Another development that provides ammunition for the continuing debate on space weaponization: Aerospace Daily reports that the Senate version of the defense appropriations bill, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, would instruct the DoD to restore a “kill vehicle” to the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) satellite scheduled for launch next year. The kill vehicle is a deployable payload on the main NFIRE satellite that would be fired towards—although not directly at—a ballistic missile during a test to examine the missile’s infrared plume. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) removed the kill vehicle from NFIRE last year after Congressional criticism, but, assuming the House agrees to the provision in conference, the appropriations bill would instruct MDA to restore the kill vehicle. That would, in turn, bump off a European laser communications experiment that was added to NFIRE after the kill vehicle was removed, and could delay its mid-2006 launch.
These MDA and Air Force games amount to deploying machine guns in your own porcelain shop. They don’t protect, but they do set an undesirable precedent. (All the more so if the guns are also made of porcelain.)
No country has more to lose than the United States from either a nuclear detonation in space or a counter-orbiting “keg of nails”. Deterrence is the only protection and diplomacy is the only way to enable the deterrent.
Greg, I agree. I am not automatically opposed to all weapons in space, particularly of the ABM variety (I was once fired from a “newspaper” job for trying to be even-handed about the old SDI). However, it is statistically true that if you keep a gun in your home, it is far more likely to be used by an intruder to kill you than it is to be used by you to kill an intruder. Greater firepower does not always equal greater safety. In the case of anti-satellite weapons, we have everything to lose and very little to gain by being first to deploy them.
— Donald
They don’t protect, but they do set an undesirable precedent.
How do you know they won’t protect?
Deterrence is the only protection and diplomacy is the only way to enable the deterrent.
How is diplomacy going to deter fanatical Muslim countries such as Iran once they have atomic bombs and missiles capable of delivering the bombs?
However, it is statistically true that if you keep a gun in your home, it is far more likely to be used by an intruder to kill you than it is to be used by you to kill an intruder.
Can you cite any evidence to back up that Lefty urban myth?
Instapundit.com Instapundit.com
October 21, 2002
JOYCE MALCOLM WRITES ON BRITAIN’S EXPERIENCE WITH STRICTER GUN CONTROL, AND MORE CRIME.
In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions “seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld.” Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them. . .
As Malcolm notes, the gun control movement in England — as in America — is accompanied by an almost pathological hostility to the very idea of self-defense …
( likewise for missile defense –DD.)
http://instapundit.com/archives/004848.php
“…an almost pathological hostility to the very idea of self-defense… (likewise for missile defense)”
Could you leave some space between yourself and “Lefties” for those of us who believe that missile defense would be desirable — and morally far preferable to piling up offensive “deterrence” — but don’t believe that it’s technically feasible at acceptable cost?
David: Can you cite any evidence to back up that Lefty urban myth?
Check with any police department (at least honest ones). That said, I did slightly mis-state the statistic. It should have said, “However, it is statistically true that if you keep a gun in your home, it is far more likely to be used by an intruder or a member of your own family to kill you than it is to be used by you to kill an intruder.”
Also, you and your correspondent are dead wrong about Britain. I have lived there. Britain is a country the size of California with the equivalent of 1/4 the entire pop. of the US stuffed inside, and in many ways it is a more violent society than ours (pub and sports fights or frequent). Yet, there will be more people murdered in San Francisco in any given year (pop = less than 800,000) than in all of Britain. However, the BBC is correct that, as more and more guns leak into Britain, that is changing.
Monte, I have the opposite take. I think strategic defense is quite possible if you pay enough and are willing to work hard enough at it. There is nothing physically impossible, or even particularly improbable, about it. I even happen to think that it is wise. It is anti-satellite weapons that are unwise, especially if we are the first to introduct them in a modern guise.
However, I do not propose to go further with this discussion as it is too far off-topic.
Which target do you think is harder to hit, a ballistic missile on a, well, ballistic trajectory (i.e. one that’s easy to predict), or a maneuvering, 9g capable fighter? If you said the fighter, you’re wrong. There’s nothing particularly technically challenging about ABM. Notice I said “technically”.
Damn, out smarted myself again. The fighter is by far harder to hit. The reason ABM has been a fiasco is the same as the reason the rest of aerospace is a fiasco.
It’s all well and good to defend yourself. The problem comes when people freely conflate self-defense with attacking others. It’s the same thing whether this issue is personal use of firearms, foreign invasions, or space weapons.
The fact is that space war is all sword and no shield. It would be very easy to destroy most of what America has in space with nuclear detonations or counter-orbiting “kegs of nails”. It is 1000 times easier than trying to defend against these attacks. So it’s not that deterrence is a good solution or a moral solution. It’s the only solution.
