6 ms·

Space-based ballistic missile defense: a multidimensional analysis (1985)

49 points by Cieplak 5y ago

sklargh 5y ago
Hello Dr. Teller...(page 21) > These various programs and policy recommendations came to a head in President Reagan's March 23 "Star Wars" speech. Reagan had been interested in high-tech defense systems from the years he was Governor of California. his interest in this area grew during the 1980 Presidential electoral primaries with the advice of Dr. Edward Teller (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory). In late 1981, Teller met with Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham (US Army, ret.) and Karl Bendetsen (Hoover Institution) at the Heritage Foundation, where the three formed a small group on space policy and continued to offer advice to Reagan.
hprotagonist 5y ago
What you really need, of course, is a space based laser crossbow. It's like lasing a stick of dynamite...
- cbanek 5y ago
  It goes from God, to Jerry, to you, to the cleaners!
rhacker 5y ago
I hope there is a shit ton more devs interested in national security and military application development than there was 3 years ago. If you don't know yet, even if we don't want war it can fucking land on your doorstep (or someone else's).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pokstad 5y ago
  The current top defense and aerospace companies don’t take care of their employees as well as the companies pushing online ads and smart phones.
  - jason-phillips 5y ago
    Yeah but... at some point more money doesn't really matter. It's what you're working on and who you're working with, i.e. how you're spending your time, that is the real reward. I've had experiences working with different agencies and teams in the federal government that I wouldn't trade for a spotted hog.
- bogantech 5y ago
  Don't a large proportion of them think that would be immoral? They protest when their workplaces get government contracts for relatively benign things let alone weapons development
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    More worrying is the current zeitgeist amongst the GenX and the upcoming workforce: 1) Hard work is considered fascist 2) Everyone is gung-ho about mental health and yet no one can define what precisely it is 3) Racism, gender identity and climate change dominate discussions 4) Authoritarian views (No free speech, cancel culture, struggle sessions) And we have CIA ads where the ideal person is only concerned with themselves, never mentions they are American and never look up to something beyond their own self-identity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g We're doomed. I am an immigrant to America and my folks back home are saying "What happened!?"
izend 5y ago
Ballistic Missile Defense is irrelevant when the enemy has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
- coolspot 5y ago
  Not irrelevant, because there are more than one “potential enemy”, each with different capabilities. But yes, when one medium of nuke delivery gets more defended, another medium should be considered to keep MAD in balance.
- RobertMiller 5y ago
  That's not how things work, at all. Ballistic missile defense is meant to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that make it through, not eliminate the threat entirely. Extant ballistic missile defense doesn't even come close to eliminating the threat, and that's without considering Status-6. Consider, for instance, that there is no way in hell you could touch North Dakota with Status-6. If Russia wanted to attack missile silos in North Dakota, they would need to use their own ballistic missiles for it. Ballistic missile defense reduces the chance that they could succeed in any sort of decapitating preemptive strike. That it can't also stop a nuclear-powered torpedo is irrelevant; that's simply not what it's meant for. Other threats are/will be countered by other systems.
  - bagels 5y ago
    Hypersonic missiles though?
    - _kbh_ 5y ago
      Russia can barely maintain the gear they have that costs orders of magnitude less than a hypersonic missile / nuclear torpedo. Whats the chances their hypersonic missiles / nuclear torpedos even work?.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
jboy55 5y ago
Very interesting, also it comes before the news that the nuclear pumped X-Ray laser concept came about from misreading the results of a test. Teller used this faulty data to imagine a satellite system that could shoot down 10s of missiles from each satellite. When that seemed to be 'too little', the capabilities of these satellites jumped by an two orders of magnitude twice, each time in response to criticism. "It might be possible to generate as many as 100,000 independently aimable beams from a single x-ray laser module, each of which could be quite lethal even to a distant hardened object [e.g., an RV] in flight. " https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n44-19881104/eirv15n44-19881104_018-status_of_the_x_ray_laser_the_ex.pdf https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n44-19881104/e... This was due to an imagined gain of 10^6 to 10^12 over the xray output of a single device. In the PDF it is given as fact that they were able to achieve these gains, where as it was found that there was never any evidence of any x-ray lasing gain found in any nuclear test.
stevespang 5y ago
georgeg23 5y ago
SpaceX has a contract for this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities Also interesting bio on Elon's friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hedora 5y ago
After this was published, I believe the US and USSR concluded that there was a fundamental problem: Devices that block missiles cost much more than a missile. Assuming the cost gap narrowed, one side could theoretically outspend the other (by a little), forcing the other side to make more missiles, including them dummy missiles, which are much cheaper than nukes. In response, the missile defense side would need to make more missile defense systems, and the cycle would continue. Basically, it creates a situation where the Nash equilibrium leads to one side going bankrupt, and being vulnerable to a first strike. Rather than break the mutually assured destruction equilibrium, the US and USSR ultimately decided not to build these systems. Of course, weapons manufacturers keep trying to revive the idea, as it leads to infinite military expenditures...
- coffeeblack 5y ago
  Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. Just like with nuclear ICBMs, you are only using it as long as you don’t use it. And you stop using it the moment you use it.
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    I'm not sure it's really the same. The US dropped the two bombs over Japan and that was it for nukes, true. But Israel continually uses its missile defense systems, and seem to keep creating more layers of it. Maybe, in this case, despite defense missiles being quite expensive to Israel, they can bankrupt opponents faster, due to a huge wealth gap. But, anyway, it shows that missile defense systems aren't something you use once and "can't continue to use after you decide to use it".
    - candiodari 5y ago
      Missiles in the Israeli-Palestine conflict are not a "real" threat. Even if they were unstoppable they wouldn't be able to damage Israel in any significant way. Likewise, any real military effort that would credibly end Palestine would get any political party in Israel booted out of power, or frankly, thrown in jail. Hell, Israel has a bit of a habit of throwing ex-politicians in jail even now. Missiles in that conflict are "ads". They have to do something that will attract attention for less damage to either side than can be expected in donations(/sales) it delivers for both sides and apparently, missiles it is. By that I don't mean that Palestinians or Israeli are at war for attention-for-donations. Of course there is a real conflict there. But this way of "running" the conflict can exist (for any length of time) because the value of the donations/weapons sales > the value destroyed by the actual conflict. It's not the cause of the conflict, it's just a Nash equilibrium in the conflict.
jjt-yn_t 5y ago

