If cheap decoys will not reduce BMD to uselessness, what is the problem with it?
100% effective or uselessness are not the only two options.
Different ways of looking at the answer to that question. Focusing strictly on the effectiveness of BMD. No complex weapon system is 100% reliable. As a complex system, we could consider Challenger. It's my understanding that test 3 and test 4 [most recent] were identical tests. There were no changes in hardware or software between test 3 and test 4. In test 3, the kill vehicle failed to deploy and the sensors did not activate. So with two tests. We have a .5 reliability of intercepting a single incoming. Not a very good threshold for preventing the destruction of a major metropolitan center. How many "9"s do you want to have for the sequence .9999... to prevent an incoming. I suspect that you might come up with more 9999s than the government can afford in the best circumstances. Make it a half dozen incoming, and figure out the probability of getting all of them killed...it's not likely to be a comforting number.
Playing with an analogous problem. Suppose I consider the problem of illegals crossing the US/Mexican border. On occasion Mexicans might come across the border 112 miles west of El Paso. I've never really ever seen it happen. All my intelligence says its the least likely, but it could happen. So I build an impenetrable wall, 1 mile wide at this point. A technological feat, I'll make sure they can't go through, the can't go over and they can't tunnel under. I'll sensor the heck out of the wall, so I'll be able to detect any possible attempt. So I'm successfull. They cross the border somewhere else. Why would they still try to penetrate that wall. Do something easier, like use a Chevy Suburban as the delivery vehicle, 50 miles West of El Paso.
Russia and China is a different problem. Keeping in mind that we have yet to convince Russia and China that they are the bad guys. They see us as the bad guys. So as they see increased missile defenses they see there ICBM effectiveness diminished. And it is. What's their choice if they want at least parity. Increase their nuclear arsnenal. You think they would believe that we would share the defense with them. Just as much as you would believe they would share a similar technology with us. They would have to believe that Bush was truthfull when he looked into Putin's soul....and that all subsequent Presidents and Congresses saw the same thing.
We've promised the world that we would never shut down GPS. I doubt that there is any country that actually believes that under all circumstances. IMO, if push comes to shove and it's to our benefit [or survival] we'll shut it down in the blink of an eye.
Putin has already stated that if the US breaks the ABM treaty, that Russia will consider the arms reduction treaties to be voided and will not meet their committments for reduction. Bluff? How much do you want to bet on that bluff?
jttmab |
