Isn't Missle Defense another Emperor's New Clothes?

November 22, 2010 1:41 PM

Once again, the Missile Defense Shield is in the news. But isn't it almost entirely vaporware? I understand the need to pretend it'll work someday in the US, to continue the corporate welfare involved in the system's development, but why are European countries behaving as if it's viable?

Two components have been verified, apparently -- the Patriot and Aegis ground or sea-based interceptors, but the rest seems as much a pipe dream as Reagan's space-based SDI. Haven't any and all tests of the more advanced components (which might successfully take out an ICBM) been failures, or the tests incredibly unrealistic? And if so, why does anybody (except the government contractors riding that gravy train) takes it seriously?

posted by Rash to grab bag (18 answers total)

It's more about tightening U.S./Russian relations by establishing Europe as a common hole into which they can throw their money.
posted by mkultra at 1:54 PM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

And if so, why does anybody (except the government contractors riding that gravy train) takes it seriously?

Try to see the whole game board. Forget for a minute what direct benefit the U.S. gets. The real winners here are the Romanian, Turkish and Polish politicians that get local jobs and a local benefit. They look good in front of their own people. We doing them a favor, ostensibly to get some other favor in return.

"Hey, Mr. Turkish Leader. Remember how you were concerned about Iranian incursions on your western border? Fuckers were saber-rattling all up in your business. Well, I made you look tough on that issue in front of your people, and they re-elected you. Nice, huh? Who cares if the missiles actually worked or not? Oh, I'm sure there was some non-zero chance of them working, but once nuclear missiles start flying, it's pretty much open season, anyway. The important thing is, you got re-elected. Now whaddya say you help us with this other problem over here..."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:56 PM on November 22, 2010

* eastern border, but you get the point...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:56 PM on November 22, 2010

"it's really just physics"

It isn't just physics. The problem with launch phase intercept isn't physics, it's politics; you have 3 minutes to detect, decide, and deliver, which in the case of Iran means it has to be launched from the Caspian "Sea" or one of the -stans. The problem with mid-course intercept isn't physics, it's economics: since in a vacuum there's no simple way to tell a warhead from a Mylar balloon until you get to it, the incremental cost of decoys is zero. The problem with re-entry intercept actually is physics: when you have the debris from multiple "disabled" warheads still headed for their targets at 9000 mph, inertia isn't your friend.

European politicians support SDI not because it might work but because European voters are not any smarter or better informed than American voters.
posted by nicwolff at 6:47 PM on November 22, 2010

@nicwolff: The ability to intercept an object at any flight phase is, in fact, physics, of arbitrary complexity. Period.

Whether or not you want or should to do it may be tied up in politics or economics, but that is distinctly different than whether or not it's possible to accomplish the intercept, given the will to figure out the technical issues.

But once again, that's not the answer the original poster, or you, are interested in. For the record, I don't see the cost-benefit of creating this system, and agree it's a rather transparent political circle jerk. I simply feel it is disingenuous to frame the question as "we can't do this" rather than "it doesn't make sense to do this". Say what you mean.
posted by kjs3 at 7:04 PM on November 22, 2010

Don't forget domestic politics. The missile defense shield is $50 billion a year or so that goes to defense contractors.

If you're cynical, you could say that this is pure pork that congresspeople get to say they brought home for their districts.

But the government really does have a compelling reason to keep lots of people employed as aerospace engineers, and ensure that it's an attractive field for smart college students: if we do get into a major war with a sophisticated adversary, we'll have to develop lots of new weapons systems quickly without time to train new people.
posted by miyabo at 8:44 PM on November 22, 2010

kjs3, when you you claim that physics of "arbitrary complexity" will solve a problem, you're not proposing an answer, you're writing science fiction.

It's this lie, that we can do this and just have to decide if it's worth it, that is being discussed here. The Culture or the Federation could do it. We cannot.

