Late Cold War Cancelled Projects

[Marduk]

Let's look at your scenario, and look at the alternate realities. Let's say there's a rogue actor who would have launched at the US but for THAAD. Given that they have access, you don't think they have a list of non-US targets they'd like to hit if they can't get the US? They'd still have launched, just at a different target. But there hasn't been rogue nuke launches. So there have been no rogue actors yet that have access to nukes plus the willingness + capability to launch them. So THAAD hasn't stopped this, nor has GDI or the rest of the anti-missile capabilities in the US.

Hence these aren't a threat in being vs stuff that isn't actually used. They are, one could say, a threat in being vs ordinance that is used.

As for the stuff of value we got from SDI, and crediting all of the PAC-3's success to the SDI, No. Most of it was not from SDI.

Who said the missiles to be intercepted *need* be nuclear for shooting them down to prevent newsworthy events?

Yeah, most of it wasn't from SDI, but what's the point here? Some SDI work would have to be replicated to make them, and that in turn means SDI did contribute.

Yes. The point I'm asking about is return on investment, which is how much of it was used against the enemy. This is a fine tool to use for analyzing past decisions using the benefit of hindsight. Note I said tool. It's not perfect, but it's a good tool. And I'm not using it in places it doesn't work, like choosing what should be developed in the future.

The return on investment for an home insurance policy is -100% if your home is fine. It doesn't mean that the home insurance policy wasn't worth it, but one can still say that the Home Insurance didn't benefit you. And that's good.

I'm not saying that THAAD wasn't worth buying. I'm saying that so far, we've barely needed it.

And i'm saying no one could know how much needed it will be, possibly we don't even know it made itself unneeded by merely existing, and these systems may well be before half their operational lifetime now.

My claim is a simple one: the SDI has a very, very low Americans saved/$ spent rate. So low that even just counting the Americans saved by it is small. It's primary purpose was as a money pit (also apparently a spy trap), and it was incredibly good at it.

Which is an utterly ridiculous way to rate any military systems. You cop-out with nuclear systems by "deterrence", it's even funnier when you apply it to boring conventional stuff like humvees or fighter jets.

Literally why I italicized it, I know that can change, I specifically pointed attention at it for that reason. In fact, I expect Iran's ability to nuke to grow beyond our ability to stop it, rather than us being able to catch up to any state that wants to nuke us.

Iran has an actual economy. It's a hamstrung one, but it's not communist. They can afford to do research. And attacking is a lot easier than defending.

In contrast, I think North Korea is going to fall further and further behind in the nuke vs shield race, as they simply can't afford many missiles.

Counterpoint: Pakistan. Not communist either, but with partially similar issues, and nuclear arsenal roughly within the ambitions of current or future development of missile defense tech.

 

[Abhorsen]

Who said the missiles to be intercepted *need* be nuclear for shooting them down to prevent newsworthy events?

Yeah, most of it wasn't from SDI, but what's the point here? Some SDI work would have to be replicated to make them, and that in turn means SDI did contribute.

The point here is my original point: SDI was nearly a complete waste of money. Some parts of it were salvaged, and used in things that still haven't been used much. The one example you have that's actually been used is the PAC-3, and that again, isn't beholden to the SDI, but a small part of SDI that could have been separately developed.

So my original thesis stands (mostly) intact, clearly with a bit of hyperbole:

"SDI produced nothing of military value."

And unless we get in a war vs the Norks or a rogue actor gets a nuclear missile, it never. And really, nukes aren't the only problem vs North Korea. Their artillery holds Seoul hostage.

And i'm saying no one could know how much needed it will be, possibly we don't even know it made itself unneeded by merely existing, and these systems may well be before half their operational lifetime now.

That's nice, but doesn't contradict my point.

Which is an utterly ridiculous way to rate any military systems. You cop-out with nuclear systems by "deterrence", it's even funnier when you apply it to boring conventional stuff like humvees or fighter jets.

Rating defensive systems by American's saved and resources involved is a bad system, is what you are saying here. Obviously, you'd rate the ROI on a Humvee by looking at how well it transported stuff (how much it prevented American deaths vs another transport system, experienced fuel + maintenance cost/mile, reliability, etc).

As for fighter jets, 104-0 is the rating for the F15. Yeah, that's looking at American deaths and comparing it to enemy deaths.

And no, Nuclear has the same rating, their value is through the roof: they've prevented so many wars. It's just that they are 'used' by sitting around as a threat in being. There are few things in America that are a threat-in-being: The nukes, our overall military strength (which all they need to know is that they are spending a ton of money), and the 101st Airborne being able to be deployed anywhere in hours.

