Anon

Feel free to go and debate him.

That's why i gave you the link.

"If someone really wanted to set off a nuke in the US, they would ship it over here on a container ship. Alternatively an air-breathing cruise missile would do quite nicely and the technology is simpler than an ICBM (remember the V1?). In either case, you are back to 0% effective."

BS. You are stating there is a zero % chance that either mode of delivery can be stopped, which is a patently ridiculous claim. It also implies a 100% weapon success rate(ie, it will work as designed), which is also impossible to realistically achieve.

dalem

I think your logic fails here. You are correct in that we can come up with a half-dozen "If someone really wanted to X..." scenarios, but that's hardly the point. One doesn't defend solely against the easiest methods, one also defends against likely threats. And for two reasons - one 100% practical (i.e. you stop the attack), and the other 100% political (i.e. you stop the threat of the attack from even being considered).

Here's a reasonable example of what I'm trying to say:

Since WWII, no one has been able to threaten the United States with a blockade. Before WWII it was not impossible, but since that time it has become impossible - no hostile naval force has a survival time greater than a day or so within a few hundred miles of our coasts. So that is a form of attack that we are protected form in a practical sense by our military, and the political reality follows, and no leverage is gained by enemies looking for a vulnerability to threaten.

ICBMs are a threat to us - it is something that we cannot shrug off, and therefore anyone with a capability of launching even one single nuke-tipped missile gains bargaining power with us, and maneuvering room. As our ability to stop such attacks increases, the geopolitical leverage of our enemies decreases. That in itself is a desirable goal, even if the system itself is limited to stopping one narrow type of threat.

No, A real threat is as you describe above, not THE real threat. And I'd rather front fewer plans that give Kim money, especially because he's a devious little sack who's probably nuts to boot. The faster that sonuva***** goes broke the better off everyone will be.

Really? So you're a "glass half-empty" kind of guy. List three weapons systems concepts in the last 100 years that you would label as technological failures.

-dale

Broken

No, I said there is 0% chance of stopping either of these attacks with an ABM. It's been four years since 9/11, but almost no progress on protecting ports against container nukes. Why not? Not enough lobbying in Washington? Just about any "commercial" Chinese, Korean, etc, ship could be used as a cruise missile platform. What is the defence?

Anon

"No, I said there is 0% chance of stopping either of these attacks with an ABM. It's been four years since 9/11, but almost no progress on protecting ports against container nukes. Why not? Not enough lobbying in Washington? Just about any "commercial" Chinese, Korean, etc, ship could be used as a cruise missile platform. What is the defence?"

The Nations capital has been completely ringed in with SAMs.

They just didn't make a public announcement is all.

Broken

The easiest methods are the most likely. Why spend billions developing an ICBM when you can simply sneak your nuke into some US port? Such an attack has the added benefit of being difficult to trace back to the culprit.

Unfortunately we cannot keep track of what is on all the thousands of commercial ships moving in and out of US waters. The Navy knows this is a problem, it just hasn't come up with a good answer.
ICBMs are just one means of attacking with nuclear weapons. None of the other WMDs even remotely compare with the destructive power of a nice little one megaton bomb. It stands to reason we should implement the most practical countermeasures first. It also stands to reason we should deploy working ABM technology. The HTK interceptors are not working ABM technology. It is wasted money that could have been spent on port defence or more viable ABM technology such as boost phase. The HTK interceptors simply provoke countries like China into upgrading their small force of ICBMs into a larger, more survivable one. Does that really make you feel safer?
I won't get into a debate with you over Kim's mental stability or the lack there of. However, a desperate nut-job is usually the most dangerous variety.


Do I have to stop at three?

1) Nuclear powered bomber - Pluto project. If this plane ever flew, the radiation from it's exhaust would have killed more than its payload.

2) Dyna-soar. Aptly named, this was intended as a sub-orbital nuclear bomber.