49 points by Cieplak 5y ago

Hello Dr. Teller...(page 21) > These various programs and policy recommendations came to a head in President Reagan's March 23 "Star Wars" speech. Reagan had been interested in high-tech defense systems from the years he was Governor of California. his interest in this area grew during the 1980 Presidential electoral primaries with the advice of Dr. Edward Teller (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory). In late 1981, Teller met with Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham (US Army, ret.) and Karl Bendetsen (Hoover Institution) at the Heritage Foundation, where the three formed a small group on space policy and continued to offer advice to Reagan.

hprotagonist 5y ago

What you really need, of course, is a space based laser crossbow. It's like lasing a stick of dynamite...

cbanek 5y ago
It goes from God, to Jerry, to you, to the cleaners!

rhacker 5y ago

I hope there is a shit ton more devs interested in national security and military application development than there was 3 years ago. If you don't know yet, even if we don't want war it can fucking land on your doorstep (or someone else's).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pokstad 5y ago
The current top defense and aerospace companies don’t take care of their employees as well as the companies pushing online ads and smart phones.
- jason-phillips 5y ago
  Yeah but... at some point more money doesn't really matter. It's what you're working on and who you're working with, i.e. how you're spending your time, that is the real reward. I've had experiences working with different agencies and teams in the federal government that I wouldn't trade for a spotted hog.
bogantech 5y ago
Don't a large proportion of them think that would be immoral? They protest when their workplaces get government contracts for relatively benign things let alone weapons development
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  More worrying is the current zeitgeist amongst the GenX and the upcoming workforce: 1) Hard work is considered fascist 2) Everyone is gung-ho about mental health and yet no one can define what precisely it is 3) Racism, gender identity and climate change dominate discussions 4) Authoritarian views (No free speech, cancel culture, struggle sessions) And we have CIA ads where the ideal person is only concerned with themselves, never mentions they are American and never look up to something beyond their own self-identity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g We're doomed. I am an immigrant to America and my folks back home are saying "What happened!?"

