No missile shield in Eastern Europe

[MKSheppard]

What's your point? It works = fraud is ok? I've got to spread the word!

This kind of trick is as old and as american as apple pie:

"Let's rebuild refit our sailing frigates; it will be cheaper than building new sailing frigates, Mr. Congressman. We expect to reuse 20% most of the wood."

"Let's replace refit our Civil War Monitors. It will be cheaper than building new warships. We expect to reuse only the ship's bell most of the hull."

"We shall introduce the B-29D B-50; it is a wholly new aircraft which has nothing in common with the B-29s we are scrapping or putting into storage, Mr Congressman."

[Stark]

Look I know you're an actual-factual retard, but learn to fucking read. I JUST FUCKING SAID that 'it happens a lot' is not a defence of the practice. And yet here you are; predictably glorying in the practice. But hey, you're the kind of internet tough-guy who thinks cutting the civilian government out of the loop and simply doing what the general staff wants is the best way to be UBER MACHO, so nobody should be surprised.

After all, with the military in charge, what could go wrong? The civilian population is really just there to fuel the military without oversight, everyone knows that.

PS appeal to tradition = you are dumb.

[MKSheppard]

After all, with the military in charge, what could go wrong? The civilian population is really just there to fuel the military without oversight, everyone knows that.

Funnily enough, that's how the Defense budget pretty much worked until McNamara arrived.

The way it worked was that DoD was allocated a fixed amount of money to spend each year essentially, and the three services would engage in a budgetary death match within the halls of the Pentagon until they had hashed out a budget that was acceptable to the three services -- with a lot of wheeling and dealing involved.

"Look, General Hardbeef, I'll support your M105 150mm armed Death Tank, if you'll support my F-103 Super Triple Sonic VTOL Death Jet. Admiral Nutsack; you'll support my F-103 program if I support your demands for all major combatants to be nuclear powered by FY54."

"Right, we all decided on this? Lets go to Congress."

"Mr Congressman, why, we would be more than happy to buy some F-99 Sky Rapiers that are built in your district as a supplemental."

It basically worked. Then McNamara came along and turned the budgeting system into the bloated mass it is today.

[Stark]

Wow, you've managed to painlessly segue RIGHT INTO YOUR TIRESOME HOBBYHORSE. Sadly, it's not relevant. I mean, I've always hit my wife. Why would I stop?

[K. A. Pital]

That is not any sort of "outdated technical argument against ABM". Still missing the point, Shep. I'm looking for outdated technical arguments against ABM, which Starglider claimed were put forward by the political administration. So far no evidence. Cutting investments into unproven or delayed systems and investing in systems considered proven like SM-3 is not an "outdated technical argument", it's just a matter of decision.

On the other hand, THAAD is ready to be mass produced and deployed, and it was designed from the start as a land based system; and it has a record of proven intercepts. So why was a notational "land based" SM-3 picked over this?

Well maybe you should talk to the Navy lobby then, Shep. Because apparently THAAD makers could not convince in due manner the authorities that their system is:
1) ready
2) to be mass produced and deployed
3) has a record of proven intercepts

Maybe there's a problem.

Hey, I just noticed that in BHO's press release; all of the SM-3 blocks are for SRBMs/MRBMs/IRBMs;

SM-3 successfully destroyed a satellite. You think it would fail in destroying an ICBM warhead which is for the duration of ascension and suborbital transition a similar object moving at orbital speeds? Or? Maybe we should call Stuart to weigh in on that?

the termination of KEI; which would have astonishing kinetic performance, while being relatively ground mobile

KEI was:
1) ready for mass production?
2) having a record of proven intercepts?

If the answer is no to both, what is the problem? Putative performance over real performance?

[Thanas]

Yeah. It is funny how people consistently defend Bush's policies as Realpolitik when they were anything but. Realpolitik is what Bismarck did. When most americans talk about realpolitik, it usually means the opposite - the pigheaded pursuit of interests to the detriment of everyone else.

Many of us outside Germany are honestly confused on this point, possibly because Bismarck's reputation is more ambiguous outside Germany. I, for example, was under the impression that Bismarck pursued his own country's interests while at best being neutral towards and at worst actively harmful to others.

Then you need to read what Bismarck actually did - in essence, offering rather fair terms to defeated nations (except in case of France, when he was overruled, still the treaty of 1871 was far less harsh than previous french treaties with german states), guaranteeing stability for over 30 years with his treaties (a feat unheard of before), creating the first social security system, enhancing the secularization of the state, jumpstarting the industrialization, allowing the first nationwide equal elections and keeping his nose out of the business of other nations as long as it did not concern Germany.