There is no physics available to us now or soon at any cost that gets an interceptor from Eastern Europe or Turkey to central Iran in 150 seconds. That can make the cost of destroying an almost empty Mylar balloon in space less than a million times that of the balloon. Or that can destroy an incoming warhead and turn the debris away from its target.

So for the purposes of this question and the present political realities, yes, Missile Defense as it is being described and promised is physically not possible.
posted by nicwolff at 9:38 PM on November 22, 2010

You know how sometimes when a person is overwhelmingly nervous, that person starts to pace back and forth? If you have nothing constructive to do, you still feel the need to do something. Even the illusion of doing something useful is psychologically preferable to doing nothing.
posted by grizzled at 6:06 AM on November 23, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's this lie

Prove it.

that we can do this and just have to decide if it's worth it, that is being discussed here.

It's what I was discussing, but if you've decided to redefine the argument so you get to be right, then I'll go continue the discussion with adults. With knowledge of the problems involved.

The Culture or the Federation could do it. We cannot.

Prove it.
posted by kjs3 at 8:21 PM on November 28, 2010

Prove that it can, kjs3 -- that's my point, and my question -- since the system hasn't been successfully demonstrated, why does anybody believe it'll work?
posted by Rash at 10:47 AM on November 29, 2010

since the system hasn't been successfully demonstrated, why does anybody believe it'll work?

Because the fundamental problems required to do it have either been solved or are generally understood, even though they are very, very hard to turn into an operational weapon system.

- There is a missile. It's small, relatively, and fast. I have to hit it with something before it can go boom. I have lots of options there (ballistic, directed energy, etc.). We have proven we can do this. Currently on a small scale with high error rates, but that's consistent with *any* engineering innovation.
- I have to acquire and track it in on very short time scales. We do this all the time, in many contexts. All we have to do is apply it to this problem domain.
- It has countermeasures. I have to deal with those. Very hard problem, but insolvable? Chaff was going to render radar useless until we figured out signal processing, and suddenly, it's not a problem.
- Scale this all up to deal with tens of thousands of missiles and millions of decoys. Money, political will and time, since the actual problems are understood.

Don't believe these problems can be solved in any domain? F-15s have been able to track and destroy multiple targets, moving at near ballistic speed, that are over the horizon, compensating for electromagnetic countermeasures, using an order of magnitude less computing power than my desktop PC, since the 70s. Fast forward 40 years and tell me what can't be done, if not now, in the next 40.

So...interesting problems, but not impossible, given the desire. Calling something "science fiction" is the condescension of a limited and ill-informed mind:

Prior to Goddard, the use of liquid fueled rockets giving greater thrust than solid rockets was science fiction.
Prior to the V-2, a missile guidance systems that could hit a city at a hundred miles was science fiction.
Prior to the 30s, a machine that could compute ballistic trajectories for over the horizon targets was science fiction.
Prior to the 40s, the operational use of electromagnetic waves to detect and track enemy aircraft and ships was science fiction.
Before the 50s, a gun controller that used radar to automatically compensate for target lead and bullet drop was science fiction.
Before the 60s, the idea that a rocket could take off from earth, with men on it, land them on the moon and return them, was science fiction.
Before the 70s, the idea that a rocket could take off from earth, and hit a window a couple of miles on a side at multiple planets more than a billion miles away was science fiction.

Well...shit. I could go on all day. It should be obvious that while the problems of missile defense are fiendishly hard, anyone who claims they "aren't physically possible" is an idiot. Don't get me started on nuclear weapons, genetic engineering, quantum computing or other "impossible technologies".

In other words, we're pretty good at solving hard problems.

So I once again put it back on you guys to "prove" it's not possible. Explain to me where there is the insurmountable technical challenge to missile defense. The one thing for which there is no possible solution.

There is no physics available to us now or soon at any cost that gets an interceptor from Eastern Europe or Turkey to central Iran in 150 seconds.

"Now or soon" is not "impossible". That's the fucking point.

