Prometheus 6

Oh, the concept was fine on the laws of physics - that's what freaked out the Soviets, their scientists would say " Impossible...but theoretically....". It was the applied science part, unavoidable percentages of error and the phenomenal cost that were the stumbling blocks.

A useful bargaining chip however.

i find the comment on ballistic missles interesting. just stumbling though and came upon this site. the general that was quoted saying he was confident we could have shot or destroyed incoming threats is somewhat if not just comical. lets go back a few years to a time when we, as americans, were free. prior to 9/11. on september the 11th, 2001 we are told and (led) to believe a big plane hit the pentagon. not just big but BIG. this big plane was tracked by radar, NORAD, until it hit the pentagon. the criminal in charge that day, no not the number one criminal bush, but the second in command criminal, cheney, knew a (plane!!!!) was flying towards the pentagon many minutes, more than 30 if i am right and many miles before it struck the unoccupied and under construction, part of the pentagon. this big plane completly vaporized when hitting the fortified and indistructable walls of the most heavily armed building in the united states of america. this big plane flew over many military bases on its way to the pentagon. this big plane flew over and into the most fortified air space in the united states of america. this big plane flew over the secretary of defense's office, the third criminal, and made a sharp right hand turn and then inches above the ground into the unoccupied and under construction, part of the pentagon. now i have never been in the pentagon nor have i worked in the pentagon but i believe i have read that the pentagon has its own built in defense system, you know, anti whatever missile system just for something like that. now the reason i bring all this up is that on september the 11th, 2001, a building with a built in missle system failed to protect the most fortified building and better yet failed to fire at all the general will lead us to believe that our defense system will protect us from missles from another country is again comical. this government did not protect americans on that horrible day what makes one think they will protect us at all. thousands of innocent americans were murdered on 9/11 not by some cave dwelling man but but our own government. we as americans have to stop putting our head in the sand and believing the news that is force fed to america. we have to wake up. we have to stand up. what would my heros think of us today as we stand by and allow this to continue. this beautiful woman stood up and said enough is enough, Rosa Parks. these two wonderfull men stood up and said enough is enough Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his life for his belief. Nelson Mandela stood behind bars for over 20 years for standing up for his belief. Slavery is upon us, not because of the color of our skin, but because we are Americans.

If anybody believes that Reagan's Star Wars is doable, let alone would make us safer, I would urge them to read Michael Bronner's piece entitled "9/11 Live: The Norad Tapes" that appears in the September issue of Vanity Fair. (Yes, the cover photo of Kate Moss is ludicrous as is most of the fashion content of the magazine but she and the clothes featured ain't my style anyway.) Bronner uses the actual recordings made by Air Force and civilian personnel to develop a minute-by-minute look at how NORAD responded to the airplane hijackings that day. 

The teaser on the cover of the magazine says "What The Air Force Didn't Do On 9/11". This might lead you to believe that the Air Force screwed up but it did not. I came away not with any sense that the Air Force was or is incompetent but, rather, the task of trying to manage hundreds of fast moving flying objects operating in a large complex field or theatre in a crisis situation is simply beyond the capablities of human beings no matter how much technology they have at their command. In fact, the technololgy only adds to the complexities of the challenges and makes it even more difficult for humans to sort out what is actually going on.

The notion that we or anybody, except in a science fiction novel, could develop a anti-missle defense that would allow us to intercept a missle barrage from another state or a para-state is absurd. It won't work.  

Hi ptcruiser,

" rather, the task of trying to manage hundreds of fast moving flying objects operating in a large complex field or theatre in a crisis situation is simply beyond the capablities of human beings no matter how much technology they have at their command"

We do this already. It's the premise behind most of our joint operations integrating air, sea and land forces in network-centric operations and effects based operations. The difference between NCO/EBO and NDI and SDI are orders of magnitude. Many, many, orders of magnitude in the latter case.

"The notion that we or anybody, except in a science fiction novel, could develop a anti-missle defense that would allow us to intercept a missle barrage from another state or a para-state is absurd. It won't work."

Depends how you define " work".

In terms of giving 100 % protection from a Soviet-size first strike, I'd say that you are correct. Even a 99.5 % success rate, something decades beyond current capabilities, would still mean millions of dead Americans.

In terms of affecting the enemy's first-strike calculations for deterrence purposes  or stopping a single " accidental" launch or against conventional ballistic missiles ( where errors are more " acceptable") from a middle-rank power it has its uses as a potential theater defense as long as one accepts that you are only minimizing or reducing the effects of being attacked and not trying for perfect security.

The difference between NCO/EBO and NDI and SDI are orders of magnitude. Many, many, orders of magnitude in the latter case.

Conceptually, yes (which is what kept the Soviets up at night). But actually? One good EMP and your interceptors are ballistic at best.

Meanwhile, the dumb part of the article is that giving Reagan his way would have just pissed away more money on systems we don't have the tech to implement to this day. 

Hi zenpundit,

I am not sure what you mean by "(W)e do this already" given what happened on 9/11. NORAD, for example, thought that United 93 was still in the air 35 minutes after it had crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Jet fighters were sent scrambling after "ghost" airplanes etc. Again, I don't attribute any of these incidents to imcompetence. I think that large complex systems are much vulnerable to disruption when an unexpected crisis occurs.

For Americans, "work" means 100 percent security. I don't agree but that's the attitude or beliefs of those who occupy this territory with us. I don't want to seem cruel or uncaring but folks who are seriously proposing to spend a billion dollars or more for a memorial at the site of the World Trade Center don't have much of a sense of irony or an appreciation of hubris.

Sorry PT, clarification:

The U.S. military is *capable* of setting up an integrated satellite/radar/AWAC/SIGINT network that handles a phenomenal amount variables and delivers data in almost real-time to facilitate highly complex joint air operations. We saw a primitive version during Gulf War I ( which so freaked out the Chinese and Russians that the DoD has been careful never to televise the current state of our capabilities again). This monitoring and delivery of information is the crux of network-centric operations, of which the late Admiral Arthur Cebrowski was the foremost theorist and advocate. It also facilitates and increases the precision of EBO campaigns.

That being said, it takes some time to put this network together - I don't believe we have something like this running for the continental U.S. and certainly not prior to 9/11 because I'm not seeing the investment in civilian agencies to replicate this capability and most of our military commands ( and thus our assets) are overseas.

NORAD, of course, has tracking capabilities and probably it has been modified since the Cold War to be more NCO ready but my impression is that we customize the network to the intended target area.

Be interesting to see if NORAD had any unusual budget increases lately.

P6,

Yeah, the Russians were too afraid of what we'd come up with if we kept plowing megabillions into exotic tech to say go ahead with your boondoggle. Guys born to peasant families when the Tsar was still around and survived to join the Soviet politburo watched the United States  a) build and use atomic weapons and b) put a man on the moon. They were daunted by that track record.