These are things that just the threat of using them has stopped someone in their tracks.

Counterpoint: Pakistan. Not communist either, but with partially similar issues, and nuclear arsenal roughly within the ambitions of current or future development of missile defense tech.

Not at all a good counterpoint. They don't care about creating long range missiles. They don't care about targeting the US, in fact, they'd prefer to not be able to. All they care about is India.

 

[Marduk]

The point here is my original point: SDI was nearly a complete waste of money. Some parts of it were salvaged, and used in things that still haven't been used much. The one example you have that's actually been used is the PAC-3, and that again, isn't beholden to the SDI, but a small part of SDI that could have been separately developed.

Again, cop-outs.
Yes, with the powerful gift of hindsight we could trim down a whole lot of past "shotgun approach" research projects by knowing which branches will not lead to practical and worthwhile technologies. but that's beside the point.
The knowledge of what doesn't work and why is only half as valuable as the knowledge of what does, but it is valuable still.

So my original thesis stands (mostly) intact, clearly with a bit of hyperbole:

"SDI produced nothing of military value."

And unless we get in a war vs the Norks or a rogue actor gets a nuclear missile, it never. And really, nukes aren't the only problem vs North Korea. Their artillery holds Seoul hostage.

Yes, nukes aren't the only thing such systems are applicable to countering either.

That's nice, but doesn't contradict my point.

Rating defensive systems by American's saved and resources involved is a bad system, is what you are saying here. Obviously, you'd rate the ROI on a Humvee by looking at how well it transported stuff (how much it prevented American deaths vs another transport system, experienced fuel + maintenance cost/mile, reliability, etc).

As for fighter jets, 104-0 is the rating for the F15. Yeah, that's looking at American deaths and comparing it to enemy deaths.

No, that's A2A kills, not deaths prevented, stop being inane. Of course your one of a kind way of grading military systems requires being inane, but that's exactly why i'm telling it that it's ridiculous.

And no, Nuclear has the same rating, their value is through the roof: they've prevented so many wars. It's just that they are 'used' by sitting around as a threat in being. There are few things in America that are a threat-in-being: The nukes, our overall military strength (which all they need to know is that they are spending a ton of money), and the 101st Airborne being able to be deployed anywhere in hours.

And yet we will never know how many exactly.
Don't make me bring up the fleet-in-being...

And lol, when was the last time the 101st deployed to any war within hours of a decision?

These are things that just the threat of using them has stopped someone in their tracks.


Not at all a good counterpoint. They don't care about creating long range missiles. They don't care about targeting the US, in fact, they'd prefer to not be able to. All they care about is India.

But it is applicable to comparison to Iran. Despite not trying to become a regional empire and not having to invest into more expensive long range missiles, they are still, at least officially, sticking with a considerably smaller arsenal than France or UK, despite India being a quite fucking big country with a lot of targets.

 

[Zachowon]

82nd, nit 101st

 

[Abhorsen]

Again, cop-outs.
Yes, with the powerful gift of hindsight we could trim down a whole lot of past "shotgun approach" research projects by knowing which branches will not lead to practical and worthwhile technologies. but that's beside the point.
The knowledge of what doesn't work and why is only half as valuable as the knowledge of what does, but it is valuable still.

I literally said that this was a tool only for hindsight analysis, good for predicting where future money should be spent, not lambasting past spending. I literally compared it to unused homeowner's insurance.

For example, if there are a lot of deaths from enemy missiles, then yeah, we would need to improve THAAD. But if the thing killing troops is mortars? THAAD isn't gonna do that as well. You need better C-RAM.

You are arguing against a point I'm not making.

No, that's A2A kills, not deaths prevented, stop being inane. Of course your one of a kind way of grading military systems requires being inane, but that's exactly why i'm telling it that it's ridiculous.

The 0? That's 0 deaths caused by the enemy. Look, different systems get judged by different metrics, you are the one strawmanning my argument as something crazy. I'm saying that as a defensive system, American death's prevented isn't a useless measurement tool (though hard to calculate, perhaps incoming & threatening enemy ordinance/planes stopped would be better) for calculating the return part on the return on investment.

And that 0 is a very useful number. It tells us that we can rely on pure air supremacy over other air forces.

And yet we will never know how many exactly.
Don't make me bring up the fleet-in-being...

.... If we don't know about it, it literally cannot be a threat in being. You've gotta communicate a threat for it to be a threat.

