US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

[Sea Skimmer]

I think you could argue that it's even worse. At least the Maginot Line would have been a bitch to confront head-on. This one can be effortlessly overwhelmed by simply attacking with a reasonably large volley, even if everything works exactly as advertised.

The threat is not nations with hundreds of ICBM warheads however so your conclusion is meaningless. One M16 wont stop a 100-man human wave attack either, but that doesn't mean we should send infantry into action without rifles.

[Patrick Degan]

So, you're saying that it's a victory if only 500 warheads get through rather than a thousand. Do enlighten us on how the country is less destroyed, please.

Certainly. What's the distribution of warheads that have impacted? 500 surviving warheads is not a particularly large amount considering the sheer number of targets in CONUS alone. How many missile silos do we have? Railway marshalling yards? Bomber-capable airfields? There's more to nuclear warfare than simply saying "lets flatten all of their cities!" - and even that requires a fairly decent spread of missiles. How many millions might be saved if 500 RVs are shot down?

No enemy is going to waste warheads on what would be empty silos in an exchange scenario. The strike would be completely counter-value in nature. Nor does it require "flattening every city" to destroy the United States as a contiguous sociopolitical unit —which would be the point of the exercise.

No, your offense simply has an additional hurdle to clear, which is far less difficult than you fantasise.

A rather expensive hurdle.

Oh really? Building more rockets off your assembly line and more warheads is more expensive than building a sophisticated array of ABM weapons? Brute force solutions are always cheaper than technologically complex ones.

Or you simply mix decoys in with the warhead barrage. It's cheaper to build more rockets than sophisticated battlestations.

Decoys are countermeasures, so I don't see your point here. Decoys take up valuable space and payload mass on a booster.

Or you simply build —and launch— more rockets with more wearheads and decoys.

Except the plane-mounted laser is nowhere close to becoming reality either.

Pity there is going to be a live-fire test next year, yes?

Which at this point proves nothing, yes?

Of course other countries will attempt to devise counters to ABM, that's entirely expected. And the US will then devise counters to those counters and so on.

So instead of doing something sensible like diplomacy, it's much better to touch off another hyperexpensive arms race. Brilliant thinking.

[Sea Skimmer]

No enemy is going to waste warheads on what would be empty silos in an exchange scenario. The strike would be completely counter-value in nature. Nor does it require "flattening every city" to destroy the United States as a contiguous sociopolitical unit —which would be the point of the exercise.

Any nation capable of assembling a large array of ICBM's certainly will care about more then air bursting over a few cities.

Oh really? Building more rockets off your assembly line and more warheads is more expensive than building a sophisticated array of ABM weapons? Brute force solutions are always cheaper than technologically complex ones.

You must build a far far larger rocket, and you must give it an incredibly complex guidance system and you need to load it with expensive nuclear warhead armed RV's. ABM interceptors are cheeper. And of course you also need a place to store the thing, SSBN's, missile silos and land mobile launchers are all very expensive to build and maintain. An ABM missile can get away with much cheaper protection because of its nature.

Or you simply build —and launch— more rockets with more wearheads and decoys.

And so you spend far more money, while the defence system match's the buildup at lower cost, while being owned by the richest nation on earth.

So instead of doing something sensible like diplomacy, it's much better to touch off another hyperexpensive arms race. Brilliant thinking.

Arms races never end or begin except when a new weapon is deployed, which ABM isn't, and the US is in the position of having more money while needing to spend less of it to win, if in fact its goal was to match the deployments of large highly developed nations.

[phongn]

No enemy is going to waste warheads on what would be empty silos in an exchange scenario. The strike would be completely counter-value in nature. Nor does it require "flattening every city" to destroy the United States as a contiguous sociopolitical unit —which would be the point of the exercise.

They will if silos can be reloaded at some point (the MX silos are cold-launched), and you ignored the scores of airfields the US has which can be used to marshal the bomber portion of the Triad. Or the various military targets. No-one is going to launch a total counter-population strike.