The same applies to missile defense. You can’t wish away deterrence just by calling it immoral. Missile defense for America is like an armed soldier who brags that he’s bullet-proof. It might be nice to actually be bullet-proof, but fantasy bragging doesn’t protect you, it just makes everyone else nervous.
Gun control or no gun control, it is a basic lesson of adulthood that collective deterrence is your main source of personal protection. It’s what keeps large, armed gangs from kidnapping you for ransom. Or just shooting up your car if they feel like it. That’s what life is like in cities in the world without functioning deterrence. In Baghdad for example.
And yet our soldiers wear body armor. Go figure.
Yes, some people wear body armor to protect from bullets. And the United States has bunkers and fallout shelters to defend against nuclear missiles. These are not very encouraging ways to defend yourself, but they are valid.
But they are not what MDA (formerly NMD, formerly BMDO, formerly SDI) is about. MDA is about shooting a bullet with a bullet. It’s like the gun enthusiast who announces, “Bullets cannot touch me because I can shoot at bullets with my own gun.” This is a good way to make other people nervous and a bad way to protect yourself.
No, it’s like shooting down a defenseless, non-maneuvering enemy reconnaissance airplane with a surface to air missile.
Hitting a bullet with a bullet is a common metaphor for missile defense, even within the missile defense community. Bullets and ballistic missiles are both defenseless and non-manuevering, but they are neither reconnaissance nor airplanes.
> It would be very easy to destroy most of what America has in space with nuclear
> detonations or counter-orbiting “kegs of nails”. It is 1000 times easier
> than trying to defend against these attacks.
Then missile defense must be very easy, because attacking a missile with a keg of nails would be 1000 times easier than anything any enemy might do to defend that missile.
Or is this a magic keg of nails that only works when Greg wants it to work?
Of course, you just made that “1000 times” up, didn’t you, Greg?
Everyone who has read a book about space warfare knows the “keg of nails” argument. Those who’ve read a few books know the keg of nails is easily countered by a keg of sand.
> MDA is about shooting a bullet with a bullet. It’s like the gun enthusiast who
> announces, “Bullets cannot touch me because I can shoot at bullets with my own
> gun.” This is a good way to make other people nervous and a bad way to protect
> yourself.
That’s just plain silly. Missile defense is not about shooting bullets with bullets. It’s about shooting missiles with missiles.
I could use bullets as a metaphor for baseballs and bats. That doesn’t prove it’s impossible to hit a baseball with a bat.
You see, Greg? I just hit a metaphor with a metaphor.
I’m astounded that a mathematician would offer such a silly proof.
Defense contractors screw up regularly on missile defense contracts, so it surprises you they try to make the task seem harder than it really is? Bullets happen to be much smaller than ballistic missiles, which are, actually, much closer in size to that of a reconnaissance aircraft. Also, as you noted, bullets do not maneuver. Defensive missiles, on the other hand, have sensors, guidance, and maneuvering capability. So yet again, your analogy fails. These catch phrases are for politicians, not technical people. Sadly, some have sold out.
Ed Wright: A “keg of nails” refers to a simultaneous attack on all permanent LEO satellites in a certain orbital band. It doesn’t work for ballistic missiles.
You are right that it is possible to hit a baseball with a bat. But only if the batter knows where the pitcher is. And only if the pitcher throws the ball into a fairly small strike zone. And only if the baseball is a certain size and weight. And only if the pitcher can’t throw decoys along with the real ball. These artificial conditions are a lot like the artificial conditions of missile defense tests.
> Ed Wright: A “keg of nails” refers to a simultaneous attack on
> all permanent LEO satellites in a certain orbital band.
Greg, no it doesn’t. It refers to a kinetic energy warhead with a large number of fragments (figuratively, or perhaps literally, nails).
Okay, you read the book, but you didn’t understand the content.
> You are right that it is possible to hit a baseball with a bat. But only
> if the batter knows where the pitcher is. And only if the pitcher throws
> the ball into a fairly small strike zone. And only if the baseball is a
> certain size and weight.
Well, Greg, it turns out someone invented sensors and electronics. So, the “batter” will know where the “pitcher” is.
And if the “pitcher” doesn’t throw his “ball” toward the “strike zone” (United States), then the “ball” won’t hit the United States. If missile defense prevents the “pitchers” of the world from throwing their “balls” at our “strike zone,” then it has done its job. That’s called “deterrence.”
