Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative/Archive 1

message: Not a single technical detail present. National security or laziness? Mikkalai 03:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Technical

message: ..and I quote "As the Soviet Union was failing, the only advantage they held was the threat of nuclear war, leading to why Gorbachev would so vehemently oppose a defensive weapon"
thank's for telling us what Gorby was thinking, as this is both relevant to the article, and non-vandalistic --172.128.124.231 21:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So, who's been talking to the prime minister of the USSR?

message: Brilliant Pebbles was a pretty central part of the later Cold-War SDI plan. Why isn't it even mentioned? And who says that SDI was intended to rely almost entirely on nuclear lasers? Brilliant Pebbles has nothing to do with lasers. It's basically like hundreds or thousands of orbiting PAC-3 missiles with integrated communications and a protective shell with integrated solar power. It was designed to be cheap (only hundreds of thousands of dollars per missile), somewhat autonomous (must be authorized to engage the target), robust (many independent missiles meant you had to take out a majority of the "pebbles" before the system is crippled), and overwhelmingly effective (with like 10 "pebbles" for each enemy missile). It was to intercept enemy missiles right after they left the atmosphere (and therefore, before the enemy missile's multiple warheads were released).
Brilliant Pebbles was even tested  (not operationally, but the technologies were tested). Unarmed "pebbles" were launched into space to test their communications and target-tracking capabilities. I think the end of the Cold War pretty much ended their development. Perhaps their cheap ability to defend against the entire Soviet threat was one reason for the end of the Cold War (and also why development of Brilliant Pebbles was stopped, perhaps by of the insistence of the Russians since the Brilliant Pebbles would have made the entire Russian missile fleet pretty much obsolete, and done so at quite a low cost, i.e. less than $30 billion).
Here's a quote from the report that sort of sums up the idea:
"Imagine thousands of tiny satellites orbiting the earth. Each is actually a little rocket, no more than 40 inches long and capable of tracking objects in space on a minute’s warning. Imagine an enemy launching hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles at the United States. The attack is detected, the tiny space rockets are activated, and they race toward the enemy missiles. At the edge of space, just above the earth’s atmosphere, these missiles encounter a hail of fire as they crash into hundreds of the small rockets. Many enemy missiles are destroyed, along with their nuclear warheads, as if blasted by a gigantic, spaceborne shotgun."
Robotbeat 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a paragraph or so in the Project and proposals section as well as a small amount in the Anti-satellite weapon article.  If you have some material to add to this article, feel free to add it. If you have enough for a separate article, make a new Brilliant Pebbles article and replace the redirect. I'd say to be careful with your sources, the Heritage Foundation might not be considered an unbiased source on Wikipedia. If it's not balanced with some opposing viewpoints it will probably be pounced on. I don't know too much about BP, so I look forward to reading the new article. --Dual Freq 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, The Heritage Foundation didn't write the article, it just has it on their website. And also, there is a smaller version of Brilliant Pebbles planned for in-orbit testing of a five satellite experimental test bed starting in 2012, and proceeding to an in-orbit thin deployment of about 100 such interceptors starting in 2016 (thousands of such interceptors would be needed to counter a threat from, say, the former USSR, so although 100 sounds big, it's really no bigger than a lot of the other currently planned/deployed ABM systems). This scaled-down Brilliant Pebbles would be only one of many layers (ABL, GMD, KEI, Aegis, THAAD, Patriot missiles, etc.) in the currently deployed and planned US Missile Defense.  Robotbeat 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDI article doesn't even mention Brilliant Pebbles, even though Brilliant Pebbles redirects here 