All of those are very long-term strategy goals that at best exploit short-term weaknesses. Bismarck always tried to treat defeated nations with respect and succeded. Even in the case of France, the treaty conditions were far, far more fair than anything Napoleon inflicted - and this was a case in which Bismarck was overruled, he wanted far easier terms.

This creates a disconnect: the German "Realpolitik" may not mean quite the same thing to Germans that the loan word "realpolitik" does to English speakers. To me, it always had overtones of ruthlessness, of ignoring ideological and 'honor of the state' concerns in favor of taking advantage of the immediate situation as efficiently as possible. Sometimes this brings good results; other times not so much, especially in the long term, because realpolitik-as-most-Americans-understand-it is a short term optimization strategy.

Ruthlessnes and other concerns are nothing new. What is new to Realpolitik in the sense Bismarck is that it does not consider the honor of the state and ideological reasons causes to act unless it is in the interest of the state to act and there is a chance of profit (paraphrasing).

Not what Bush did, which was to squander his nations strength for little to no gain. Realpolitik has become a buzzword because it has become so distorted, but if you look closer you will find that Obama is practicing much more realpolitik than Bush ever did, such as his willingness to talk with Iran and to get out of Iraq despite accomplishing little freedom and democracy there.

The general staff knows what's best!

Yeah, we tried that once. Turns out that it didn't work so swell when you ignore politics in favor of weapon systems and blatant military posturing. But who knew the Romans were right all along? After all, they just had the longest lasting empire in history.

[Ritterin Sophia]

So wait, GBI's been cancelled? Shep, Star, someone have a link?

[Lonestar]

So wait, GBI's been cancelled? Shep, Star, someone have a link?

It's been canceled for Europe and truncated in Alaska. BUT(and this is a big but), Boeing already proposed a mobile version of it months ago, so they at least were anticipating this from coming out of the Obama administration.

So we'll see.

[Simon_Jester]

Then you need to read what Bismarck actually did - in essence, offering rather fair terms to defeated nations (except in case of France, when he was overruled, still the treaty of 1871 was far less harsh than previous french treaties with german states), guaranteeing stability for over 30 years with his treaties (a feat unheard of before), creating the first social security system, enhancing the secularization of the state, jumpstarting the industrialization, allowing the first nationwide equal elections and keeping his nose out of the business of other nations as long as it did not concern Germany.

Much of this I am aware of. Again, there's a fundamental disconnect here over what "realpolitik" is applied to, probably because the term is tied so intimately to a politician who has a MUCH better reputation in his own country than out of it.

I'm not saying Bismarck was punitive against France, or that he was some kind of cartoon character constantly pitting everyone against everyone. He wasn't. I'm saying that he is (in the eyes of the non-German world) often associated with a policy that was, a policy that to be quite honest didn't blossom in its true stupid glory until years after his death. It's not fair to the man, but it explains why Americans talk about realpolitik in terms that make no sense to a German.

As for what I said, nothing you've told me is mutually exclusive with "Bismarck pursued his own country's interests while at best being neutral towards and at worst actively harmful to others." Many of the reforms and positive steps you cite were very much in Germany's interests, but I never denied and would never consider denying that Bismarck did Germany a lot of good. However, being a German, he naturally sought to do good for Germany first and other nations only as an afterthought. As a result, many of his foreign policies had bad effects on other nations, even if those bad effects were not intended goals of his policies.

Declare Bismarck the patron saint of Germany, fine, you have good reasons for doing so, it makes perfect sense. He did more for the place than just about anyone else who's ever lived. But remember that he's NOT going to look as good to a Frenchman (or to an American; we have a long on-and-off love affair with France that's lasted for most of our history) as he does to you, for obvious reasons that I think any fair minded person will understand. And that colors perceptions of the single word most commonly associated with the man in any language.
_______

Not what Bush did, which was to squander his nations strength for little to no gain. Realpolitik has become a buzzword because it has become so distorted, but if you look closer you will find that Obama is practicing much more realpolitik than Bush ever did, such as his willingness to talk with Iran and to get out of Iraq despite accomplishing little freedom and democracy there.

I am inclined to agree. Bush thought he was practicing realpolitik, but he was an idiot, so that doesn't matter. An idiot can believe anything if they put their mind to it.

