Talk:National missile defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Although most (though not all) defense analysts believe that developing a system to intercept a small missile attack is technologically possible, some have questioned whether it is strategy that preferably to a promise of retaliation.

The second clause of this sentence is nonsensical. I'm at a loss as to how to rewrite it, as I have no idea what the original author meant. Article history isn't helping either, unless I'm just missing something. Hephaestos

Is missle defense unfeasible? That's what they said about breaking the sound barrier, computers, fighting viruses...that's what they're saying about the speed of light. How do YOU know what the future holds?--naryathegreat 04:48, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

@ Hephaestos. The above sentence is refering to the removal of Mutual Assured Destruction, and is posing whether an anti missile system is preferable to the promise of retaliation. According to recent scaremongering and media coverage, a nuclear bomb could come from anywhere and nowhere so my question would be 'retaliate against who?'. Assuming that a nuclear attack would come via an ICBM or other ballistic means an anti missile system would be preferable, but in the case of a random state financed car bomb or suitcase dirty bomb neither 'defence' would be appropriate, unless the bomber could be isolated and identified, a task that in the remains of a nuclear explosion would be difficult. - Tom Nixon


I'm boldly deleting the sentence on the suspicion that it is unsupported:

It [SDI] has since then gained the support of some of its erstwhile critics.

If this is simply a matter of my ignorance, please re-instate (but help educate us all by naming the critics or at least explain why they recanted). technopilgrim

Australia's participation "notable"? As far as I can tell, we're letting the US use existing bases as part as their NMD system. As far as I can tell, there's been no actual money spent by Australia on the system so far, and no suggestion by the government in their forward estimates of any plans (and you can download their forward defence acquisition plans on the internet, if you're interested) to actually spend Australian taxpayer dollars on it. Basically, Australia's position seems to be "if you want to build a system, sure, use your bases for it if you want, but spend your own money on it." It is also notable that Australia has requested that the US take note of Russian and Chinese sensibilities on the issue [1]--Robert Merkel 02:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


I thought the US wished for Australia to be involved for the use of our Jindalee radar station? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wdywtk (talk • contribs) 07:08, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Japanese Involvment

Perhaps some mention should be made of the increasing Japanese involvement with the United States' Missile Defense program. See http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_US_Step_Up_Work_On_Missile_Shield_999.html

[edit] More criticism stuff needed

At some stage in the past, the article had a fuller discussion of the tactical implications of NMD, and its limitations (for instance, that it only defends against one delivery method, the one least likely to be used by terrorists, that the US's nuclear arsenal is already an effective deterrent against attacks by other countries, and the existence of a NMD system, while defensive in itself, would give America the ability to attack nuclear-armed states with less fear of retaliation and is thus a de facto offensive weapon). Did this get placed in some other article or did some of our more conservative-leaning contributors quietly remove it because it offended their delicate sensibilities? --Robert Merkel 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OMG< but like how could you ever find anything bad to put in an article about a failed missile system which proposed putting nuclear weapons in space, and ultimatly cost millions in tax dollars, all for 1 succesful, yet rigged, test, like how could you ever find any criticsms--152.163.100.204 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I read through this article and noticed it gets a "B" rating, but it should be more like a "P" rating for propaganda in favor of the program. Why is there next to no critism exposing the "successfull" tests as being fraudulent or over exaggerated and unrealistic at best, and why is there no discussion of why a ballistic missile defense system is technically unfeasible given what we know of the technology and its many counter measures?

[2] Bush's Latest Missile-Defense Folly

[3] Missile Defense System Won't Work

Theodore Postol—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs) .