message: The previous version of the Project and Proposals section, "...in early December of 2005, the US Navy's Ticonderoga-class (Aegis) guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie successfully intercepted a missile during its boost phase, leading some experts in the field to suggest that the system was capable of shooting down medium and long-range ballistic missiles launched from locations relatively (200 miles) close to the coast" was horribly misleading.  It could easily be interpreted that the USS Lake Erie used x-ray lasers to shoot down the missile.  I added "using Standard missiles as part of the Aegis system," because that is how it was done.  See Ageis combat system and Aegis Combat System.  Overall, this article is misleading, mixing the facts and events regarding the x-ray laser based technologies with those of the Aegis Defense System technologies.  These technologies are very different, even thought they have the same purpose.  It is my understanding that the Strategic Defense Initiative, what was known as "Star Wars," was only in reference to the space-based, x-ray laser technologies.  Current successes with new technologies (as those achieved by the USS Lake Erie) fall under the category of National Missile Defense.  Please note that the successes of the USS Lake Erie are listed in the Recent Developments section of the National Missile Defense article.  I would appreciate some comments before I start overhauling this page to make it more accurate. -Iamthealchemist 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think SDI, under the SDIO covered all ABM efforts until it was replaced / renamed BMDO. "By the fall of 1987, SDIO had developed a national missile defense concept called the Strategic Defense System Phase I Architecture, which was composed of a space-based interceptor, a ground-based interceptor, a ground-based sensor, two space-based sensors, and a battle management system." (PD-US-GOV) Aegis TMD was under BMDO, which replaced SDIO, which, I think, is all under MDA now. --Dual Freq 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I take it that you agree that the information regarding to Aegis should be explicitly labeled as such and that it falls under MDA's oversight of National Missile Defense.  I suggest that an explicit section or statement be placed in the article regarding what you mentioned about the renaming of the agencies.  Are you interested in doing that, Dual Freq?  -Iamthealchemist 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I have a scalpel sharp enough to cut only what needs to be cut here. What is the focus of this article? Is it to simply define the term SDI or is it to detail each program that fell under the authority of the SDIO while it existed? Is there a difference between SDI and SDIO? Is SDI the name of the program for space based weapons and SDIO is the organization that managed all ABM efforts of the 80's and early 90's? Somebody who can sort out the mess of articles should take this one on. FAS has a timeline to 1998,  that could help sort it out. I guess, pull everything out of the article from 1993 on and point to articles about its successors, ie BMDO/MDA. --Dual Freq 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegis Defense System is National Missile Defense, not Strategic Defense Initiative 

message: Would like some SDI experts to weigh in here.
This article claims the "Star Wars" term originated with Carol Rosin. Am currently debating the notability of a Robert M. Bowman who claims to have coined the phrase, but so far the only primary source has been himself and he's prone to exaggeration. Was Dr. Bowman prominent in the anti-Star Wars movement and did he coin the term originally?  --Mmx1 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't know anything about him more than what his bio on his home page says.In the bio he claims to be a past Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division when "star wars" was top secret, prior to 1982. This article states that SDI was based on speeches in 1983 and SDIO was created to manage the program in late 83/early 84, so I don't know if he was actually associated with SDI. His name used to be on this page, but I removed it since I couldn't find any information that said he ran SDI after the SDIO was established. I don't have any special knowledge on this topic, though. I'm sure space weapons were researched prior to SDI, but I don't know any details. There was a working ABM program in the early to mid 70's called Safeguard, but I doubt research completely halted after that program was cancelled. --Dual Freq 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. His campaign bio lists him as the director of Advanced Space Development programs, which seems more fitting for an O-5 than SDI, which was headed by an O-9. He retired in 1978 so any official involvement is out. He became an ardent anti-SDI campaigner, we were more curious about his involvement with the anti-SDI campaign after his retirement and if he was of any note in that campaign. --Mmx1 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Star Wars" term 

message: These two points don't seem have anything to do with SDI:
Other criticisms of SDI on technical grounds included:
*It would require an estimated one hundred million lines of computer code to perform flawlessly the first time.
* Heavy clouds and moderately dense smoke–common in war conditions–can severely reduce the effectiveness of lasers, especially at X-ray wavelengths.''
I have removed them on the following grounds. The code point, Why would the code never be tested prior to usage and what is the source of this criticism? Heavy clouds / smoke, How does this affect the majority of the flight profile of a ballistic missile? These missiles fly above clouds and smoke for most of the time they are airborne. Additionally, this point has no source information. Also, the point about Reagan being influenced by a James Bond movie seems POV and is not sourced. How did that get into the article? --Dual Freq 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Two bullet points in criticism section 