And obviously the fleet in being doctrine. Where do you think I got the turn of phrase for 'threat in being'?

Though I do think, looking at it, that I likely mangled the term. I'm more speaking of a straight up latent threat, like a loaded gun just laying on the table. What I'm speaking of is stuff that allows the US to exert power without actually doing anything. Not the carrier groups, that's doing stuff. I mean threats because of the existence of something.

And lol, when was the last time the 101st deployed to any war within hours of a decision?

I had the wrong one (it was the 82nd), but yeah, it was used as a threat in being vs Haiti in '94.

But it is applicable to comparison to Iran. Despite not trying to become a regional empire and not having to invest into more expensive long range missiles, they are still, at least officially, sticking with a considerably smaller arsenal than France or UK, despite India being a quite fucking big country with a lot of targets.

No, it isn't. Their nuclear programs have completely different goals, hence a completely different nuclear strategy, with a completely different trajectory concerning whether they become a threat to the US. Iran wants ICBMs that can challenge the US, Pakistan doesn't. Pakistan will never be a nuclear threat to the US because Pakistan doesn't care about being one. Iran will, eventually, become a nuclear threat to the US because they care about being one and can keep up. North Korea won't be able to keep up.

 

[Marduk]

I literally said that this was a tool only for hindsight analysis, good for predicting where future money should be spent, not lambasting past spending. I literally compared it to unused homeowner's insurance.

For example, if there are a lot of deaths from enemy missiles, then yeah, we would need to improve THAAD. But if the thing killing troops is mortars? THAAD isn't gonna do that as well. You need better C-RAM.

You are arguing against a point I'm not making.

And that tool is rendered useless by the fact that conflicts have different profiles that make different weapon systems relevant or not. Just because ABM systems were useless in Afghanistan in no way means they were useless in Iraq or won't be useful in a war with Iran or China.
Likewise mortars being a problem in COIN conflicts in no way means they will be as prominent in a Pacific war against China.
For that tool to be useful you would need to go out of your way to match it to 1:1 to similar war types, which would be in itself more useful than this.

The 0? That's 0 deaths caused by the enemy. Look, different systems get judged by different metrics, you are the one strawmanning my argument as something crazy. I'm saying that as a defensive system, American death's prevented isn't a useless measurement tool (though hard to calculate, perhaps incoming & threatening enemy ordinance/planes stopped would be better) for calculating the return part on the return on investment.

It is ridiculous. Weapon systems have different roles in different types of conflicts, if any, and trying to pretend that all conflicts are equally indicative of that is a foray into the territory of EU bureaucrat jokes.

And that 0 is a very useful number. It tells us that we can rely on pure air supremacy over other air forces.

Over third world air forces at least.
However, by that logic F-15 is harder to shoot down than F-117, which is a good example how such attempts at bad statistics can get ridiculous.

.... If we don't know about it, it literally cannot be a threat in being. You've gotta communicate a threat for it to be a threat.

Well as you can see, even if you don't know about these things, other people probably do.

And obviously the fleet in being doctrine. Where do you think I got the turn of phrase for 'threat in being'?

Though I do think, looking at it, that I likely mangled the term. I'm more speaking of a straight up latent threat, like a loaded gun just laying on the table. What I'm speaking of is stuff that allows the US to exert power without actually doing anything. Not the carrier groups, that's doing stuff. I mean threats because of the existence of something.

Well, missile defense, by mere act of existing and presumably more or less working, also affects the strategic calculations of some important people in more rather than less significant countries.

I had the wrong one (it was the 82nd), but yeah, it was used as a threat in being vs Haiti in '94.

Yes, Haiti, definitely something challenging to threaten with even a second rate army...

No, it isn't. Their nuclear programs have completely different goals, hence a completely different nuclear strategy, with a completely different trajectory concerning whether they become a threat to the US. Iran wants ICBMs that can challenge the US, Pakistan doesn't. Pakistan will never be a nuclear threat to the US because Pakistan doesn't care about being one. Iran will, eventually, become a nuclear threat to the US because they care about being one and can keep up. North Korea won't be able to keep up.

No, i was attacking your argument that Iran will succeed at that merely because it's not communist. Meanwhile Pakistan, also not communist, despite being able to deliver their arsenal with cheaper missiles than Iran would be as India is near them, is stuck with rather low numbers of warheads. So assuming Iran will just easily build a nuclear arsenal that can break through any current or future US anti missile system sounds like blanket defeatism poorly covering for some other agenda.

