle.
Whatever can be done, will be done, whether we opt in or out. If space can be weaponized to advantage, it will be. We can decide which side of the advantage boundary to occupy. Si vis pacem, para bellum (hope I got the Latin correct).
Posted by: lrC | 2004-11-15 2:20:06 PM
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/000235.html
Flashback moment.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-11-15 2:48:56 PM
Robert, in you're typical myopic Canadian-anti-Ameican fashion, you've got it backwards.
The guns (ballistic missiles) ARE in the hands of the enemy (from http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Oct/28-383322.html
"...North Korea remains the world's foremost proliferator of ballistic missiles and related technology to rogue states and hostile regimes, and they have even gone so far as to threaten to transfer nuclear materials or weapons. The hard currency North Korea earns from these illicit sales goes directly into funding Kim Jong Il's nuclear weapons program. Moreover, it destabilizes regions around the world, as countries must learn to cope with the threats posed by longer-range missiles -- missiles specifically designed to carry chemical, biological, or even nuclear warheads...").
Currently, no (Anti-BM) defense exists, beyond the one that brought the end to the Cold War: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). For such nutcases like Kim, or the Islamo-Facists, this won't work.
A responsible government (America) sees the current and future need to create a better defense for their citizenry against such an attack.
Those of us who remember the Cuban missile crisis firsthand, and knew at the time just what it meant, understand all this. This attitude is not rooted in fear, however you may wish to say so: intstead, it is based on extrapolation from the past. Immature Canadians such as yourself who jeer at Americans for even thinking of taking this preventive action never will understand.
Certainly, Americans are not going to put any aspect of their defense in the hands of such lack-luster "allies" as yourself. They may as well trust the French to act honorably.
Posted by: Mike | 2004-11-15 8:58:54 PM
Darn. Operating time warp, and editing for correct spelling of "fascists" now...
Posted by: Mike | 2004-11-15 9:50:53 PM
The technology to "shoot down a bullet with a bullet" has existed at least since the UK's Seawolf missile system was reportedly capable of intercepting cannon shells in mid-flight in the late '70s or early '80s.
The point of the strategy of technology, Robert, is that you price the arms race out of range of all but the most foolish and (initially, but not subsequently) wealthy nations. It was a large part of what caused the Soviet Union to cough up its skull. Which nations do you think are going to spend the money to develop offensive missile systems that might get a few through a BMD system, with only the capability to effectively annoy, and thereby invite the predictable response? If Iran or N Korea want to bankrupt themselves buying offensive systems, bring it on: it can only hasten their respective collapses.
Posted by: lrC | 2004-11-16 12:21:33 AM
While it may be possible to shoot down missiles, the cost:benefit ratio doesn't seem to be worth it - at least while more pressing needs still exist (e.g., securing ports, border controls, etc.).
Most security analysts put the risk from Ballistic Missiles well below biological agents, dirty bombs, even conventional bombs, etc.
And yes, it is a zero-sum game because there is only so much you can tax and/or go into debt before the wheels fall off the buggy.
Posted by: k | 2004-11-16 9:33:16 AM
Risk analysis requires evaluation of at least likelihood of occurrence and impact of outcome. A very small likelihood with a catastrophic outcome is not to be ignored.
Cost:benefit ratio is irrelevant when the public good is at stake. We established that precedent with the firearm registry, remember? Ask the Liberals: $1B is not too large a price to pay if even one life is saved. BMD has the potential to save at least 10,000 lives in the event of a deliberate or accidentally inbound missile. Any BMD spending we are realistically considering is well within that envelope.
Posted by: lrC | 2004-11-16 12:53:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.