message: The reference which says:
Clifford Stoll's novel The Cuckoo's Egg refers to SDI and SDINET
is not correct.  The Cuckoo's Egg is not a novel but rather autobiographical reporting. 
I will leave it to someone else to change the article.  --Bob Bolin
:Removed non-fictional book from fiction section. --Dual Freq 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added it (before seeing this section). The section is (now) called "Novels" so I don't see that it's inappropriate. I've tried to make it clear that it's an "account", it's not a "story". Stevage 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has anything to do with the real SDI. They baited some hacker with SDI information, word-searching the online book it has only a few references to SDI. As I added to the pop culture section (which I personally think is nearly worthless): Because of public awareness of the program and its controversial nature, SDI has been the subject of many fictional and pop culture references. This is not intended to be a complete list of those references. Before adding to this list, please consider if the addition actually adds to this topic, Strategic Defense Initiative. There are plenty items here that probably represent the rest adequately. There is no need for an extensive list of pop culture references here. Thank you. I'd prefer to remove the entire list, but since everybody wants to list a book or a movie I reason that a token list is fine, but I intend to keep it as small as possible. --Dual Freq 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cuckoo's Egg

message: I think what this page is missing in the criticism section is the moral criticism of the concept of strategic nuclear defense. The entire section focuses only on technical and feasability criticism, not whether or not it is moral or right to create a defensive system capable of preventing a nuclear attack. 
The entire reason why the US and the Soviet Union built huge arsenals of nuclear weapons was not to potentially gain a first strike advantage, but rather to prevent the other side from being able to win a nuclear war. That is the whole reason behind the mutually assured destruction strategy, it prevents stupidity from occurring on either side. But when the US begins developing a system capable of defeating an opponents deterrent, what is to stop the US from making a first strike on the opponent once the system is operational? Absolutely nothing.
The critcism shouldn't be about whether or not the system can work, it should be about whether a system that allows a country to murder hundreds of millions of innocent civilians without fear of an effective reprisal is morally right. Sarcastic Avenger 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Soviet SDI research and its moral issues. See SOVIET STRATEGIC DEFENSE PROGRAMS October 1985. They had the only operational ABM system in the world when SDI was conceived. --Dual Freq 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the topic, not critique it. Machine guns killed millions of people in World War I, but you won't find moral criticisms of this in the article on machine guns. Why? Because that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Such issues obviously exist, and there is no shortage of venues to pursue those -- Usenet, discussion forums, newspaper editorials, letters to editors, civics debates, etc, etc. There are obviously moral issues associated with warfighting strategies, especially of the nuclear variety. However an encyclopedia article is not the place to debate those. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it's not Usenet. For comparison see the Encarta, Britannica, World Book entries on similar subjects. You won't see significant sections on morality or criticism. Those don't belong in an encyclopedia. Joema 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Moral outcry is encyclopaedic. We do not attempt to determine the validity of those complaints, but if significant public debate occurs, it should be here. See circumcision, abortion and Hamas if you want some examples. Stevage 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic: development history, who invented it, how does it work, etc. Your abortion reference illustrates this. Despite the moral issues, the Wikipedia abortion article is largely devoid of moral debate. The title is abortion, not abortion debate. The debate and moral arguments are reserved for a topic with that name: abortion debate. Likewise this article is called SDI, not SDI debate. Like the abortion article, this article already has a modest criticism section of appropriate size and scope. If people want to pontificate on the SDI debate, that's reserved for a separate article with that title. Joema 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of SDI

message: Anyone out there have an idea for an image for this article. I'm sort of looking for an SDI logo. I've found some on Google image search, but they are not PD, so I can't use them. Maybe someone has an SDI patch they can photograph or something similar. If not I think I'll just take a US Gov artist concept of Brilliant Pebbles and put it up. Any other ideas? --Dual Freq 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found logo on MDA website biography page. Need some more images, maybe system test images, etc. --Dual Freq 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Added Reagan SDI speech, HOE, ERINT and MIRACL images, any other suggestions? --Dual Freq 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Added 2 USAF concept art images from 1984. They weren't specifically labeled SDI in the DOD image archive, but they appear to apply to the topic. Any other ideas for photos? --Dual Freq 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: So far the Advanced Space Programs Development is very stubby, I tried to dig out some interesting info but little luck so far.
But since it seems to be the predecessor of the SDI program, let's merge it here. 84.145.241.165 12:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need ASPD merged into SDI especially if there are no reliable references. I thought the Safeguard Program was the main ABM program that preceded SDI, though there really was no agency that preceded the SDIO. I believe that once the SDIO opened, many of the DARPA, Air Force, Navy and Army programs relating to Ballistic missile defense were all snapped up and pulled under the central control of the SDIO. So in that respect there isn't exactly a preceding agency, just a bunch of separate programs that came together under the SDIO. --Dual Freq 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: thebeatlesanthol:
Stop using the word "initial." It's boring.
:Thanks for pointing that out in the polite fashion that you did. I probably subliminally added them some time ago and just never noticed the 6 or 7 uses in the article. You could have simply changed some of them yourself instead of making your "boring" comment and ordering that usage be stopped. --Dual Freq 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetitive Wording