3) B70 Mach 5 nuclear bomber (cancelled after USSR deployed high altitude SAM).

4) Spartan-Sprint ABM (one base deployed, shut down 24 hours later).

5) B-1 Bomber (deployed even though it's electronic counter-measures suite proved to be totally inadequate in meeting performance goals).

6) Star Wars ABM. Tens of billions, no deployment.

These are just some of the hilights in the strategic systems. We all know of failed conventional systems (Osprey, DIVAD, etc, etc, etc, etc).

Anon

"The easiest methods are the most likely. Why spend billions developing an ICBM when you can simply sneak your nuke into some US port? Such an attack has the added benefit of being difficult to trace back to the culprit."

Because the DPRK is not pursuing a container ship bomb, they're pursuing ICBMs.

It is your position that just becasue something is hard to stop, that we should not try???

"1) Nuclear powered bomber - Pluto project. If this plane ever flew, the radiation from it's exhaust would have killed more than its payload."

We flew a nuclear powered aircraft i believe. I don't recall it killing anyone. Regardless, it was just an R&D program, and was not based on a RFP(Request For Proposal) from the US military.

"2) Dyna-soar. Aptly named, this was intended as a sub-orbital nuclear bomber."

It was just a proposal. There was never a RFP issued by the US military calling for a sub-orbital bomber that i know of.

"3) B70 Mach 5 nuclear bomber (cancelled after USSR deployed high altitude SAM)."

He said FAILED technology. The B-70 worked fine, it was cancelled for operational reasons.

"4) Spartan-Sprint ABM (one base deployed, shut down 24 hours later)."

That was a policy decision, not a failure of the technology.

"5) B-1 Bomber (deployed even though it's electronic counter-measures suite proved to be totally inadequate in meeting performance goals)."

The B-1, while a hanger queen, has been succesfully used in combat on myriad occasions. HARDLY what one would call a failure.

"6) Star Wars ABM. Tens of billions, no deployment."

SDI was just an R&D program. No RFP was ever issued by the US Military for any specified system. The SDI program also helped to massively spur the development of lasers. The whole reason you have DvD players today is because of the work done on starwars.

"These are just some of the hilights in the strategic systems. We all know of failed conventional systems (Osprey, DIVAD, etc, etc, etc, etc)."

Osprey is not cancelled, it's probably going to be deployed.
DIVAD was a poorly executed design, but it was NOT a failure of the base technologies.

dalem

There you go again. Tell that to Kim. Or the "Moo-lahs" in Iran. They are pursuing these weapons systems whether you approve of their economic viability or not.

Irrelevant to my point.

Sure it does. I'd rather have us working on something that turns out to be a dead end than nothing at all.

I disagree. Nutjobs - assuming he really is as nutty as he acts - are already inherently dangerous.

All refinements of the high-altitude bomber concept which is a proven concept. I don't class the concept as a failure.

I do not know enough about historical U.S. ABM programs to argue one way or another. So I'll grant you this one.

Another bomber. It even flies and drops bombs. Bombers work.

A good test-bed though, and the concept of space-based ABM is not in itself a stupid one.

Right, more refinements of basic concepts of AA and AAA. I was thinking much more broadly. But then again I already implied I am more of a "glass half-full" kind of guy. I would consider the early efforts at air-based air power, i.e. the dirgible-based fighters to be a worthwhile endeavor, even though the concept itself of air-based air power was proven unsound.

But if we had those big Brit prop bases like in Sky Captain I'd wet myself.

-dale

Broken

And how do you know the inner workings of DPRKs plans? A containership bomb is rather useless if it is not kept secret.
My position is that we should spend money on systems that are most likely to produce useful results. Prioritize for the best bang for the buck. US resources are not infinite. It is fair to say they are a lot more finite than they used to be, since we are running a massive deficit to support current efforts. The "free world" was willing to finance US deficits during the Cold War. That is not true in the current international environment.
Pluto never flew. Some wag once calculated that a Pluto bomber could kill more people by simply overflying the USSR than by bombing it. I am not privy to his calculations, but I do know that the engine radiation was so high that it prevented test of the aircraft.

