If you recall you and i had a discussion about ABM some months ago, and i mentioned i knew an expert in the field. If you wish to debate him about the effectiveness of mylar decoys, here's your chance. :)
You can find him here:
http://www.divine-salamis.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=688
Stuart
Leutnant
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 78
Location: Military-Industrial Complex
"People who are against ballistic missile defense are so for political and/or ideological reasons (the two may not be quite the same). However, they face a problem in arguing against a system that is purely defensive and exists only for the purpose of saving lives. There are some very contorted and spurious arguments against ABM (by the way, on terminology - ABM is a generic term used to mean shooting down ballistic missiles using any technology by anybody), the most common being that if the United States has a shield against missile attack it will immediately launch nuclear missile attacks on everybody else. The very existance of that argument tends to point out the political orientation of those making it.
Since there is no rational case that can be made against ABM on any reasonable theoretical grounds, the opponents of the system are forced to try and argue against it on technical grounds. They do so by manufacturing arguments that, in reality, are already invalid or long obsolete. For example; how often will you see claims that "a few mylar balloons" will fox the US ballistic missile defense system now being brought to readiness? Yet the truth is the decoy problem was solved over 40 years ago; it isn't a problem now and hasn't been for a very long time.
You'll also hear claims along the lines that "we can't build an air defense system that works and missile defense is much harder". Actually that's wrong on both grounds. We can and do build air defense systems that work very well (in the sense that defeating them requires a massive diversion of effort that would otherwise be used for something productive). Also, missile defense is much easier than air defense - missiles arrive in predictable ballistic arcs that essentially cannot be changed and do so without any form of support. Essentially, there are no "wild weasel" ballistic missiles to take down ABM batteries and radars, no worthwhile electronic countermeasures etc.
In short, the "technical objections" to ABM are dishonest attempts to disguise the motivations and orientation of the people who make those objections. To the informed, they are simply displaying their stupidity and ignorance. (by the way, the Scientific American (community) has a long, long history of opposing ABM that goes right back to the early 1960s - and they have displayed massive intellectual dishonesty throughout that period.)."
You can find him here:
http://www.divine-salamis.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=688
Stuart
Leutnant
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 78
Location: Military-Industrial Complex
"People who are against ballistic missile defense are so for political and/or ideological reasons (the two may not be quite the same). However, they face a problem in arguing against a system that is purely defensive and exists only for the purpose of saving lives. There are some very contorted and spurious arguments against ABM (by the way, on terminology - ABM is a generic term used to mean shooting down ballistic missiles using any technology by anybody), the most common being that if the United States has a shield against missile attack it will immediately launch nuclear missile attacks on everybody else. The very existance of that argument tends to point out the political orientation of those making it.
Since there is no rational case that can be made against ABM on any reasonable theoretical grounds, the opponents of the system are forced to try and argue against it on technical grounds. They do so by manufacturing arguments that, in reality, are already invalid or long obsolete. For example; how often will you see claims that "a few mylar balloons" will fox the US ballistic missile defense system now being brought to readiness? Yet the truth is the decoy problem was solved over 40 years ago; it isn't a problem now and hasn't been for a very long time.
You'll also hear claims along the lines that "we can't build an air defense system that works and missile defense is much harder". Actually that's wrong on both grounds. We can and do build air defense systems that work very well (in the sense that defeating them requires a massive diversion of effort that would otherwise be used for something productive). Also, missile defense is much easier than air defense - missiles arrive in predictable ballistic arcs that essentially cannot be changed and do so without any form of support. Essentially, there are no "wild weasel" ballistic missiles to take down ABM batteries and radars, no worthwhile electronic countermeasures etc.
In short, the "technical objections" to ABM are dishonest attempts to disguise the motivations and orientation of the people who make those objections. To the informed, they are simply displaying their stupidity and ignorance. (by the way, the Scientific American (community) has a long, long history of opposing ABM that goes right back to the early 1960s - and they have displayed massive intellectual dishonesty throughout that period.)."
Comment