Time to seriously revisit SDI? Or a mere pipe dream?

[CountryGent]

^ Earlier in the year, I read this one. It was published by the University of Massachusetts Press as part of a fascinating series on the Cold War that, depending on the volume and author, focuses on the culture, science, politics, military, et al. of the Cold War.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derisively nicknamed the "Star Wars program", was announced by Reagan in 1983, and was referenced in the aforementioned book. The author takes the position that the whole program was nothing more than a bluff to the Soviets and a posturing domestically. Other commentators paint a far more nuanced picture.

Be that as it may, technology has greatly advanced since gas was $1.16/gallon, the hit song was "Every Breath You Take", and number one box office hit Return of the Jedi. It is with the notion of defense against the sum of all fears, so why not nerd it up a bit considering?

• With the incredible advancements in technology in the last four decades, is this worth revisiting?
• Conceivably, this would be a land, airborne, and space layered approach: how would you fit those puzzle pieces together?
• What of the ethics of militarizing space? Existing treaties?
• Finally, should such a hypothetical system come to fruition, would a robust Civil Defense program coupled with encouragement to be prepared individually be a factor in the resilience planning? How would you go about it and how would it be different than past Quixotic attempts?

Thanks for sharing, even if ...

Read More

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Space may be the final frontier...and we might all end up at a bar on some desert planet , wondering if our favorite smuggler shot first at some point in time , however....

Other than re-reading Starship Troopers ....I don't plan on overly wondering 'bout it...
Andy

 

[ilikegunspdx]

When I saw the title I thought it was about Sonoran desert institute.

 

[Nosferatu]

Given the current culture of "call an authority and step aside", I don't see any kind of civilian do-it-yourself program taking off, nor do I see one getting federal funding given the ruling class hates competition when it comes to providing "safety" services.

Even in MT with all the recent Grizzly encounters, FWP sends a list of things to do when encountering a bear and possible defense solutions. None of those includes "carry a gun and shoot the bubblegumer".

 

[Andy54Hawken]

SDI....
I do know some folks who suffer from SDI....
Stupidly Dumb Ignorance....
Andy

 

[Nosferatu]

SDI....
I do know some folks who suffer from SDI....
Stupidly Dumb Ignorance....
Andy

Well, you're the eduacamator...FIX IT!!

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 1489426

^ Earlier in the year, I read this one. It was published by the University of Massachusetts Press as part of a fascinating series on the Cold War that, depending on the volume and author, focuses on the culture, science, politics, military, et al. of the Cold War.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derisively nicknamed the "Star Wars program", was announced by Reagan in 1983, and was referenced in the aforementioned book. The author takes the position that the whole program was nothing more than a bluff to the Soviets and a posturing domestically. Other commentators paint a far more nuanced picture.

Be that as it may, technology has greatly advanced since gas was $1.16/gallon, the hit song was "Every Breath You Take", and number one box office hit Return of the Jedi. It is with the notion of defense against the sum of all fears, so why not nerd it up a bit considering?

• With the incredible advancements in technology in the last four decades, is this worth revisiting?
• Conceivably, this would be a land, airborne, and space layered approach: how would you fit those puzzle pieces together?
• What of the ethics of militarizing space? Existing treaties?
• Finally, should such a hypothetical system come to fruition, would a robust Civil Defense program coupled with encouragement to be prepared individually be a factor in the resilience planning? How would you go about it and how would it be different than past Quixotic attempts?

Thanks for sharing, even if ...
View attachment 1489458

Having served under "Uncle Ronnie" and during the zenith of the (not so) Cold War, I am still a rabidly-maniacal opponent to communism (and socialism aka communism-lite for that matter), and with the added benefit of experiencing the use of the "latest" military tech (for ground forces of "the day") coupled with 20/15 hindsight (of nearly 40 years after the fact) and having a better than average working knowledge of technologies of today and the implementation of said… my concern is our own government(s) turning that potential "escalating" tech on our fellow citizens who dare question "the science" or reject the popular political narrative of the day, as they're clearly already doing it today.

As for developing a robust civil defense in this day and age, that ship has sailed because far too many in the populace are more than content to let TPTB "take care of everything".



Beware the industrial military complex.


Q:
"What is democracy"?