I'm just trying to explain the reason why the word "realpolitik" mutated into the strange and improbable beast found in American discussions, rather than remaining faithful to its German origins. It went something like this:

"Realpolitik is what Bismarck did!"
Foreigners*: "We perceive Bismarck as a ruthless bastard who cared for nothing save his own country's interests!"
Foreigners who have read Machiavelli: "Bismarck did a pretty good job!"
Same foreigners: "We should be ruthless bastards who care for nothing save our own country's interests!"
Same foreigners: "OK, what are our country's interests?"

At this point, smart people give smart answers and do smart things. Stupid people give stupid answers and adopt cunning strategies aimed at the wrong goals, in ways that will never work, using realpolitik as a cover. And the hell of it is that they believe their own buzzword, because realpolitik as understood by foreigners* is vague enough that it's easy for any individual person to convince themself that they're doing it.

*As in, people who are not German

The general staff knows what's best!

Yeah, we tried that once. Turns out that it didn't work so swell when you ignore politics in favor of weapon systems and blatant military posturing. But who knew the Romans were right all along? After all, they just had the longest lasting empire in history.

Shorten your weapons and lengthen your frontiers, sort of thing?

[Thanas]

Much of this I am aware of. Again, there's a fundamental disconnect here over what "realpolitik" is applied to, probably because the term is tied so intimately to a politician who has a MUCH better reputation in his own country than out of it.

I'm not saying Bismarck was punitive against France, or that he was some kind of cartoon character constantly pitting everyone against everyone. He wasn't. I'm saying that he is (in the eyes of the non-German world) often associated with a policy that was, a policy that to be quite honest didn't blossom in its true stupid glory until years after his death. It's not fair to the man, but it explains why Americans talk about realpolitik in terms that make no sense to a German.

As for what I said, nothing you've told me is mutually exclusive with "Bismarck pursued his own country's interests while at best being neutral towards and at worst actively harmful to others." Many of the reforms and positive steps you cite were very much in Germany's interests, but I never denied and would never consider denying that Bismarck did Germany a lot of good. However, being a German, he naturally sought to do good for Germany first and other nations only as an afterthought. As a result, many of his foreign policies had bad effects on other nations, even if those bad effects were not intended goals of his policies.

Which bad effects were that and are they in any way comparable to what happened earlier in European history? Because otherwise you might just as well declare that Bismarck's policy was actually way, way safer than anything that happened before. For example, would you say that he was worse than Napoleon III? Or Napoleon I? Or any British politician of the 19th century?

The only reason Bismarck has got a bad reputation is that he was the ancestor of modern Germany and Germany was the primary antagonist in both world wars.

But remember that he's NOT going to look as good to a Frenchman (or to an American; we have a long on-and-off love affair with France that's lasted for most of our history) as he does to you, for obvious reasons that I think any fair minded person will understand. And that colors perceptions of the single word most commonly associated with the man in any language.

Such assesments are hilariously hypocritical.

The general staff knows what's best!

Yeah, we tried that once. Turns out that it didn't work so swell when you ignore politics in favor of weapon systems and blatant military posturing. But who knew the Romans were right all along? After all, they just had the longest lasting empire in history.

Shorten your weapons and lengthen your frontiers, sort of thing?

No, as in viewing military matters as secondary to political realities.

[Serafina]

Realpolitik boils down to "to what's best, and not the emotional thing".

Which means that you do not punish a beaten foe (unless you have to, say, you need money) - because that will only piss him off. You will propably want to do so, badly, but it's not the smart thing to do.

Likewise, talking to Iran is the smart thing to do. It does not prevent you from doing military action if necessary, but it makes YOU look less like a bad guy, and might actually be good for something.

[CmdrWilkens]

So to summarize: We are still going to put missile defense in Europe, it will be based on continuous upgrades to the SM-3 BMD system including land based models, and says nothing about GBI in terms of the US defense at home.

So to summarize: there is no such thing as land-based SM-3. It's all notational at this point; and there's a lot of work involved in converting something from a seabased system to a land based one -- here's a hint -- on a warship C3I is pretty easy, since everything -- command/control, sensors, and the weapon are in fixed locations relative to each other and within close proximity of each other.

Yet oddly enough since all of the current threat axis lie within range of sea based systems we can use such systems (note Phase 1 into Phase 2) as the initial line of defense while working on the C4I infrastructure for a land based variant.

Hey, I just noticed that in BHO's press release; all of the SM-3 blocks are for SRBMs/MRBMs/IRBMs; and it's not until Phase 4 in 2020; that we get SM-3 Block IIB which can defeat ICBMs over a reasonable area.