There's no pro-NMD propaganda in the article. It's completely consistent in tone and coverage with similar material in Encarta and Britannica. The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic, NOT to provide a pro/con debate. E.g, automobiles have killed more people than both World Wars and damaged the environment. Many argue mass transit is better. However you don't see this debated in the automobile article. Why? Because that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Describing the topic does not equate to a PRO position. Examine the articles on evolution and abortion. They emphasize describing these items, not debating or criticizing them. There are ample avenues to persuade people of your opinions, including Usenet and various discussion forums. Joema 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a fact that all of the NMD program tests to date have been highly simplistic and unrealistic, and it is a fact that there are so many simple counter measures to the NMD that it's an outright lie to suggest that the program has any hope of performing as an effective defense shield. Many other Wikipedia articles have a "criticism" section, but this one does not, and what criticism there is, is so toned down that it's almost hidden from view. Without all the known facts in place, the article reads as if it was taken right out of a Pentagon sales brochure. I'm NOT asking for a debate, just an inclusion of ALL of the facts that are relevant to the topic at hand. The wikipedia entry on Theodore Postol contains enough information to back up what I'm saying in here as being factual.
If the intention is to make Wikipedia look like Encarta or Britannica (as you seem to have suggested), then to be consistent with the aforementioned publications, Wikipedia must be locked up and made read-only to the public! An encyclopedia is NOT something that must be "consistent in tone and coverage" to what the establishment favors, instead it should be a source of quality information that covers all of the known facts so that readers may create informed impressions in their own minds. You and I can clearly can see that there's NO criticism section to what is well known to be a highly politicized and criticized subject, therefore the one sided state of the article by itself creates a misleading (and false) impression that suggests the NMD program is a success story without significant opposition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs) 06:27, Oct 7, 2006 (UTC).
Encarta, Britannica and other encyclopedias don't have major criticism sections because the main goal is simply describe the topic. An encyclopedia is supposed to rise above political debates, and with academic, unemotional detachment, prioritize describing the topic. That's not "selling out to the establishment", it's doing our job. We are encyclopedia writers, not junior investigative journalists looking for negative quotes. Simply describing the topic doesn't equate to a PRO position, even on highly controversial subjects. Examine the articles on abortion, evolution, even Pedophile activism, and you'll see that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joema (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia already has a generic entry on anti-ballistic missile defense systems that discusses mostly the technical issues. The National Missile Defense program on the other hand, is by its very nature a political program - it cannot be anything else. For example, the main reason for the program has everything to do with politics and nothing else. Each instance of warfare for example, are political events, they are not natural disasters or technical necessities. The National Missile Defense program is much more than only a list of its technical specifications, accomplishments, and failures, the program is also (and clearly so) a political decision that has to be examined in some detail for the subject matter to be made complete. In fact, every announcement of a test is in reality more of a political event than a technical event. For example, we cannot even look at the test data because it's kept a secret, thus the test results should be described as questionable propaganda instead of factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs)
Sticking to the topic is also a priority. The topic is NMD, which is the current effort to provided limited protection against ICBM attacks. The topic is not the previous much more ambitious Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"). There's a separate article for that, which fittingly has a more extensive criticism section. The topic is also not "debate over whether NMD will work", or "debate over whether SDI might have worked". If you want to write a separate article on those subjects, and link to it from NMD, feel free.
It's true some Wikipedia articles have large criticism sections, sometimes even swamping the descriptive portion. This is a major problem. It damages the credibility of Wikipedia as an academic reference, and diminishes the contributions of many editors. That said, I agree this NMD article might have a little more mention of the associated controversies, but that should be minor in quantity and focus, as it's not the article topic. Joema 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
"This is a major problem. It damages the credibility of Wikipedia" -- I'm very much amazed that you think in this way. On the contrary, credibility is gained when factual criticisms and alternative concepts surrounding a topic are explored. It is all too clear that many facts are normally NOT mentioned by the "established" knowledge base for political reasons alone. The very reason why wikipedia has much more credibility than the likes of an Encarta or Britannica is because many people, such as myself and others, are allowed to make contributions (theoretically anyway). The masses cannot be bribed, volunteers are not biased by a need to earn profits, and individuial bias is mostly canceled out through the expression of opposing information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs)
Again, I have NOT asked for a debate! I've only pointed out that the article is incomplete and because of this, it presents a biased POV through omission and contains misleading propaganda presented as verified fact. For example, one rather important fact that has been omitted, is that at least some of the early tests were discovered to be fraudulent, or at best contained significant flaws that were intentionally left out of the test results, thus creating a false impression of more success than actually happened (each test announcement is in reality mostly a political event and should be described as such). Due to the indefensible criticisms that flared up after the initial test runs, a tight lid on the test data (and the whistleblowers) stopped scrutiny on subsequent tests, thus only the Pentagon's press releases could be examined. This wiki article presents what is mostly Pentagon press release propaganda, which would not be so bad if the information was stated to be unverifyable and from a highly biased source. Uninformed readers won't always understand that the presented information is comming from politically motivated press releases, and will likely be less informed as a result of reading this article than not! Hopefully people have learned to always read the talk pages before reading the main entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs)
I made several changes to clarify the article emphasis and scope: it's primarily about the current limited NMD system, and briefly reviews some earlier preceding systems. Article is not about missile defense in general, nor tactical antimissile systems like Patriot, nor earlier more ambitious systems like SDI, for which there are already separate articles. Joema 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't just sound like a Pentagon sales brochure, a lot of it looks to be directly lifted[4] from DOD press releases! In any case, even without a criticism section, it certainly is pertinent that the tests were all conducted in very favorable conditions. Critics would say rigged. I've engaged in several debates on the Interwebs where supporters of missile defense cite this wiki page in support of their position. I don't think this program is workable. Fine. That's an opinion that shouldn't be in the wikipedia. But the impression that the current page gives is that it can and does work and it gives that impression without any factual basis. TheDeadlyShoe 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Conducted in very favorable conditions? Isn't it likely that if a test is not conducted in a favorable / controlled condition that nothing might be learned from the test? Experiments in a lab are tightly controlled and they are similarly controlled in NMD tests. Also, I'm not finding much similarity in this article to the 5 paragraph link you provided.[5] It's being used to reference the October 2002 test, not much POV in that sentence. I'm not seeing the sales brochure section you describe. There is also a "July 2003 Report of the American Physical Society" that provides a rebuttal or criticism that you are complaining is missing. I also see terms like "rudimentary" and "limited" as well as some discussion of historical systems. This article talks about early versions of NMD designed to "counter a limited threat" with simple or no countermeasures. Overall, it seems pretty balanced to me. --Dual Freq 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is this for criticism: the National Missile Defense program is not defensive but offensive. Should it work, it will place the United States in a position where it can threaten with impunity the use of First Strike against India, China, North Korea, etc without fear of their retaliatory Second Strike. LamontCranston 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