A:
It has something to do with sending young men off to die so old men (and women) can garner more power and get richer than god.


We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Tesla coils can generate non-nuclear EMPs. Just saying.

 

[Nosferatu]

Tesla coils can generate non-nuclear EMPs. Just saying.

I'll buy one when they can produce a nuclear EMP

 

[gmerkt]

Yes, we seem to be in another Cold War era. Which this time around is a kind of three way deal. The adversaries being the US, China, and a troika of spoiler states consisting of Russia, No. Korea and Belarus. I could write several paragraphs about this but will spare the NWFA audience. I will simply say, I was born the year the Korean War started, lived through the first Cold War, and with any luck, I won't live long enough to see the end of the new one.

Civil Defense? The US public has their collective head so far up their collective rear end, that will never happen. The political contention of today is beyond belief. At least during the Eisenhower administration, they were polite to each other.

Another air defense system, seems like I read something, somewhere that the federal government is looking at sites here and there around the country now. I don't know if it will go anywhere. Maybe I'm thinking of the Trump Administration's Ballistic Missile Defense Review, 2017-2019. There is a good chance that this has slowed down if not been forgotten by the Biden Administration.

Thinking about all the money the US spent on the last Cold War, then whizzed a lot of it down the drain with bogus arms limitation agreements, is enough to make you weep. Then we let our guard down with the so-called peace dividend, then got inveigled into very costly military adventures in the middle east. Surely some of this has eroded public will for more of the same?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'll buy one when they can produce a nuclear EMP

To be precise, a "non-nuclear EMP" simply means an Electro Magnetic Pulse not generated by a nuclear explosion.

Injecting electromagnetic pulses into the electric grid and infrastructure

The United States has totally underestimated the ability of an amateur or terrorist to launch an EMP attack on the infrastructure or the electric grid

hakin9.org

 

[gmerkt]

What of the ethics of militarizing space? Existing treaties?

Didn't Jed Bartlet get in trouble on this one in "West Wing?" The secret got out that the US had a militarized space shuttle that could deliver a nuclear weapon.

 

[CamoDeafie]

For all we know, the USAF's missions with X-37 spaceplanes are weapons related, definitely military type of missions; and still classified.

 

[gmerkt]

Speaking of the Trump Administration and missiles, who came up with the bright idea that the US needed a new, separate military service called the Space Force?? Maybe Donald and Elon got together on that one. Was the US Air Force doing a crappy job? What are the Space Force and its "Guardians" going to do that the USAF can't do?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Speaking of the Trump Administration and missiles, who came up with the bright idea that the US needed a new, separate military service called the Space Force?? Maybe Donald and Elon got together on that one. Was the US Air Force doing a crappy job? What are the Space Force and its "Guardians" going to do that the USAF can't do?

Probably the exact same thing that the USAF's Space Command was doing edit.

What were the USAF and it's Airmen going to do that the Army Air Force couldn't do?

And then there's the whole "fixed wings =USAF exclusive; rotary wings=Army exclusive; Navy and Marines do their own thing"

 

[bradsteen]

With the incredible advancements in technology in the last four decades, is this worth revisiting?

If the goal is to knock ICBMs out of the sky, sure, I see that being valuable given we have numerous overtly and covertly hostile nations who either already possess them, or are in the process of acquiring them.

The bigger issue in my mind is such a system would be inherently reliant upon networks to activate, track, and eliminate incoming threats. Any system reliant on networks is susceptible to compromise, and in today's technology dependent world, those same hostile nations have advanced cyber warfare capabilities. If they were to plan on launching nukes, they would undoubtedly precede that action with massive cyber attacks to cripple our ability to defend and respond in kind.

So, we can either waste trillions on a modern equivalent of the Maginot line, or we can develop the best offensive capabilities humanly possible, and have the will to use them when necessary. I vote for the latter.

Conceivably, this would be a land, airborne, and space layered approach: how would you fit those puzzle pieces together?

I presume such a system would need to have land, air, space, and cyber elements acting in concert.

On identification of a missile launch, a cyber attack could be initiated to attempt to seize control of the missile and remotely disable or divert it, and to prevent the enemy from launching additional missiles. Ideally much of the cyber effort should go into proactively compromising hostile nations' launch capabilities via cyber intrusion so that we already have the necessary pieces in place to shut it all down immediately when required.