Pity there is going to be a live-fire test next year, yes?

Which at this point proves nothing, yes?

You said it was nowhere near close to reality, when I argued that it is nothing of the sort. You further ignore previous airborne laser testbeds.

So instead of doing something sensible like diplomacy, it's much better to touch off another hyperexpensive arms race. Brilliant thinking.

And yet under the Moscow Treaty we're reducing nuclear arms, aren't we? That occured after the abandonment of the ABM Treaty. Furthermore, I said nothing about touching off an arms race, only that offense and defense would continue to counter each other.

As for the rest, I do believe Sea Skimmer has address them.

[Patrick Degan]

No enemy is going to waste warheads on what would be empty silos in an exchange scenario. The strike would be completely counter-value in nature. Nor does it require "flattening every city" to destroy the United States as a contiguous sociopolitical unit —which would be the point of the exercise.

Any nation capable of assembling a large array of ICBM's certainly will care about more then air bursting over a few cities.

Since the "nuclear Pearl Harbour" scenario is not even remotely feasible, what exactly is the basis for your surmise?

Oh really? Building more rockets off your assembly line and more warheads is more expensive than building a sophisticated array of ABM weapons? Brute force solutions are always cheaper than technologically complex ones.

You must build a far far larger rocket, and you must give it an incredibly complex guidance system and you need to load it with expensive nuclear warhead armed RV's blah blah blah blahblahblah...

Or you simply build more rockets with more warheads and decoys. This really isn't a difficult equation to grasp.

And so you spend far more money, while the defence system match's the buildup at lower cost, while being owned by the richest nation on earth.

As you wish...

So instead of doing something sensible like diplomacy, it's much better to touch off another hyperexpensive arms race. Brilliant thinking.

Arms races never end or begin except when a new weapon is deployed, which ABM isn't, and the US is in the position of having more money while needing to spend less of it to win, if in fact its goal was to match the deployments of large highly developed nations.

Then, if other nations don't pose the scale of threat which requires a large ABM system in the first place, and deploying one would trigger off a new arms race which you didn't have before, what useful purpose is served by doing so?

[Sea Skimmer]

SDI = Maginot Line Mk II.

So your saying ABM will be so effective the enemy won't even try to assail it and will instead have to pour money into alternative nuclear delivery means?

[Patrick Degan]

No enemy is going to waste warheads on what would be empty silos in an exchange scenario. The strike would be completely counter-value in nature. Nor does it require "flattening every city" to destroy the United States as a contiguous sociopolitical unit —which would be the point of the exercise.

They will if silos can be reloaded at some point (the MX silos are cold-launched), and you ignored the scores of airfields the US has which can be used to marshal the bomber portion of the Triad. Or the various military targets. No-one is going to launch a total counter-population strike.

Why not?

Pity there is going to be a live-fire test next year, yes?

Which at this point proves nothing, yes?

You said it was nowhere near close to reality, when I argued that it is nothing of the sort. You further ignore previous airborne laser testbeds.

Nice Strawman. Experiments and an actual, practical weapon system are nowhere near the same thing.

So instead of doing something sensible like diplomacy, it's much better to touch off another hyperexpensive arms race. Brilliant thinking.

And yet under the Moscow Treaty we're reducing nuclear arms, aren't we? That occured after the abandonment of the ABM Treaty.

Then why jeopardise that?

Furthermore, I said nothing about touching off an arms race, only that offense and defense would continue to counter each other.

Words don't exist to describe how comical that statement is.

As for the rest, I do believe Sea Skimmer has address them.

Very poorly.

[Patrick Degan]

SDI = Maginot Line Mk II.

So your saying ABM will be so effective the enemy won't even try to assail it and will instead have to pour money into alternative nuclear delivery means?

Man of Straw.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why not?

Because they'd rather the US not keep fighting them while they rebuild.

Then why jeopardise that?

Cleary it has not been.

Very poorly.