message: Please do not move sections contributed by others until there has been discussion of the proposed move (as I did above).  The issue of cost is a fact, not an opinion, and was contributed as a fact by me.  Just because someone feels it is an unflattering fact does not justify its move to the Criticisms section.  Various countermeasures had to be considered by SDIO itself, so it would not be accurate to say only critics brought these points up, and so this also does not belong in the criticisms section.  Protection against countermeasures were a design requirement.  Please do not treat this article as your own personal web page. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative effort.  Show consideration for other contributors.--Hanuman 12:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving New Sections

message: People frequently misunderstand the historical context of SDI. They confuse SDI with missile defense in general (tactical, strategic) and with more recent missile defense items (Patriot, Arrow, NMD). Reading only this article, they could go away thinking SDI was the first ICBM defense system. Added a brief section to help clarify this. Don't want to sidetrack the main article, but I think most readers are aided by first having the historical context into which the article info applies. Joema 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added pre-SDI section 

message: The Outer Space Treaty only applies to nuclear weapons or other WMD right? Based on that, the only nuclear weapon under SDI was the X-ray laser. I believe all the other weapons were hit-to-kill or non-nuclear directed energy which are certainly not WMD. Wouldn't it be wise to amend the treaty section to clarify that not all SDI researched weapons were nuclear? I thought this was fairly clear in the rest of the article, but maybe it was omitted. In the past this article seemed to latch on to the X-ray laser and treat it like it was the sole purpose of SDI. It was just one component researched. Many option and many layers from ground to space were researched. --Dual Freq 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. We should be clear the Outer Space Treaty would only have impacted orbital nuclear pumped lasers, not SDI as a whole. Joema 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Space Treaty 

message: As for MAD, the whole point of SDI was Strategic defense, not strategic offense (ie MAD) which is completely useless vs accidental or rogue state launches. I also thought that SDI technology was offered to the USSR to prevent a buildup and to facilitate a change of doctrine from MAD to defense, reducing the need for large arsenals of nuclear weapons. --Dual Freq 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SDI criticism based on MAD was this: however crazy, MAD has achieved an apparently stable equilibrium and SDI threatened to disrupt that. Yes, MAD was useless for accidental launches, non-state entities, or irrational opponenents. All those were arguements for SDI. However our goal as editors is to document history, which includes the criticism of SDI based on weakening MAD, not evaluate the rationality of the criticism. Re offering SDI to USSR, yes that was done by Reagan himself. Many questioned this reasoning (including Gorbachev), but Reagan was quite insistent on this point. See facinating actual transcript of Reagan-Gorbachev discussion on SDI:  Joema 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should add these comments to the appropriate C&C section.--Hanuman 10:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I gave it a try. Change as you see fit. Joema 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MAD

message: : Critics often cite the X-ray laser system as the primary focus of SDI and its apparent failure becomes a main reason to oppose SDI. However, the laser was never more than one of the many systems being researched for ballistic missile defense.
This is a bit disingenous. The reason the X-ray laser is cited so much by opponents is because 1. a BIG deal was made about it, more than the other plans with the later exception of Brilliant pebbles, 2. it was completely oversold in terms of its technical feasibility, and 3. the fact that Teller and Wood were deliberately overselling it to Reagan became a big scandle when they fired the Livermore whistleblower. To dismiss it as "never more than one of the many systems" is a bit false (it was certainly sold as a major contender) and the reason why a lot of people make a big deal about its failure is because its technical failure was directly connected to the political hype of SDI in a rather nasty way. --Fastfission 02:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the image current illustrating the X-ray laser is wrong. I don't know what kind of laser that is, but it is definitely not the bomb-surrounded-by-rods X-ray laser (which I have not seen depicted too many places but believe looks more like this from the descriptions). I think it's somewhat misleading to have a different system displayed there... --Fastfission 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-ray laser

message: Is it really appropriate to call a hypervelocity rail gun a directed-energy weapon? Granted, you're directing a hell of a lot of kinetic energy at the target, but to my understanding the term is only used for 'death ray'-type weapons. -Toptomcat 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rail gun = 'directed energy?'