arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) (08/04/89)
From: arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling)
Newsgroups: sci.military,talk.politics.mideast
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
rrow/e5
ARROW, ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSLE
The following is likely to generate some political type
discussion not permitted on sci.military. Please post such
responses to talk.politics.mideast or email per suggestion
of moderator.
I trust the moderator will take care of posting to tpm.
[mod.note: Indeed. Followups have been directed to t.p.mideast.
You can reset your Newsgroups: line to sci.military if your response
is technical only. - Bill ]
.....................
It is my understanding that American taxpayers are funding,
to the tune of $65.2 million per year, an Israeli
development called the Arrow. It is my further
understanding that this weapon will have capabilities that
the U S doesn't possess, i.e. shooting down ballistic
missles.
A number of questions come to mind:
1. Is the above true?
2. Does this not violate the ABM Treaty?
3. Why would we not develop such an advanced weapon
ourselves particularly in light of the fact that we are
paying for it?
4. Does the USSR have such a system?
.......Please, only technical info to sci.military......
The Amateur Radio Forum (arf) smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (08/09/89)
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <8797@cbnews.ATT.COM>, arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) writes: > It is my understanding that American taxpayers are funding, > to the tune of $65.2 million per year, an Israeli > development called the Arrow. I don't know if it's the Arrow or not; however, Israel does have some SDI R&D contracts. The U.S. has been urging all interested friendly nations to join in, partly to help have SDI accepted politically (or economically...) by NATO et al. > 2. Does this not violate the ABM Treaty? Whether or not SDI violates the ABM treaty is a matter for talk.politics; I have my own very firm opinion, but this isn't the place for it. In any event, I believe that the Israeli project is directed towards intercepting short and medium range missle, those that would be used by its likely opponents. I don't think the ABM treaty covers that case. > 3. Why would we not develop such an advanced weapon > ourselves particularly in light of the fact that we are > paying for it? We don't have the engineering staff to pursue all possible options. There's another point, rather more subtle. It may appear a bit tangential to sci.military, but I don't think so; logistics are a part of military strategy as well. Modern warfare is technological. Furthermore, the state of the art is such that you *can't* come online instantaneously; you have to have the trained corps of engineers, technicians, etc. How do you maintain such a staff during peacetime? Once a war starts, you won't have time; they can't master the necessary body of knowledge quickly enough to help. The obvious answer is that you subsidize them to do something related, preferably something that's also politically acceptable. (Military expenditures during peacetime are not very popular.) Much of the early U.S. space program was there for this very reason -- to keep aerospace engineers employed doing something related to missle and jet plane design. Having them actually build weapons wouldn't have flown, so to speak, nor would direct subsidies to Boeing et al. for civilian aircraft have been contemplated at the time. (Reference for all this: "The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Program". I forget the author, but the book won a Pulitzer Prize, I believe.) I think that a lot of SDI is like this. If it works (obviously debated), it may or may not be useful (another topic for talk.politics). But in the interim, it's providing employment for lots of technical types -- people who can be redeployed to doing something immediately useful in event of a crisis. Funding Israel to do development of this has similar effects -- it strengthens the technological base of a strategic ally. (Note here that I'm very carefully not saying that Israel is morally right or wrong, simply that the U.S. perceives a long-term strategic or geopolitical benefit to the alliance. Again, I have some very firm (and sometimes loud) opinions, but I'll keep them out of this newsgroup.) --Steve Bellovin
nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) (08/12/89)
From: well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle)
It would make a lot of sense for the Israelis to develop a defense
against short and medium range surface-to-surface missiles. Such
missiles are becoming widely available; China sells them, among other
sources. A range of a few hundred miles is enough for most Middle Eastern
countries, since the enemy is no further away than that. (They can't go
for the Great Satan this way until they get a longer-range missile.)
The next Middle Eastern war will probably involve some of these missiles.
Nuclear warheads are unlikely (although not impossible), but chemical
or biological warheads are a distinct possibility.
Missile technology is becoming widespread. Fundamentally, missiles
are no more complex than modern aircraft, and an aircraft industry
capable of building a decent fighter should be able to build an IRBM
or ICBM without serious difficulty. Hitting a hardened silo might be
tough, and building a MIRV might take extensive work. But a vanilla
IRBM/ICBM, comparable to a '60s vintage US missile, is within the easy
reach of any country that can build a decent military aircraft.
John Nagle