You've done nothing but claim decoys work, when in fact they where overcome long ago, and that a weapon that's more complex and far larger, ICBM vs. ABM missile, can be built in greater quantity.

[Patrick Degan]

Why not?

Because they'd rather the US not keep fighting them while they rebuild.

HUUUGE Leap of Logic there. You're assuming the United States would be in any shape after a nuclear war to oppose the enemy's rebuilding itself. Or that there would still be any such thing as "the United States of America".

Then why jeopardise that?

Cleary it has not been.

Yet.

You've done nothing but claim decoys work, when in fact they where overcome long ago

As Darth Wong would say, you have to demonstate why this is so instead of merely asserting it so —otherwise your reply is just noise.

and that a weapon that's more complex and far larger, ICBM vs. ABM missile, can be built in greater quantity.

An ICBM is not a horribly complex machine, no matter what you've been led to believe. And while the ABM rockets themselves may not be complex, the overall ABM system is. That's the Achilles' Heel.

[Sea Skimmer]

As Darth Wong would say, you have to demonstate why this is so instead of merely asserting it so —otherwise your reply is just noise.

And you've done jack shit to prove that decoys work. Its your claim decoys can beat ABM. You need somthing that shows up the same way on sensors as the real thing, thats hard to do without using up the same space and weight as the real thing, in which case you might as well just buy another warhead. So prove that it can be done.

An ICBM is not a horribly complex machine, no matter what you've been led to believe. And while the ABM rockets themselves may not be complex, the overall ABM system is. That's the Achilles' Heel.

No it's really not since much of the system remains the same regardless of how many interceptors are available to launch. And of course the enemy's nuclear C4I system and whatever stores the missiles isn't cheep either.

[phongn]

Why not?

And allow surviving US nuclear forces to continue staging against them? Are you seriously telling me that they would go straight for the cities and leave the US nuclear forces untouched and free to operate for as long as possible?

It's your claim that 500 warheads will be able to destroy the US, by all means provide evidence that such a strike would be totally counter-population.

Nice Strawman. Experiments and an actual, practical weapon system are nowhere near the same thing.

And testing for the YAL-1 doesn't count as being "near" an operational system? The years of airborne laser research don't count? It's hardly a strawman.

Then why jeopardise that?

I argued that we're decreasing warheads after we publically comitted to the abandonment of the ABM Treaty - and that we were in no way jeopardizing this.

Words don't exist to describe how comical that statement is.

Is there an arms race for conventional armor versus antitank munitions right now? For aircraft and SAMs? I don't call those arms races, despite the fact that offense and defense keep trying to one-up each other in those instances.

[Patrick Degan]

As Darth Wong would say, you have to demonstate why this is so instead of merely asserting it so —otherwise your reply is just noise.

And you've done jack shit to prove that decoys work. Its your claim decoys can beat ABM. You need somthing that shows up the same way on sensors as the real thing, thats hard to do without using up the same space and weight as the real thing, in which case you might as well just buy another warhead. So prove that it can be done.

Exactly what do you think we have? Star Trek sensors which can simply look through anything and determine its composition? What do we have which is more sophisticated than RADAR? And how difficult do you really imagine it would be to build a decoy RV with the same mass and flight characteristics as a genuine warhead?

An ICBM is not a horribly complex machine, no matter what you've been led to believe. And while the ABM rockets themselves may not be complex, the overall ABM system is. That's the Achilles' Heel.

No it's really not since much of the system remains the same regardless of how many interceptors are available to launch. And of course the enemy's nuclear C4I system and whatever stores the missiles isn't cheep either.

An ABM system requires more sophisticated dynamic tracking of incoming RVs than the BMEWS and present observation satellite system can provide. All of that would have to be built, maintained, and augmented at far greater expense than building more ICBMs. Furthermore, it's not at all difficult to dedicate a warhead or three to an EMP strike to ionise the atmosphere, which would degrade radar performance and interfere with uplink communication.