So yeah, we go from a system that can go online in a few years, to one that's eleven years away vs the ICBM threat

So two things: 1) Even the rosiest predictions didn't have this system operational prior to Phase 2 or 3 of the new program so I don't know where the hell you are getting your operational horizons from and 2) The only folks who we are really worried about don't have ICBMs and likely won't be able to both continue nuclear weapons development and fund ICBM development prior to Phase 4 being operational so color me unconcerned as we are buying in to a system designed to counter the actual threats on the board.

[Medic]

the termination of KEI; which would have astonishing kinetic performance, while being relatively ground mobile

KEI was:
1) ready for mass production?
2) having a record of proven intercepts?

If the answer is no to both, what is the problem? Putative performance over real performance?

In a word: yes. Generally speaking all modern wars are fought with equipment built just years or decades prior to ever seeing combat and developed yet further ago than that. The original bunker buster cobbled together in the Gulf War is a (glaring) exception as are spamming fleets of ever-increasingly armored AFV's in Iraq in a few relatively short years. (the uparmored humvee, then M1117 armored cars and finally MRAP's and Buffalo's)

The disparity in performance at the moment isn't relevant in the developmental and production timespan of these weapons, a fact doubly, triply truer in the relevant time span these weapons might see combat. Abrams, Apaches, F-15's, Humvees, Bradleys and more were all relatively new at the time of the Gulf War but still saw action over a decade later.

Killing KEI, for example, probably just means no real boost-phase defense, reasonably soon or ever. NCADE and ABL hardly count since 1) we're not guaranteed to get tactical fighters in enemy airspace close to BM launch sites, even with F-22 (which is now and will forever more be the "silver bullet" critics feared it would become because we only built a force that can reasonably sortie, what, 40, 60 fighters in any given theater of war, with rotations?) and 2) ABL is a big shiny experiment, in lieu of a viable solid-state laser. And as large as the KEI was, I'm skeptical anything in the boost-phase defense role will ever fit on a surface warship.

[MKSheppard]

Let's consider the following facts:

GBI (Lockheed Martin BV): 7 km/sec delta vee (early one used in early tests etc)
GBI (Orbital Sciences BV) 8 km/sec delta vee (operationally deployed version)
SM-3 Block I: About 4.5 km/sec delta vee
SM-3 Block II ultimate: 6.5 km/sec delta vee

Even in it's ultimate form, the SM-3 can't even begin to compete in the same league as GBI. As the system is presently configured; GBI has nearly twice the delta vee of SM-3, equating to much much more defended area capability.

The big problem with GBI; in fact, it's only problem, is it's very large minimum range of 1,000 km. Which means there's a role for SM-3 and THAAD in any missile defense program. The problem comes when you simply put all your chips onto SM-3; which is actually less reliable than GBI.

Yes; the people who do the "proven and reliable" canard; leave out the fact that GBI has had a 100% intercept rate with operationally configured production interceptors; as opposed to 80% for SM-3 operationally configured production interceptors.

All the misses were made with the early pre-production EMD hardware.

Additionally, I've learned several facts about GBI's kill vehicle.

1.) It's command guided. Yes; it gets continuously updated on the target's location at all times by the ground based component.

2.) It has a two plane telescope array, which sees in both medium wavelength IIR and visual light. Can we say idiotically easy discrimination when combined with command guidance from the very powerful ground radars?

3.) It's onboard sensors acquire the target at 600 to 800 km -- at a velocity of between 7 to 15 km/sec; depending on the flight profile flown by the booster.

Combine that long acquistion range with the long range of GBI (5,000 km); and basically, there is no way the enemy can even debuss his warheads before the warhead bus is blown out of the sky.

It might even have Track Via Missile Gudiance -- we've seen "sanitized" footage from GBI EKV's sensors; which means there's enough bandwidth to beam the television/IR imagery back to the ground control station, and also radio corrections back up.

[MKSheppard]

Additionally, the SM-3 seeker seems to operate ONLY in one wavelength; long wave IIR. Adding multi-wavelength capability is not envisioned until Block II. GBI already has two wavelength capability. (IR + Visual).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there any possibility they might think of enlarging the SM-3's width to accommodate more capabilities? Admittedly that requires more work from scratch and modifications to the existing MK41 setup.

[MKSheppard]

Is there any possibility they might think of enlarging the SM-3's width to accommodate more capabilities? Admittedly that requires more work from scratch and modifications to the existing MK41 setup.