And who says it has to be from Eastern Europe or Turkey. Park a satellite over Iran. Or a UAV. That's an engineering problem, solvable with current technology. Put the interceptor on a sub right off the coast.

And it doesn't have to be a boost phase intercept. That's easier, but not required. Catch the warheads in space, or on terminal.

There are *lots* of ways to solve this problem. Pretending the answer you propose is the only option is disingenuous at best.

That can make the cost of destroying an almost empty Mylar balloon in space less than a million times that of the balloon.

Detect it's a balloon and don't shoot it. Because, there are characteristics you can key on that will differentiate a mylar balloon and a nuclear warhead (really). Or drive the technology to the point where killing everything is economical. Or don't care, spend whatever it takes, because your defending against the end of the world.

The fact that nicwolff can't imagine can't imagine how to do that doesn't mean there aren't lots and lots of ways it can be done.
posted by kjs3 at 4:26 PM on January 20, 2011

kjs3 is still just hand-waving. As I said, for the purposes of this question and the present political realities, Missile Defense as it is being described and promised is physically not possible.

And, uh — "park" a satellite over Iran? You do know that geostationary orbits are equatorial, right? And that they are 22,236 miles up? Or is violating orbital mechanics just another "hard" problem that our engineers can solve?
posted by nicwolff at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2011

Nic,
I don't see any reason it's physically impossible. Really, really hard, but not impossible.

The pieces are mostly in place. A powerful radar system should be able to distinguish between a missile and a balloon just based on cross section or velocity, and MDA now has several of the most powerful radar systems in the world. Missile navigation is up to the task -- modern systems are accurate to within inches. The interceptor missiles are already working and can launch within something like 30 seconds. The necessary communications networks and signal processing systems have already been built. While politicians are talking about intercepting missiles from Iran to Europe (which is a stretch), most of the military types are working on intercepting missiles from North Korea to the US (which is a much easier problem). There's a lot of work left to be done, but aerospace programs routinely take 20-30 years to complete and our government clearly is willing to spend whatever it takes.

Furthermore, the system doesn't need to work perfectly in order to win the psychological game. No one wants to actually launch a missile, but having one may give you a better negotiating position when it comes to maintaining power. If that power is partly neutralized, at least in the collective opinions of the world's leaders, then so is your negotiating position. A missile defense system works if everyone thinks it works, or at least thinks it might work. Much like nuclear weapons themselves, no one intends to actually use one.

I don't think we'll ever have a system that could stop hundreds of missiles coming from Russia, or dozens flying between Pakistan and India. But that's not the current goal.

Incidentally, I'm a CS grad student who's worked in aerospace for a bit (not on missile defense). I oppose the missile defense program, but on the basis of its staggering cost and the harm it does to our foreign relations, not its technical feasibility.
posted by miyabo at 3:23 PM on January 21, 2011

Nicwolff:

I think you're the only one claiming that "for the purposes of the question" implies "present political realities". I certainly read the OP's question as "is this in any way possible". I think I've answered that, if not by demonstration by example. And you certainly haven't refuted a single salient fact presented. Of course, there's certainly a particular personality type that fervently believes that fact-free condescension is equivalent to proof; see: Glenn Beck.

P.S. - You do know that all of Iran is below 40 degrees N latitude, which gives line of sight to any equatorial geosync satellite we care to put there? That being 22k up is an advantage here? Or that the problem of providing continuous satellite coverage to a country sized track of land that doesn't rely on geosync has been solved for decades (but does require more satellites...an engineering and cost problem, as it happens)? No violation of orbital mechanics required. And cudos for ignoring the UAV or sub option, much less the new generation of littoral combat ships. Cherrypicking only the facts that support your position hoping noone notices, while lazy, often works. Way to save mental energy.

But hey....don't quit telling us how politically and technically (today, of course) we can't build Apollo, nuclear weapons, LHC, Hubble, Shiva/Nova, the B2, Three Gorges Dam or any number of technically hard/politically challenging projects. Not that I think we'll ever build SDI or any of it's intellectual descendants. It's just that having short horizon, intellectually shallow naysayers gets people like me up in the morning.
posted by kjs3 at 7:17 PM on January 21, 2011

I don't see any reason it's physically impossible. Really, really hard, but not impossible.