[phongn]

Exactly what do you think we have? Star Trek sensors which can simply look through anything and determine its composition? What do we have which is more sophisticated than RADAR?

For one, the IR image of a decoy is different than that of an actual RV.

And how difficult do you really imagine it would be to build a decoy RV with the same mass and flight characteristics as a genuine warhead?

It's quite easy. It also would be about the same size of an RV anyways.

An ABM system requires more sophisticated dynamic tracking of incoming RVs than the BMEWS and present observation satellite system can provide. All of that would have to be built, maintained, and augmented at far greater expense than building more ICBMs.

And what if the planned replacement for DSP is capable of that kind of observation? It's already a cost that would have been required to handle anyways (SBIRS Hi/Lo). And yes, BMEWS has to be upgraded and the X-Band radar constructed, but how much more expensive are those upgrades compared to the sheer number of ICBMs that must be fielded due to virtual attrition?

Furthermore, it's not at all difficult to dedicate a warhead or three to an EMP strike to ionise the atmosphere, which would degrade radar performance and interfere with uplink communication.

Considering that the US system was designed with the assumption that we'd be detonating 5MT warheads in the upper atmosphere, I somehow doubt this is an issue.

[Sea Skimmer]

And how difficult do you really imagine it would be to build a decoy RV with the same mass and flight characteristics as a genuine warhead?

It's quite easy. It also would be about the same size of an RV anyways.

And the same weight, which would all mean your fully displacing a real warhead.

[phongn]

SDI = Maginot Line Mk II.

So your saying ABM will be so effective the enemy won't even try to assail it and will instead have to pour money into alternative nuclear delivery means?

Man of Straw.

Isn't your allusion to the Maginot Line precisely that? The Maginot Line was not defeated to overwhelming it, it was defeated by going around it.

[Patrick Degan]

Why not?

And allow surviving US nuclear forces to continue staging against them? Are you seriously telling me that they would go straight for the cities and leave the US nuclear forces untouched and free to operate for as long as possible?

Exactly how much of a reserve force would we be holding back in an all-out exchange scenario? "All-out" means that exactly.

It's your claim that 500 warheads will be able to destroy the US, by all means provide evidence that such a strike would be totally counter-population.

Counter-value. There is no such term as "counter-population". And seeing how much economic disruption we saw the US suffer just from the WTC attacks and the recent blackout of the northwest, try magnifying that effect by the complete loss of several large cities, their populations, financial assets, destruction of communications, transport, and power-grid linkages, and at the very least you're looking at total economic collapse —at the very least. This isn't even factoring in how it will affect the Federal government's ability to assert its authority as effectively as was possible in the prewar environment, and a geopolitical breakup is not outside the realm of possibility.

Nice Strawman. Experiments and an actual, practical weapon system are nowhere near the same thing.

And testing for the YAL-1 doesn't count as being "near" an operational system? The years of airborne laser research don't count? It's hardly a strawman.

Do you even comprehend the difference between an experimental programme and a functional weapon system?

Then why jeopardise that?

I argued that we're decreasing warheads after we publically comitted to the abandonment of the ABM Treaty - and that we were in no way jeopardizing this.

Because we've not yet attempted to actually deploy an ABM system.

Words don't exist to describe how comical that statement is.

Is there an arms race for conventional armor versus antitank munitions right now? For aircraft and SAMs? I don't call those arms races, despite the fact that offense and defense keep trying to one-up each other in those instances.

Please tell me you're really not silly enough to imagine that conventional arms and nuclear/ABM arms are even remotely the same thing.

[Patrick Degan]

So your saying ABM will be so effective the enemy won't even try to assail it and will instead have to pour money into alternative nuclear delivery means?

Man of Straw.

Isn't your allusion to the Maginot Line precisely that? The Maginot Line was not defeated by overwhelming it, it was defeated by going around it.

A cute attempt at being clever. My allusion was that the sophisticated and expensive Maginot Line proved useless because somebody figured out how to defeat it. And it was not exactly a monumental challenge, either.