I see the value in potentially having a linked network of low-earth-orbit satellites with advanced video and imaging capabilities, and pairing that with AI to detect anomalous activity. For example, object and pattern recognition can help trigger alerts if hostile missile batteries look like they are in the process of being armed. However, I don't know enough about space science to opine whether space-based anti-missile capabilities (lasers, etc) would be feasible or effective.

Air and land are straightforward - targeting and engagement of threats either as they go up or as they come down. There are some innovations that could be explored (are probably already being explored), such as rail gun tech.

What of the ethics of militarizing space? Existing treaties?

*Shrug* I think having military capabilities in space is a no-brainer. We are entirely dependent on space based technology in our daily life for navigation, communication, etc. A hostile nation fielding military tech in space would be a direct threat. IIRC, Russia has demonstrated its ability to wipe out satellites. So, I see military tech in space as a way to protect what sustains us as a country.

Finally, should such a hypothetical system come to fruition, would a robust Civil Defense program coupled with encouragement to be prepared individually be a factor in the resilience planning? How would you go about it and how would it be different than past Quixotic attempts?

No. For one, there is no clearly identifiable enemy to rally people against, and no obvious threat to reinforce necessity for a civil defense program. For another, self reliance weakens the control of the government over the people, which is an outcome our government is unlikely to find acceptable (a cynical outlook, but it rings true to me). Finally, while some of those efforts were useful I think for the most part they were a placebo for the people, giving them something to focus their energy on as they faced the constant threat of total annihilation.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Well, you're the eduacamator...FIX IT!!

The folks I was thinking of are adults...can't do much for them.
As for my students....I do what I can with what I have .

Besides...It ain't up to me to "fix it"....
The best and most lasting "fixes" come from within oneself.
Andy

 

[Stomper]

Speaking of the Trump Administration and missiles, who came up with the bright idea that the US needed a new, separate military service called the Space Force?? Maybe Donald and Elon got together on that one. Was the US Air Force doing a crappy job? What are the Space Force and its "Guardians" going to do that the USAF can't do?

Probably the exact same thing that the USAF's Space Command was doing edit.

What were the USAF and it's Airmen going to do that the Army Air Force couldn't do?

Hint…..

 

[Bobbygun]

Speaking of the Trump Administration and missiles, who came up with the bright idea that the US needed a new, separate military service called the Space Force?? Maybe Donald and Elon got together on that one. Was the US Air Force doing a crappy job? What are the Space Force and its "Guardians" going to do that the USAF can't do?

Don't be silly. It's because there is no AIR in outer space.

 

[gmerkt]

What were the USAF and it's Airmen going to do that the Army Air Force couldn't do?

Going back in history some, that move seems to have made some sense. In that there was a clear division of labor, if you will, between ground forces and air forces. One prevailing idea being that the grounded generals would always see air assets as reserved for ground missions. Rather than as a more flexible force with a variety of air missions. But in the matter at hand, both the USAF and the Space Force concern themselves with stuff up in the air. Or something like that.

And then there's the whole "fixed wings =USAF exclusive; rotary wings=Army exclusive; Navy and Marines do their own thing"

Once those two services were separated, that there is an example of interservice rivalry. Which as a practical matter, makes no sense. But politics surely aren't limited to civilian life. In 1952, the Pace-Finletter DoD memo divided responsibility for fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft between the USAF and the US Army, respectively. There was a 5,000 pound empty weight limit on fixed wing aircraft that the army was allowed to retain. Over the years, the army encroached on this (example, the C-7 Caribou) and the rules had to be clarified in the 1960's. I don't know how the OV-1 Mohawk figured into this, as it clearly exceeded the limit (15,000+ lb.) but it's pretty special so there you go. Oh, and the USAF has had their own helicopters all along.

It's interesting to note that when the fixed wing vs. rotary wing whizzing contest came about between the army and USAF, the army made the claim that army aviation didn't start in 1907 with signal corps missions. The army said that was "air force history." They claimed that "army aviation" history started in 1942 with artillery spotters and this was the basis for their retaining limited fixed wing in 1952.

The USN - USMC separate air arms, that's never made any practical sense to me.