izend 5y ago

Ballistic Missile Defense is irrelevant when the enemy has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

coolspot 5y ago
Not irrelevant, because there are more than one “potential enemy”, each with different capabilities. But yes, when one medium of nuke delivery gets more defended, another medium should be considered to keep MAD in balance.
RobertMiller 5y ago
That's not how things work, at all. Ballistic missile defense is meant to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that make it through, not eliminate the threat entirely. Extant ballistic missile defense doesn't even come close to eliminating the threat, and that's without considering Status-6. Consider, for instance, that there is no way in hell you could touch North Dakota with Status-6. If Russia wanted to attack missile silos in North Dakota, they would need to use their own ballistic missiles for it. Ballistic missile defense reduces the chance that they could succeed in any sort of decapitating preemptive strike. That it can't also stop a nuclear-powered torpedo is irrelevant; that's simply not what it's meant for. Other threats are/will be countered by other systems.
- bagels 5y ago
  Hypersonic missiles though?
  - _kbh_ 5y ago
    Russia can barely maintain the gear they have that costs orders of magnitude less than a hypersonic missile / nuclear torpedo. Whats the chances their hypersonic missiles / nuclear torpedos even work?.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

jboy55 5y ago

Very interesting, also it comes before the news that the nuclear pumped X-Ray laser concept came about from misreading the results of a test. Teller used this faulty data to imagine a satellite system that could shoot down 10s of missiles from each satellite. When that seemed to be 'too little', the capabilities of these satellites jumped by an two orders of magnitude twice, each time in response to criticism. "It might be possible to generate as many as 100,000 independently aimable beams from a single x-ray laser module, each of which could be quite lethal even to a distant hardened object [e.g., an RV] in flight. " https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n44-19881104/eirv15n44-19881104_018-status_of_the_x_ray_laser_the_ex.pdf https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n44-19881104/e... This was due to an imagined gain of 10^6 to 10^12 over the xray output of a single device. In the PDF it is given as fact that they were able to achieve these gains, where as it was found that there was never any evidence of any x-ray lasing gain found in any nuclear test.

stevespang 5y ago

georgeg23 5y ago

SpaceX has a contract for this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities Also interesting bio on Elon's friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hedora 5y ago

After this was published, I believe the US and USSR concluded that there was a fundamental problem: Devices that block missiles cost much more than a missile. Assuming the cost gap narrowed, one side could theoretically outspend the other (by a little), forcing the other side to make more missiles, including them dummy missiles, which are much cheaper than nukes. In response, the missile defense side would need to make more missile defense systems, and the cycle would continue. Basically, it creates a situation where the Nash equilibrium leads to one side going bankrupt, and being vulnerable to a first strike. Rather than break the mutually assured destruction equilibrium, the US and USSR ultimately decided not to build these systems. Of course, weapons manufacturers keep trying to revive the idea, as it leads to infinite military expenditures...

coffeeblack 5y ago
Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. Just like with nuclear ICBMs, you are only using it as long as you don’t use it. And you stop using it the moment you use it.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's really the same. The US dropped the two bombs over Japan and that was it for nukes, true. But Israel continually uses its missile defense systems, and seem to keep creating more layers of it. Maybe, in this case, despite defense missiles being quite expensive to Israel, they can bankrupt opponents faster, due to a huge wealth gap. But, anyway, it shows that missile defense systems aren't something you use once and "can't continue to use after you decide to use it".
  - candiodari 5y ago
    Missiles in the Israeli-Palestine conflict are not a "real" threat. Even if they were unstoppable they wouldn't be able to damage Israel in any significant way. Likewise, any real military effort that would credibly end Palestine would get any political party in Israel booted out of power, or frankly, thrown in jail. Hell, Israel has a bit of a habit of throwing ex-politicians in jail even now. Missiles in that conflict are "ads". They have to do something that will attract attention for less damage to either side than can be expected in donations(/sales) it delivers for both sides and apparently, missiles it is. By that I don't mean that Palestinians or Israeli are at war for attention-for-donations. Of course there is a real conflict there. But this way of "running" the conflict can exist (for any length of time) because the value of the donations/weapons sales > the value destroyed by the actual conflict. It's not the cause of the conflict, it's just a Nash equilibrium in the conflict.

jjt-yn_t 5y ago