India (a U.S. ally) has no ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. China's ICBM/SLBM force is significantly larger than what NMD can intercept, so the "protection against counterstrike" logic doesn't work there. North Korea has never successfully tested an ICBM, so there's nothing to intercept, as of now. You're apparently confusing the "defense as offense" criticism of a large, robust missile defense with the limited NMD program. NMD is not SDI, it is not a general defense against a significant ICBM attack. It is a limited program to defend against a very light unsophisticated attack. The limited capability implies a defense-only posture, as a full-scale U.S. nuclear attack against a limited opponent would require no defensive protection against an ICBM counterstrike. Joema 13:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
To be frank, your comments don't make much sense. We know that none of the so called rogue states have ICMBs capable of reaching the US. Why is this system needed then? The US's argument here is that they need to be ready for when they do. However by definition then, this defense system will undermine any ICBM's developed by these rogue states as a deterrent to a potential covential US invasion e.g. as occured in Iraq. If a 'rogue state' develops ICBMs, then the US has a new issue to weight up if they ever decide they want to attack this 'rogue state'. As with Iraq, they'll obviously be able to win. But suddenly they have to face the possibility that whatever sort of attack they launch, they risk the destruction of a few of their major cities if a desperate government decides their only option is to take as many US cities as they can with them in a counterstrike. Even if the US decides to forgo a conventially attack and just wipe this country off the map in the first instance, there's still a very good chance a prepared 'rogue state' could launch in retaliatory counterstrike before the missiles reach them. Sure, whatever happens, the US could (and probably would) wipe this 'rogue state' off the map in retialiation but the fact remains, the US would have to ask themselves whether it's worth it to invade this 'rogue state' in the first place. By installing this 'defensive' system, suddenly the 'rogue state's' ICBMs are no longer a threat so the US can continue to invade 'rogue states' with impunity. The simply fact is, history (and logic) has shown that the US is a far bigger threat to 'rogue state's' then 'rogue state's' are to the US. 'Rogue state's' therefore have a very valid reason for wanting WMDs as a defensive deterrent and many of them do seem to want them sadly. Indeed quite a number of commentators have pointed out with the US invading other countries like Iraq with impunity, it's very difficult to make a convincing argument for why 'rogue state's' don't need or shouldn't want deterrents. The US talks about nuclear blackmail but in reality of course, the US (and to a lesser extent Russia and China) is able to and does blackmail many other smaller countries at the current time and one of the reasons why other countries want WMDs is as a deterrent to this very blackmail. Nil Einne 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The second issue related to Russia and China doesn't make much sense either. We know that all of the major powers, in particular the US, Russia and China feel the need to maintain a large stockpile of weapons as well as a large number deployed. (Many of the more sane amongst us feel the numbers they keep are insance but anyway). We know also that Russia and the US in particular have been reducing their levels (thankfully). But we also know that for all sides need to feel they're strategically matched. Even with the US missile defence, Russia can probably still destroy the world many times over. But clearly if the US can destroy a small number of Russia's missiles then they have a tactical advantage in this area. Suddenly for Russia and China, they have to take this into account. Also it's important to remember that whatever the proclaimed capability of the US system, there is no way Russia or China is going to trust that completely. Sure their respective secret services probably have a much better either then most people but even then they're still likely to overestimate the capability several fold just in case. Think of it this way. Perhaps in the past, Russia and China would have thought it okay to have 4 ICBMs for every major US city. Two in case they miss, and two for good measure. With a missile defence system, suddenly they need two more just in case these are taken down by the missile defence. Sure the vast majority won't but from Russia and China's POV, this doesn't matter. What matters is some will. Of course the US has 'invited' Russia and China to partake. But let's face it, there is no way in hell the either country is going to trust the US with something so important tactically to them. Of course the other issue is of 'rogue states' again. If a 'rogue state' has difficulty hitting the US or Europe, what are they going to do. Will they try hitting them anyway or will they just decide since they're screwed anyway and since Russia or China aren't coming to their aid, why not hit one of them? For that matter, from the POV of the smarter nations outside this whole mess, this is the worst thing possible. The US decides to invade a 'rogue state'. You're friends with the US but not close enough to want to get into the missile defence crap. But 'rogue state' just see's good target. So effectively, the US is likely to be able to use the missile defence system to blackmail their allies into joining closer to them because otherwise they put themselves at risk of being a target from one of the US's enemies. Nil Einne 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I know this is completely OT so I'll stop here and won't continue. However I do think when people make extremely ludicrious (and also OT) comments on the talk page, sometimes they just have to be responded Nil Einne 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that more criticism is needed. The article is inconsistent if published criticism, especially technical criticism of the current NMD, is considered off topic, but braod missile defense history and the 2003 APS study are considered on topic. The text of the article itself says the APS study, focused as it is on boost phase, is not relevant to the current NMD.

