Back in 1980 a friend with extraordinary EE talents and I started a technology company. He had figured out interesting ways to use a cheap off-the-shelf CCD (Charge Coupled Device) chip made by GE for use in cheap video cameras, for precision digital imaging. We obtained an early contract with Lockheed, the government's prime contractor for the Star Wars (Talon Gold) project. They were building a fuel-fired 5000w laser platform intended to orbit in space and destroy incoming missiles. Our job was to develop the targeting platform for the gun-- a digital detection system capable of zeroing in on a number of rockets zinging along at 8000 kilometers per hour from a distance of 500 miles.FrankGSterleJr wrote:Unlike Ronald Reagan's 1980s Strategic defence initiative, a.k.a. Star Wars, the anti-missile defence shield, into which Canada currently seems to be placing some serious stock, is quite realistic and technologically sound. In fact, over two decades ago the tech had impressively (at least to me) proved itself to be on solid ground, though I feel that it could’ve already been by now solidly established as a fully functional defense shield.
One need only note the success of the Patriot batteries stationed around Israel during Desert Storm.
If I recall correctly, the Patriot missiles had been barely developed with no practical testing, thus they had to be field tested during actual warfare. Only one scud made it through the defence shield intact and another after being severely damaged, though both did not result in death, injury nor even notable damage. Had the system been shy of competent, let alone a failure, there’s no reason to believe that the nuclear-armed nation of Israel was bluffing when it promised to retaliate against Iraq if the Patriots failed to deliver and Israeli casualties were incurred.
Unfortunately, whatever small degree to which the U.S. has thus far developed its shield technology in actual hardware would only serve to intercept ballistic missiles targeting nations that are U.S. friendly or their protection is in U.S. interests.
The only defense against an ideology is a better ideology. We do not have one.
That kind of act could motivate some nations – most worrisome being rogue nations such as the bizarre-behaviour North Korea via their Great Leader – to find other means to compensate for their new great disadvantage. For example, they could expand their nuclear arsenal while collaborating with their own friendly nations (however few) to achieve the means to overwhelm the biased anti-missile shield.
A good means of avoiding such dreary anti-productive measures-thus-counter-measures would be to ensure all interested ‘sides’ that the anti-missile defence shield would be independently programmed to intercept all airborne projectiles regardless of their origin. The system would monitor the planet’s air space and launch anti-missile defensive measures, equipped with latest computer-systems-hacking fail-safe technology.
Boiling this problem down to conventional terms, that is the equivalent of targeting and shooting a blowfly in the ass with a .22 rifle from about a half-mile away, with one shot.
In the course of working this project, I noticed a peculiar lack of security. Years earlier I'd worked on high-tech projects for gov't contractors who required a security clearance. I did not get into or leave my workplace without a badge pinned to my jacket. Yet, no security whatsoever was required for our Lockheed contract. When my partner and I visited their R&D people in Palo Alto, we were never even asked for a driver's license by way of I.D. To obtain entrance to this high-tech facility all we needed was the name of an inside contact.
We developed the front end for what should have been an ultra-top-secret engineering project in a small office suite 700 miles from Palo Alto, to which the office owner had keys. Any half-assed spy could have picked our cheap door locks in the dead of night and come away with our exotic technology. But none did. (I set subtle indicators. None were ever disturbed.)
This told me that the Talon Gold project was Ronald Reagan's middle finger thrust in the face of the Soviets. Had we needed to run it to completion we could have done so. More importantly, we were telling them that they could neither duplicate nor defend against TG if they had a full set of technical specs printed on their vodka-bottle labels.
Back to modern times. We've allowed the Chinese to duplicate our Air Force (except the A-10) and much of our Navy. No longer on the inside, I cannot tell if this is just stupidity, or another middle-finger dare. But whatever the case, we are no longer under significant threat from the classic cold war powers and their nuclear missiles. Seriously, would Kim Jung whatever lob a missile into downtown L.A., knowing that within the hour, a dozen of them would blow his stupid fat head off? Well, he might. But some of his generals have 3-digit I.Q.s.
These days, small, dirty but effective fission bombs can be carried into the U.S. by low-tech mobile devices (human beings) along with the kilotons of drugs and half a million low-tech mobile devices crossing our southern border annually. Why try to nail us with a high-tech rocket when a handful of ordinary drug dealers will happily deliver fission bomb components anywhere in the country for a few thousand dollars? Imagine 500 such bombs, each placed (and simultaneously detonated at) a power plant, for starters.
Against whom would we retaliate?
We could start another war against another country like Afghanistan, perhaps Pakistan, on the grounds that it harbored some Islamist leaders. If we were really competent for a change, we might destroy every Muslim in Pakistan.
This would have the effect of pissing off every Muslim in the world. It would be about as effective as shooting a bear in the ass with a small caliber pistol, or throwing rocks at a wasp nest.
Our next war is not against Russian or Chinese communists, because their ideology no longer differs from ours. Ultimately, wars are ideological in nature. Thus, our current opponent is not a nation defined by a contrary belief system, like Russia or China. It is now the belief system itself. Ideology is as indifferent to political borders as any virus. Islam is the old/new enemy. Their Kuran orders its followers to convert the world, and Obama has gotten those buggers fired up enough, under his leadershit, to give it a go. If they cannot politically take over the free world from the inside, they can easily destroy it from the inside, because they are willing to destroy themselves (and get to have sex with those well-worn and long-promised 57 virgins) in the process.
The only defense against an ideology is a superior ideology. We do not have one. How can sitting at the right hand of God possibly compare to sex with 57 virgins, even if they are all skinny, hairy, and dreadfully ugly?
Our best competing ideology is atheism: die and you're outta here. No incentive there except to kiss as many asses as possible, and extract as much money from taxpayers as they are stupid enough to cough up. to avoid dying.
Echoing your point, "The only defense against an ideology is a better ideology." Are you looking for one?
Greylorn