 

[Abhorsen]

And that tool is rendered useless by the fact that conflicts have different profiles that make different weapon systems relevant or not. Just because ABM systems were useless in Afghanistan in no way means they were useless in Iraq or won't be useful in a war with Iran or China.
Likewise mortars being a problem in COIN conflicts in no way means they will be as prominent in a Pacific war against China.
For that tool to be useful you would need to go out of your way to match it to 1:1 to similar war types, which would be in itself more useful than this.

Given that our past two wars lasted for decades, it's quite useful. And on top of this, no, any hot war with China goes the same way as a hot war with Russia: basic stalemate, or we all die. There's no chance a successful invasion for the mainland isn't responded to with nukes.

On top of that, we aren't going to be stuck in a Force on Force vs Iran. It'll be quick, from a distance, then they get bombed into the stone age.

Over third world air forces at least.
However, by that logic F-15 is harder to shoot down than F-117, which is a good example how such attempts at bad statistics can get ridiculous.

Man, you are determined to shove words in other peoples mouths, because you can't beat their actual arguments. I'm saying that given the results, we could safely say "Eh, planes aren't the highest priority for research". We are 2 Gens ahead of the next closest adversary. We could do nothing for 10 years in terms of research and still have air supremacy. That money maybe could be better spent elsewhere, maybe not. Regardless, the law of diminishing marginal returns is a real thing.

Yes, Haiti, definitely something challenging to threaten with even a second rate army...

So? It's a threat that brought value to the US just by existing. I didn't say it was an enormous threat, just one that met requirements.

No, i was attacking your argument that Iran will succeed at that merely because it's not communist. Meanwhile Pakistan, also not communist, despite being able to deliver their arsenal with cheaper missiles than Iran would be as India is near them, is stuck with rather low numbers of warheads. So assuming Iran will just easily build a nuclear arsenal that can break through any current or future US anti missile system sounds like blanket defeatism poorly covering for some other agenda.

Pakistan has about 165 warheads, on par with India. Try again. That's both plenty enough for them to destroy the other country, which is all they actually care about.

 

[Marduk]

Given that our past two wars lasted for decades, it's quite useful. And on top of this, no, any hot war with China goes the same way as a hot war with Russia: basic stalemate, or we all die. There's no chance a successful invasion for the mainland isn't responded to with nukes.

Again, lots of baseless assumptions that are unsurprisingly in line with the political agenda of their maker.

On top of that, we aren't going to be stuck in a Force on Force vs Iran. It'll be quick, from a distance, then they get bombed into the stone age.

Of course Iran will not have means to go vs force in their nuclear posture, point being?

Man, you are determined to shove words in other peoples mouths, because you can't beat their actual arguments. I'm saying that given the results, we could safely say "Eh, planes aren't the highest priority for research". We are 2 Gens ahead of the next closest adversary. We could do nothing for 10 years in terms of research and still have air supremacy. That money maybe could be better spent elsewhere, maybe not. Regardless, the law of diminishing marginal returns is a real thing.

Again, the agenda you are pushing here is obvious, and you are willing to tirelessly dig for reasons to justify it.

So? It's a threat that brought value to the US just by existing. I didn't say it was an enormous threat, just one that met requirements.

Again, if you build your requirements the right way, anything you want will meet them, however your way of defining these requirements is, as my original point was, simply ridiculous, and no one serious does it like that.

Pakistan has about 165 warheads, on par with India. Try again. That's both plenty enough for them to destroy the other country, which is all they actually care about.

165 small warheads, against a country with almost as much territory as USA, 4x the population, and somewhat modern air defenses that include multiple ABM capable systems? Try again. This figure may have been sufficient back in the 90's, but definitely is much less than sufficient now.
Ironically the same number is much closer to optimal for India, as Pakistan is good few times smaller.
There is no reason other than economic why Pakistan wouldn't want at minimum as large arsenal as France or UK, even if based on shorter ranged missiles.

 

[Zachowon]

A war with China and Russia may not invovle the invasion of Mainland for either, but it will invivle large force on force fighting in Europe or islands in INDOPACOM area.
Iran would also be a ground war because they won't surrender after the bombings.

Abhorsen, I can assure you. A ground war is going to happen

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It should also be noted that it was made before the advent of 'fly by wire' (i.e., letting computers do all the hard work of flying an aircraft), which would make it easier to fly, and more advanced powerplants and propulsion units that we have today.

We could make a better Hiller platform today; it's just that helicopters are generally better overall in a combat situation. It could be of better use in the police or MP role, however.