I would suggest the APS article section be replaced by a "Technical Criticism" section that includes a few sentences about the Aprll 2000 UCS countermeasures study and also includes a note about criticisms of that study, including those by Speier (in Defense News), Uzi Rubin (if it can be found someplace other than in the UCS/MIT rebuttal) and Gen. Kadish's congressional testimony. It would be good to have other published criticisms, like the 2004 GAO report. All these sources are direct comments on the current NMD plans.

Such a criticism section doesn't need to be long, but it needs to be there. As it now stands, the article includes such statements as "[NMD is] designed to counter a relatively small ICBM attack from a less sophisticated adversary." Perhaps this statement is meant just to convey that the official goal of NMD is to counter such an attack, but its most obvious meaning is that the system's engineering design assures that the system can actually defend against such an attack. Actually, though, NMD's technical capability to do that has not been demonstrated, and some informed and careful people have published studies insisting that the planned system does not have that capability.

Again: If there is no relevant criticism, the article takes the point of view that all technically informed people accept that the engineering design of the system is capable of meeting its goal of protecting the US against a few missiles, when there is actually intense disagreement about whether that goal can be met.Ajb2 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Merge Safeguard (nuke) With NMD

On the Safeguard (nuke) page, it says merging that info with NMD is being discussed. I'd suggest against merging, but rather link from the NMD article to Safeguard. Why?

Because although Sentinel/Safeguard was an early missile defense system, it was (a) never national in scope, and (b) entirely different technology than the current NMD. IOW, NMD as currently used is not just a descriptive term -- it refers to specific current missiles and technologies totally different from Sentinel/Safeguard. Joema 16:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Suggest Restructuring Article to Emphasize Specific Info About NMD

The current article emphasizes history leading up to the current NMD program, with relatively little detailed information about the current actual NMD project and technologies. Suggest restructuring article to emphasize this more prominently.

For example include specific information about the missiles, radar, warhead, battle management, etc. There's a good article here with more specific information: National Missile Defense (fas.org)

Secondly, suggest adding a brief overview of various missile defense systems, discussing how they differ from NMD but in some cases may integrate with NMD. E.g, MIM-104 Patriot, Israeli Arrow missile, THAAD, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Boeing Airborne Laser, Army MTHEL, and Navy Sea-Based Midcourse Defense (SBMD). While these are all antimissile systems, there's unfortunately no single Wikipedia entry point tieing all this together. Some of these are very well known by the public, and obvious questions are "What's the difference between these and NMD? Why can't you just use Patriot for national missile defense?"

