ZenGalacticore":203jtry7 said:
Okay, I read through the first link (Blog of the Standard, and highly opinionated), and I scanned through the second link from the MDA.(An agency that has a vested self-interest in promoting missile defense systems.)
So, this system, now or in its later phases, could intercept ICBMs launched from Iran. Great. I have no problem with that, and I understand the concept of redundant defense. Poland and Czech would be our 'first line'. We have a similar MD shield already in place in California and Alaska. (Obviously, those shields could not protect Europe.)
I tip my hat. In the heat of partisan debate not many people are really willing to listen, but you have shown that you are willing. In that spirit your questions deserve respectable answers.
ZenGalacticore":203jtry7 said:
If we're so worried about an attack on the Atlantic Seaboard of the US, how come we don't have similar MD shields deployed in say Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Georgia?
It's was a question of time and money, both of which are limited. The first mid-course interceptors deployed were in Alaska because the threat level was higher from North Korea than from Iran. The next step is to place interceptors in Poland, which could perform double duty to protect most of Europe as well. It remains to be seen whether Obama will build a substitute for the Polish installation, in Maine, New Hampshire or etc. The betting money right now is NO.
(If you want to, much helpful information can be found at the Missile Defense Agency website, but I will try to give you short and on-point answers anyway.)
ZenGalacticore":203jtry7 said:
Now, explain to me how a shield that can shoot down ICBMs does not weaken the Russians' missile deterrent? This sounds kind of like SDI 'Star Wars' all over again. What is the point of MAD if we have to spend money and resources on MD?
Only 10 interceptors were to be based in Poland, obviously those interceptors are no threat to the Russian long range nuclear weapon force which number in the hundreds of ICBMs. The Polish based interceptors aren't even in the right location to interfere with Russian ICBMs fired at America, as Russian ICBMs would take a northward trajectory flying very high over the North polar region on the way to America while Poland is to the West of Russia.
Boots09":203jtry7 said:
And to my knowledge, one Polaris nuclear submarine armed with 40 (IIRC) polaris nuclear missiles could annihilate Iran from the Persian Gulf in a matter of minutes.
The ability to destroy Iran is not in question, but a policy of deterrence alone requires cooperation from the other side, a doubtful prospect when dealing with the madmen of Iran. Purely defensive measures such as missile defenses give more options (and a better one) than massive retaliation.
ZenGalacticore":203jtry7 said:
What if the enemy launches 100s of decoys in addition to say, 10 nuke tipped mid-range or IC ballistic missiles?
The defenses being deployed by the U.S. are not intended to, or able, to stop a massive attack such as during an all out nuclear war with Russia. The missile defense system is only intended to stop a small scale attack. Primarily we are talking about North Korea and Iran. They have nuclear and ballistic missile programs. North Korea has twice detonated nuclear bombs with limited success. Iran has developed long range missile technology to the point of sending a small satellite into Earth orbit. It is only a matter of time before both nations will have a tiny force of ICBMs with nuclear warheads.
Another factor which no one has publicly mentioned yet that I am aware of, is the danger of a ballistic missile attack with a conventional warhead. This is not an inconsiderable danger, and I can imagine scenarios where North Korea, Iran or even China might fire ICBMs armed with conventional warheads at the U.S. during a future conflict.
It is a war tactic of the weak to use missiles when the enemy has superior air-power, that is history which goes all the way back to WWII and German V-2 rockets. For example during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's, Iran retaliated against Iraqi bombing raids by firing ballistic missiles. And during the first Gulf War in 1990, Iraq fired SCUD missiles against Israel. The U.S. should not be defenseless against such a future possibility.