That's Block II, it will have a 21" Booster and Sustainer; as opposed to the current 13.5" Sustainer. Too bad we won't see it before about 2020 timeframe.

[Simon_Jester]

Which bad effects were that and are they in any way comparable to what happened earlier in European history? Because otherwise you might just as well declare that Bismarck's policy was actually way, way safer than anything that happened before. For example, would you say that he was worse than Napoleon III? Or Napoleon I? Or any British politician of the 19th century?

No, not really. Like virtually all politicians, Bismarck worked for his own country's interests; like most politicians who are good at working for their own country's interests, he got different reputations inside and outside his country. Being good at working for the interests of group X gets you a well-deserved good reputation among group X; if it means pursuing the interests of X at the expense of Y, Y will not love you.

For this reason, most of the world does not love Bismarck. I am not claiming that Bismarck was any kind of a villain, or that he does not deserve the good reputation he has in Germany. I am merely saying that, as a matter of fact, he does have an exceptional reputation for ruthless maneuver in his foreign policy among non-Germans, whether he earned that reputation or not.

Because of this disconnect in his reputation, the connotations of a word closely associated with his policies may be different in Germany (where he's the great unifier) and in foreign countries (where he's that magnificient bastard who unified Germany). That is all I am trying to convey here. I accept that Bismarck probably wasn't actually as ruthlessly manipulative as his non-German reputation holds, and I did not for a moment claim that he caused some great unique evil that he should be blamed for.

But remember that he's NOT going to look as good to a Frenchman (or to an American; we have a long on-and-off love affair with France that's lasted for most of our history) as he does to you, for obvious reasons that I think any fair minded person will understand. And that colors perceptions of the single word most commonly associated with the man in any language.

Such assesments are hilariously hypocritical.

To be sure.

The Americans think of George Washington as a great heroic general; the Iroquois call him "Town Burner." The English remember Oliver Cromwell as a harsh but fair revolutionary reformer; the Irish remember him as a butcher. For the purpose of what I'm trying to say, I don't really care who is right about this issue, because in many cases it's too hard to unravel. Washington did lead the army that secured the US's independence and he did burn Iroquois towns; is one side of his legacy true and the other false?

Bismarck did unify Germany and enact many reforms in Germany, and he did lead the Prussian state into wars with foreign powers and act in ways that isolated France and weakened Russia in Europe, because he believed that it was in German interests to do so. Again, is one side of his legacy true and the other false?

Most historical figures are at least somewhat ambiguous, and they look a lot better to the people who got the good side of their policies than to the ones who got the bad end.

[Thanas]

But remember that he's NOT going to look as good to a Frenchman (or to an American; we have a long on-and-off love affair with France that's lasted for most of our history) as he does to you, for obvious reasons that I think any fair minded person will understand. And that colors perceptions of the single word most commonly associated with the man in any language.

Such assesments are hilariously hypocritical.

To be sure.

The Americans think of George Washington as a great heroic general; the Iroquois call him "Town Burner." The English remember Oliver Cromwell as a harsh but fair revolutionary reformer; the Irish remember him as a butcher. For the purpose of what I'm trying to say, I don't really care who is right about this issue, because in many cases it's too hard to unravel. Washington did lead the army that secured the US's independence and he did burn Iroquois towns; is one side of his legacy true and the other false?

Bismarck did unify Germany and enact many reforms in Germany, and he did lead the Prussian state into wars with foreign powers and act in ways that isolated France and weakened Russia in Europe, because he believed that it was in German interests to do so. Again, is one side of his legacy true and the other false?

Most historical figures are at least somewhat ambiguous, and they look a lot better to the people who got the good side of their policies than to the ones who got the bad end.

So...explain to me why americans should have a bad opinion of him. Or why British should. Furthermore, unlike other politicians, he had no interest in genociding natives. Unlike certain other people. And he was far more succesful in establishing social advancement (universal healthcare? Hallo?)

Yet Bismarck is made into some kind of monster lacking a conscience, while Napoleon III., who did employ similar tactics in Italy (but was less smart in doing so) is not called to the task. Nor are any of the British politiicians or any of the Americans, most of which committed far more horrible acts than Bismarck ever did. Every nation exploited any weaknesses it saw at that time, yet Bismarck is the only one who gets a bad reputation for it.

So yeah, pray tell me why Bismarck is supposed to be the epitome of this caricature of Realpolitik when other nations were willing to force others to buy their drugs and genocide whole people willy-nilly?

The fact of the matter is that this is connected with WWI and WWII.