Again, I obviously don't mean it violates any physical law; I mean that the constraints of physics make it politically or economically impossible with anything like our current technologies.

The interceptor missiles are already working

For boost-phase intercept, which was practical over the Japan Sea because the North Koreans launched from their east coast.

A powerful radar system should be able to distinguish between a missile and a balloon just based on cross section or velocity

The challenge isn't to tell a missile from a balloon; it's to find a warhead within its reentry vehicle among an arbitrary number of identically-sized and shaped balloons traveling almost parallel trajectories at identical velocities in a vacuum.

our government clearly is willing to spend whatever it takes

Or whatever they can get through Congress for as long as they can keep claiming that they're making progress toward an effective shield.

Furthermore, the system doesn't need to work perfectly in order to win the psychological game. [...] A missile defense system works if everyone thinks it works, or at least thinks it might work.

But a missile-defense system does have to be perceived as perfect to afford its owners any political options that MAD does not already provide. When your enemy announces "invade us and we'll nuke you", you can't tell your people "let's invade and hope our missile defense system works"; unless you can convince them that they are perfectly safe "nuke us and we'll nuke you" is still your only answer.

Or look at it from a game-theoretical perspective: a 90% chance of being able to intercept a single warhead from hitting a major city and killing one million civilians is acceptable if 100,000 guaranteed civilian deaths is acceptable. Which they aren't.
posted by nicwolff at 1:05 PM on January 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

I certainly read the OP's question as "is this in any way possible".

Well there's your problem; as he has clarified, the question is: since testing shows that current technology isn't up to the task, why are Europeans arguing about deploying it?

That being 22k up is an advantage here?

As a platform for boost-phase interceptor missiles, being an hour away from Earth isn't really an advantage. I only have to show that one of your proposals is ridiculous to demonstrate that you're not thinking clearly about applicable solutions, just waving your hands.
posted by nicwolff at 1:05 PM on January 22, 2011

@nicwolff: The fact that you don't like what I say, and you can't refute it beyond juvenile "is not", doesn't mean it's "hand waving". Distillation of everything you've said, over multiple responses: You're going to redefine the question to suit your argument, unilaterally narrow the scope, cherry pick the responses you highlight and respond to, vigorously ignore proof and validation that you're wrong, pretending that solutions that solve your objections don't exist, and simply declare victory. Yeah you.

Example: 22k at the speed of light is about, what, 0.1 seconds...but since that doesn't support your argument, it must be missiles only, targeting boost phase only. No possibility or other options, regardless of the fact we've tested some. Directed energy weapons don't exist, and pointing out that non-geosync solutions exist, well, ignore that. Things like mid-phase or terminal intercept? Perish the thought. Whatever facts need to be
deleted so you get to be right, delete them.

And, no, proving one possible solution I propose is ridiculous (something you would have to have provided some sort of fact to do, which you haven't) does not make you right, unless us proving one solution correct doesn't prove anything. So in addition to engineering and ethics, you suck at logic. Not a shocker, there.

Got it. No need to pursue this any further. It's clear your capacity for intellectual dishonesty and lalala-im-not-listening level of dismissal of factual refutation is unlimited. You have a future working for Rupert Murdock. Best to leave it to the gallery to make up their own minds. I'll leave it to them.
posted by kjs3 at 12:15 AM on January 23, 2011

Points taken. I'm pretty sure we actually agree: the tech is capable of shooting down one missile, with fairly low probability and ghastly expense. I still think this may have some effect on the North Korea situation, since if there's some chance a primitive missile would be shot down then it's not such a great bargaining chip. Fortunately we'll find out the answer over the next few years, and without even having to witness a nuclear war!
posted by miyabo at 11:08 AM on January 24, 2011