Even a perfect Hiller platform would be stupid, because "steer by tilt" is a fundamentally moronic design and Hiller's obsession with rotors-on-the-bottom designs is even more so.

Essentially, Hiller's kinesthetic steer-by-tilt concept was proposed "fly by instinct" -- much like a child's toy pogo stick, the rider would reflexively adjust their weight against unstable fluctuations, providing on-the-fly micro-adjustments that couldn't be duplicated by conventional controls. This sort of worked, but only in the sense that Hiller had to build an extra unstable rotors-on-the-bottom helicopter in order to make it unstable enough for the pilot to sense the shifts in balance, and the "kinesthetic" steering then cancelled out that extra instability, producing a design that was technically workable and "easy" but dangerously exhausting for the pilot to fly. And then the larger Pawnee showed that this only worked with incredibly small flying craft where the pilot's weight was pretty much the entire payload.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Not going to lie, ABM systems do seem like a waste of money. They're never going to be able to hit 'all' the missiles, and it only takes a few to permanently alter a nation's progress.

Would make more sense to just build some extra nukes to send the message of 'we're not going to defend ourselves, we're going to wipe YOU from the map'.

 

[Zachowon]

Not going to lie, ABM systems do seem like a waste of money. They're never going to be able to hit 'all' the missiles, and it only takes a few to permanently alter a nation's progress.

Would make more sense to just build some extra nukes to send the message of 'we're not going to defend ourselves, we're going to wipe YOU from the map'.

You just have too be able to detect what ones have actual nukes. And mitigate overall damage.

And the fact, you truly never know if we can stop them all or not

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

You just have too be able to detect what ones have actual nukes. And mitigate overall damage.

And the fact, you truly never know if we can stop them all or not

Pretty sure the citizens of New York, or Washington DC might not appreciate hearing how you 'mitigated damage' as 80% of them get wiped off the planet instead of 100%.

 

[Zachowon]

Pretty sure the citizens of New York, or Washington DC might not appreciate hearing how you 'mitigated damage' as 80% of them get wiped off the planet instead of 100%.

They live in the city.
Guess where else targets are?
Dakota, Montana, etc etc.
Because silos.

But mitigate to have around 60 percent make it through

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Not going to lie, ABM systems do seem like a waste of money. They're never going to be able to hit 'all' the missiles, and it only takes a few to permanently alter a nation's progress.

So...let's make sure we really get sent back to the stone age? That's your plan? What's wrong with stopping some of them instead of letting all of them through?

Would make more sense to just build some extra nukes to send the message of 'we're not going to defend ourselves, we're going to wipe YOU from the map'.

We already have this.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

So...let's make sure we really get sent back to the stone age? That's your plan? What's wrong with stopping some of them instead of letting all of them through?

We already have this.

The issue is that unless we're talking about preventing North Korea's 'might not even hit target' nukes, any first world nuclear power can probably oversaturate all but the most costly defensive system. The difference between 'nuked back to the stoneage' and 'nuked back to the stoneage times two' matters not for the average joe.

 

[Bacle]

The issue is that unless we're talking about preventing North Korea's 'might not even hit target' nukes, any first world nuclear power can probably oversaturate all but the most costly defensive system. The difference between 'nuked back to the stoneage' and 'nuked back to the stoneage times two' matters not for the average joe.

Let me ask, would you rather have say, the US blown back to the age of steam, or the bronze age?

There are degrees of damage even in nuclear war, and the are ways to survive and rebuild if you are able to keep some amount of equipment, knowhow, and resources alive so as few knowledge gaps as possible exist among those who rebuild.

 

[Husky_Khan]

All of these tanks were developed during the Cold War but the Vickers Mark VII Main Battle Tank is the one most fitting for this thread.



Outperforming all of its rivals in Ministry of Defense trials and in the desert as well yet it would be the Challenger 1 that became Britain's next Main Battle Tank.

 

[DarthOne]

All of these tanks were developed during the Cold War but the Vickers Mark VII Main Battle Tank is the one most fitting for this thread.



Outperforming all of its rivals in Ministry of Defense trials and in the desert as well yet it would be the Challenger 1 that became Britain's next Main Battle Tank.

And stuff like this is why I laugh at the idea of military development not being corrupt as fuck.

 

[Husky_Khan]

And stuff like this is why I laugh at the idea of military development not being corrupt as fuck.

It was zee Germans fault for withdrawing zee hull after zee Vickers outperformed zee Leopard in zee trials according to zee video.