Alternately, you could put most of the above info in the Missile Defense article, but that article seems underdeveloped. This article is currently the most comprehensive article on the subject. I realize this somewhat contradicts what I said above about not fully merging Safeguard with the NMD article, but there needs to be a single entry point for all these antimissile systems, even if the overview is very brief, with links to more detailed specific articles.

A key educational point is battlefield (e.g, Patriot PAC-3) and theater antimissile systems (e.g, THAAD) are generally unable to intercept ICBMs, even if the incoming warhead is within range. This is because ICBM speed is so high, it's beyond the intercept parameters of these missiles.

Another key point is the Navy Theater Wide antimissile system was renamed in 2001 to Sea-Based Midcourse Defense, with capability upgrades planned to intercept ICBMs from ship-launched missiles. This is important because, unlike Patriot/THAAD/Arrow, this would be a true ICBM interceptor and hence part of NMD. Note also there's a difference between Navy Sea-Based Midcourse Defense (SBMD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The latter is a technology platform (radar, computers, etc) on which various sea-based missile defenses could be based. Currently SBMD uses only the Aegis radar/computer system. Eventually SBMD may use satellite and land-based radars. So there's a difference between Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense as a platform and the specific SBMD program.

I'm not an expert on this by any means, and I'm sure many people could better contribute or correct some of the above. For example I've seen various names for SBMD -- Sea Based Midcourse Defense, Ship Based Missile Defense, etc. I don't know what the current usage is or the change history.

Lots more NMD and related images and videos here:

[6] [7]

Navy SBMD infrared image telemetered to ground just before impacting target missile: [8]

Joema 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss changes made

I've made significant changes to the article. Goal was to correct inaccuracies, remove a few lingering POV items, improve readability. If any issues with changes, discuss here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joema (talk • contribs) .

The NATO name, Galosh, should probably be mentioned like all the others listed in Category:Soviet Cold War surface-to-air missiles. --Dual Freq 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My concerns are:
  • When referring to the system we should use the system name, and when referring to the missile, the missile name. Doing otherwise is like referring to Safeguard as the Sprint system. The initial Moscow ABM system name was A-35, and it used the Galosh (SH-01/ABM-1) interceptor. The current system name is A-135, and it uses two interceptors: Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3), and Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4).
  • This and related articles sometimes refer to the current Russian interceptor as Galosh, when it's Gorgon. If mentioning the initial Moscow interceptor, it's Galosh. If mentioning the current two interceptors, they're Gorgon & Gazelle.
I've tried to make these more consistent, but I may have messed up somewhere. Let me know if you see that, or just make the change. I agree using the NATO name when referring to the interceptor makes sense. Joema 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to be careful with wikilinking to redirects or dab pages. ABM instead of just ABM. I think I saw a couple of those, but I'm not sure which article or even if you created them. --Dual Freq 12:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed a broken link: "Report of the APS Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense - 15 July 2003" http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd03.htmlAl Bersbach (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert statement about warheads and decoy balloons

Statement said: "However, the warhead itself was not wrapped in a balloon (as would be likely in a realistic scenario), so it was relatively easy to tell the decoys apart from the balloons."

This isn't supported by the cited reference. The reference doesn't specifically say the warhead was not concealed within a decoy balloon, unless I missed it. It also doesn't say a realistic scenario likely would include concealed warheads. I agree it sounds plausible under some circumstances (depends on attacker and scenario). However it is supposition unless explicitly stated by a credible reference with specific detailed knowledge of the situation. Joema 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existing, Planned or Proposed?

