Star Wars Today?

Lancaster · 06-20-2006

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 · 06-20-2006

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 · 06-20-2006

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 · 06-20-2006

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 · 06-20-2006

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.

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 · 06-20-2006

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 · 06-20-2006

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
The One Percent Doctrine

covered in yesterday's 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,

Buffy