Pluto was started on the rumour that the USSR had a working nuclear-powered bomber. This of course was false, but billions in today's dollars were spent developing the technology.

Dalem's challenge was to list weapons systems that were "technological failures". Some of the projects I listed were from a time before RFPs were called RFPs, but large budget authorizations were given for all of them. My intent was to list expensive projects that could have been identified early-on as impractical.
Check this Link . The project was halted before production. Some of the test data may eventually prove useful, but the relevant technology has advanced considerably since the early 1960s.
If it cannot accomplish it's mission, it is failed technology, correct? A high altitude SAM is an obvious countermeasure to a high altitude bomber. Why was this not anticipated? By the way, the high altitude escort to the B-70, the YF-12, eventually became the SR-71.
The policy decision was based on the fact that the technology was unworkable. The base was activated for 24 hours to cover some political butt exposed by the high program cost.
It was a failure because the enormous cost of these aircraft was justified by performance goals the aircraft never met. A much cheaper aircraft could have been built which exceeded the B-1s delivered performance, especially in reliability. The electronic counter-measures suite, a major program cost-driver, was a complete failure.
SDI was a fifty billion dollar R&D program. The technology goals were far beyond what could be practically delivered. Perhaps it was useful in getting the Soviets to waste money of their own, but they were already on the ropes.
Yes, Oprey has been resurrected yet again. There are some programs that are so badly managed or violate the KISS principle so profoundly, they should just be left to die. Osprey is one of them.

DIVAD is an example of politics ruining a fine weapons system. There was a competitive run-off between GD and Ford AeroSpace prototypes. The GD system won hands down. The Ford DIVAD turret would not even fit on the test vehicle (they measured wrong). The test was dumbed down to where the Ford system could finally pass, and then Ford won on projected cost. A fine example of good lobbying beating good engineering.

Confed999

Broken, by your statements, the bolt action rifle and biplane are failed technologies.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Broken

The bolt action rifle was deployed in the millions of units, used in thousands of actions, and killed a great many enemy. Only one of the above weapon systems was deployed at all, (the B1 occasionally limps out of the hanger). The rest of them never reached active deployment, were never used in action, and never harmed a flea. And yet they cost far more than all the bolt action rifles ever built.

Great weapons come from working with the actual users of such weapons (the soldiers) combined with well-understood technology and good program management. Research projects should remain Research projects; it's much cheaper that way.

Confed999

...

Ironduke

Not failed, obsolete. That B-70 Valkyrie, for example, was able to do everything it was designed to do, therefore it was a technological success. Developments in SAM technology rendered it obsolete. No inherent flaws in the technology itself.

The V-22 Osprey is what I'd call failed technology.

Broken

Yes, the semantics can be parsed. "Obsolete on delivery" is OK with me.
The Valkyrie is beautiful technology. The concept was fatally flawed, not the engineering.
Yes, Osprey is the opposite of the Valkyrie; decent concept, dismal design.

The Chap

Ooopssie! Perhaps I stumbled upon the wrong "thread". I become so confused.

This tilt-rotor death trap is being compared to the bomber or the opera.? The bomber that started the tech race that bancrupted the USSR. Even if it never entered active service it did its job. Something of a shame that we brits had to give up the one it was based upon ...

That's lend-lease for you ...

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

Broken

Tilt-rotor death trap is a good description. But we are getting a bit off track; the original discussion was the HTK Interceptor ABM program. This boon-doogle costs us $10 billion a year. It is a program put into production without passing any realistic proof of concept tests.

The money would be much more reasonably spent on boost-phase ABM. If you don't like that idea, the $10 billion could be used to fund the F-22 Raptor, which may get it's 380 aircraft purchase order cut in half, due to a lack of $10 billion.