That's the analogy.

[phongn]

Why not?

And allow surviving US nuclear forces to continue staging against them? Are you seriously telling me that they would go straight for the cities and leave the US nuclear forces untouched and free to operate for as long as possible?

Exactly how much of a reserve force would we be holding back in an all-out exchange scenario? "All-out" means that exactly.

The bomber force can't exactly carry every nuclear bomb in the US, you know.

This isn't even factoring in how it will affect the Federal government's ability to assert its authority as effectively as was possible in the prewar environment, and a geopolitical breakup is not outside the realm of possibility.

No, but it's not the absolute certain destruction of the US you postulated. NYC alone will take at least 37 200kT nukes: the Eastern Seaboard alone will be a huge target sponge; we're not losing all of the US to 500 warheads. Nevermind the gigantic metropolitan area that is called Chicago.

Yes, there will be significant damage, but it is unlikely to lead to the complete breakdown of the US.

Do you even comprehend the difference between an experimental programme and a functional weapon system?

Yes. And there's a reason there is a Y and not an X there. You know, prototype rather than experiment? The YAL-1 is slated for deployment.

Because we've not yet attempted to actually deploy an ABM system.

You dont think Putin saw the writing on the wall? Even the Clinton Administration was seriously pursuing ABM, it was going to happen sooner or later.

Please tell me you're really not silly enough to imagine that conventional arms and nuclear/ABM arms are even remotely the same thing.

Of course they aren't. However, the analogy stands, and you've not made any serious attempt at refutation other than the net-equivilant of laughing at me.

[phongn]

Isn't your allusion to the Maginot Line precisely that? The Maginot Line was not defeated by overwhelming it, it was defeated by going around it.

A cute attempt at being clever. My allusion was that the sophisticated and expensive Maginot Line proved useless because somebody figured out how to defeat it. And it was not exactly a monumental challenge, either.

Arguably, they didn't defeat it at all, they just went around it. Similarly, you're analogy thus means that to defeat its purpose you'd go around it - IOW, expending money on different methods of nuclear attack.

[phongn]

As for your assertion that there is no such thing as a "counter-population" strike, I have read the term from someone who has done nuclear targetting. He listed a few different options:

Counter-military - aimed at destroying a country's armed forces. Such a strike would be aimed at things like arsenals, ports, airbases, military training sites etc

Counter-strategic - aimed at taking out a country's strategic weapons force. This would hit the ICBM silos, SSBN ports and bases, the SSBNs themselves, bomber bases, nuclear storage depots etc.

Counter-industrial - aimed at destroying key industrial assets and breaking the target country's industrial
infrastructure

Counter-energy - aimed at destroying a country's energy supplies and resources plus the means for distributing them.

Counter-communications - aimed at disrupting and eliminating the target country's communications (radio, TV, landline, satellite etc) communications systems.

Counter-political - aimed at erasing the target country's political leadership - note this is MUCH more difficult than it seems and is very dangerous. Killing the only people who can surrender is not terribly bright

Counter-population - aimed at simply killing as much of the enemy population as possible.

There are plenty of others.

[Patrick Degan]

Exactly what do you think we have? Star Trek sensors which can simply look through anything and determine its composition? What do we have which is more sophisticated than RADAR?

For one, the IR image of a decoy is different than that of an actual RV.

That's not exactly an insurmountable technical problem.

And how difficult do you really imagine it would be to build a decoy RV with the same mass and flight characteristics as a genuine warhead?

It's quite easy. It also would be about the same size of an RV anyways.

Then that seems rather to confirm my point.

An ABM system requires more sophisticated dynamic tracking of incoming RVs than the BMEWS and present observation satellite system can provide. All of that would have to be built, maintained, and augmented at far greater expense than building more ICBMs.