The section "Current NMD program" is vague. The title suggests that this system exists, but the prevalence of the word "would" suggests otherwise. Author: please clarify status. Carrionluggage 05:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The system currently exists and is operational with limited capability. The "would" applies to later phases having more capability. Changed wording to clarify this. Joema 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Lasers are mentioned as a future possibility. However, there is no way that lasers will ever be used in the NMD program. Way too much energy is required to generate a laser powerful enough to destroy a missle. This isn't star wars, physics still applies in this universe.
Also, I know that this isn't the proper forum for debate, however, if you're just a person with a keyboard in front of them, don't talk like you know more about the missile defense program than the hundreds of engineers working on it. You aren't smarter than they are. Saying things like "it will never work" are idiotic without some sort of logical explanation. 75.15.113.47 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Lasers are near deployment for missile defense. The Northrop Skyguard system may be operational around 2008 to defend against short-range rockets: [9]. The Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser has been delayed, but a missile shootdown test is planned for 2008: [10] Joema 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What happens when a missile has a shiny casing, such as stainless steel? Defense against short-range rockets is not really a National Defense. According to a former intelligence officer, lasers are useless against ICBM's: [11] 75.0.66.228 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Boeing ABL is planned for use against ICBMs in boost phase; it's not just for short range rockets. The cited article does not say lasers are useless against ICBMs. There are ways to counter any defense, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to describe the topic, not debate the pros/cons or engage in a critical analysis. Joema 13:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of any wikipedia article is indeed to describe the topic. However this description would have to include any significant controversy about the effectiveness and would also have to mention any significant critical analysis. Of course, we are only talking about properly sourced material, any speculation by editors on any matter in wikipedia is outside of the purpose of wikipedia and should take place in other forums, not here Nil Einne 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

It could very well just be me, but this article seems to be biased against the National Defense System. Could just be the fact that I'm a little tired though. Just throwing that out there! Ittan 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove pre-SDI era history

A lot of this article focuses on general ABM issues long before the term NMD was ever used. I propose this material should be removed. It's already well covered in the ABM article, and by including it here it incorrectly implies that these earlier projects were also considered NMD -- they were not, the term simply wasn't used. Maury 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article includes historical ABM systems because those were planned national defense systems. Other sources show these are historically classified as such: [12], [13]. There is excessive redundancy between this article and Anti-ballistic missile. Ideally that should be reconciled, but it's a lot of work to do properly. Another problem is Anti-ballistic missile should focus on the missile itself, not the entire defensive system, of which the physical missile is only one component. Yet another problem is the ABM article by definition includes all ABMs, regardless of range and capability. Thus Patriot PAC-3 is an ABM, but not a national defense missile. Historical information about earlier NMD systems seems to better fit the NMD article than the ABM article.
The ABM and NMD articles evolved side-by-side, without proper thought regarding duplication, focus and emphasis. Ideally both articles should be restructured reduce these issues. But I don't think just deleting historical material from this article is a good idea. Joema 14:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Again though, the NMD references you have are all very modern, both are from after 2000. I am quite well read on the ABM debate during the time it was taking place, and I do not recall the term being used even once. If people today are using the term to describe the ABM debate, then that is certainly worth mentioning, but retroactively reclassifying the terminology seems quite suspect.
And to reverse the claim, "ABM" at the time implied only what is today called NMD. There were no systems dedicated to anything other than wide-area coverage against strategic threats (HAWK/Sea Dart notwithstanding). TBM's didn't even exist as a class at that time, and since the targets in question were BM's attacking cities of another country, IRBM, ICBM and SLBM's all had similar profiles and performance -- very much less than today actually (Polaris RV's were subsonic, ~250 mph IIRC).
My concern here is that if someone were to pick up an article from the 1960s when the first debate was taking place, then came here to read up about ABM's, they would be quite confused -- especially if we reduce that article to the missiles only. Likewise if someone picks up just about any reference to NMD, even fairly recent ones, this article will likewise be confusing. I'm sure the US gov does this deliberately to confuse people, but our job is to reverse that damage!
Maury 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Admittedly the term "national missile defense" is difficult. That's why the various usages are explained first section. One of those is any national antimissile system. Thus used, both Sentinel and SDI were planned NMD systems, hence the inclusion.
As explained in the 1st section, the article isn't just about the current U.S. NMD system. Indeed, even that term was redefined in 2002. Rather the article covers national missile defense in general, including historical precursors to current systems.
Re whether the term "national missile defense" was used during the 1960s or not: We classify items by current usage, e.g, we call early cars "automobiles", even though back then they were called "horseless carriages". The references I posted showed precedent for today referring to earlier national ABM systems as national missile defense systems.
I made a few article changes to tighten up wording along these lines.
I agree upon 2nd thought restricting the ABM article to the missiles themselves isn't a good idea. In fact the 1st section of that article already defines the scope, which is either the missiles or the entire system, and not just those with ICBM capability. Joema 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add MKV (multiple kill vehicle)

Shouldn't this article include some discussion of the "multiple kill vehicle" (MKV)? Multiple KV's on one booster would reduce the need to determine what targets are warheads and what targets are decoys. This is a much more sensible (and honest) response to likely countermeasures than the official statements have been (even if--in my view--it is still inadequate and likely to remain so for a long time.)Ajb2 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)