And what if the planned replacement for DSP is capable of that kind of observation? It's already a cost that would have been required to handle anyways (SBIRS Hi/Lo). And yes, BMEWS has to be upgraded and the X-Band radar constructed, but how much more expensive are those upgrades compared to the sheer number of ICBMs that must be fielded due to virtual attrition?

For a start, redundancy requires a seperate system to handle ABM battle-management, so you've already got an added layer of expense to begin with. And the problem isn't the actual number of rockets as much as the number of MIRVs they can carry.

Furthermore, it's not at all difficult to dedicate a warhead or three to an EMP strike to ionise the atmosphere, which would degrade radar performance and interfere with uplink communication.

Considering that the US system was designed with the assumption that we'd be detonating 5MT warheads in the upper atmosphere, I somehow doubt this is an issue.

And that's one of the reasons that concept was abandoned in the first place. And EMP effects are still an issue:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library ... Cyber.html

http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/caus_ex.html

http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/089e.htm

http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/00- ... black.html

http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/cla ... 19/emp.htm

[Patrick Degan]

As for your assertion that there is no such thing as a "counter-population" strike, I have read the term from someone who has done nuclear targetting.

He listed a few different options:

On that point, I stand corrected. But all they did was subdivide the definition of a countervalue strike, so this really is a bit of a nitpick.

[Patrick Degan]

And allow surviving US nuclear forces to continue staging against them? Are you seriously telling me that they would go straight for the cities and leave the US nuclear forces untouched and free to operate for as long as possible?

Exactly how much of a reserve force would we be holding back in an all-out exchange scenario? "All-out" means that exactly.

The bomber force can't exactly carry every nuclear bomb in the US, you know.

I think that's what the ICBMs are for, then.

This isn't even factoring in how it will affect the Federal government's ability to assert its authority as effectively as was possible in the prewar environment, and a geopolitical breakup is not outside the realm of possibility.

No, but it's not the absolute certain destruction of the US you postulated. NYC alone will take at least 37 200kT nukes: the Eastern Seaboard alone will be a huge target sponge; we're not losing all of the US to 500 warheads. Nevermind the gigantic metropolitan area that is called Chicago.

I see you still fail to grasp the point. We're not talking about "flattening every city" and killing everybody; we're talking about taking out enough of the fragile pillars upon which this present society rests to collapse the whole thing.

Yes, there will be significant damage, but it is unlikely to lead to the complete breakdown of the US.

Your faith is charming.

Do you even comprehend the difference between an experimental programme and a functional weapon system?

Yes. And there's a reason there is a Y and not an X there. You know, prototype rather than experiment? The YAL-1 is slated for deployment.

Translation: you don't.

Because we've not yet attempted to actually deploy an ABM system.

You dont think Putin saw the writing on the wall? Even the Clinton Administration was seriously pursuing ABM, it was going to happen sooner or later.

Putin as yet has no reason to react to an ABM system that does not as yet exist, and no, the Clinton administration was not pursuing anything more than continued experimentation —not deployment.

Please tell me you're really not silly enough to imagine that conventional arms and nuclear/ABM arms are even remotely the same thing.

Of course they aren't. However, the analogy stands, and you've not made any serious attempt at refutation other than the net-equivilant of laughing at me.

Because your equation here merits no more refutation than laughter, given how totally out of scale the analogy is to the reality.

[Patrick Degan]

Isn't your allusion to the Maginot Line precisely that? The Maginot Line was not defeated by overwhelming it, it was defeated by going around it.

A cute attempt at being clever. My allusion was that the sophisticated and expensive Maginot Line proved useless because somebody figured out how to defeat it. And it was not exactly a monumental challenge, either.

Arguably, they didn't defeat it at all, they just went around it.

I hate to tell you this, but that was defeating it.

Similarly, you're analogy thus means that to defeat its purpose you'd go around it - IOW, expending money on different methods of nuclear attack.

Don't try putting words in my mouth or creatively "reinterpreting" them. If you can't deal with the implications of the argument, intellectual dishonesty will not avail you anything.