And we know the size and weight of warheads, within a certain range, because we know the size of enemy missiles and the physics of warheads and missile propulsion systems. You’d be amazed what you can determine when you rely on math and physics instead of goofy analogies.
How do we defend the orbital facilities needed for missile defense to work? And if we spend trillions, the Chinese won’t need missiles. They will merely foreclose.
Returning to the military aspects, how can we know whether that Arab prince joy-riding in LEO (after space tourism takes off) is merely happy to see his several wives in zero gee or has an ASAT in his pocket?
> How do we defend the orbital facilities needed for missile defense to work?
By shooting down any missile coming toward them. Is this a trick question?
> Returning to the military aspects, how can we know whether that Arab prince
> joy-riding in LEO (after space tourism takes off) is merely happy to see
> his several wives in zero gee or has an ASAT in his pocket?
How does any military installation determine whether a visitor has a gun in his pocket? What makes you think space tourists will be visiting missile-defense platforms?
> How do we defend the orbital facilities needed for missile defense to work?
> > By shooting down any missile coming toward them. Is this a trick question?
Since a bucket of gravel will ruin a radar sat, this might be more difficult than you say. A tourist vessel traveling in LEO (polar orbits will be sought after for sightseeing) could dump overboard a few kilos of gravel on a trajectory that will later intersect one of our missile defense sats.
“Smart” gravel microsats would be a bigger problem.
= = =
I do not oppose the “idea” of missile defense. I love those 747s with boost phase intercept lasers and would support 100% having a few of those flying figure 8s off the North Korean coast.
North Korea fuels up an ICBM? We burn it within minutes of launch. Lase a hole and blow it up. I say yes to that.
Orbital defense? Too many potential work arounds for the bad guys. It’s like the Maginot Line – – a terrific idea, impregnable, until someone figures out how to defeat it.
= = =
If we deployed an orbital defense screen and I was running the Chinese Red Team, I’d build another 100 ICBMs and announce that I was building another 500 or 1000. We increase our screen by a factor of 5 and China smiles as we spend mega-bucks on a system that will never be used while they spend money sending platinum miners to the Moon.
>>> How do we defend the orbital facilities needed for missile defense to work?
>> By shooting down any missile coming toward them. Is this a trick question?
> Since a bucket of gravel will ruin a radar sat, this might be more
> difficult than you say.
No, missiles carrying buckets of gravel are no harder to shoot down than any other missile.
> A tourist vessel traveling in LEO (polar orbits will be sought after
> for sightseeing) could dump overboard a few kilos of gravel on a trajectory
> that will later intersect one of our missile defense sats.
And a tourist vessel in Boston Harbor could dump a biological warfare agent or a nuclear weapon into the river — but that’s against the law.
What makes you think tourist vessels will be allowed to dump gravel in Earth orbit? Or that this gravel would magically find its way to a missile defense satellite?
If it’s so hard for a missile-defense warhead to hit an object in space, why is it so easy for a piece of gravel to do it?
> Orbital defense? Too many potential work arounds for the bad guys. It’s
> like the Maginot Line – – a terrific idea, impregnable, until someone
> figures out how to defeat it.
No, it isn’t like the Maginot Line. It isn’t in a fixed location, it isn’t a line you can drive around, and it isn’t manned by the French. It isn’t analogous in any way.
If you think it’s harder to attack a 747 than an entire constellation of satellites, you are very much mistaken. You’re also mistaken if you think satellite operators would never plan for such attacks or take countermeasures against them. Military planners are not as dumb as Scientific American makes them out to be.
Unfortunately Jeff turned off the comments on his next post. I was just going to say: Have a nice trip.
Not to be picky, but
“But they are not what MDA (formerly NMD, formerly BMDO, formerly SDI) is about. MDA is about shooting a bullet with a bullet.”
MDA is the Missile Defense Agency. If I am not mistaken, what you mean is currently called Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD). Also BDMO is the Balistic Missile Defense Organization. You kinda have a mis-mash of agencies and their programs.
Also, SDI didn’t so much center around the kenetic kill vehicle as space based lasers and such.
“Also, SDI didn’t so much center around the kenetic kill vehicle as space based lasers and such.”
Laser enthusiasm dominated in the early days. It was only when the charm of the Teller-Livermore posse’s nuke-pumped X-ray laser faded, and the mass-to-orbit cost for chemical lasers looked out of reach, that kinetic kill came to the forefront.
Even for that the mass-to-orbit cost looked out of reach, until SDIO — a lean, mean development organization free of NASA’s innumerable faults — came up with aggressive SSTO designs and Timberwind nuclear-thermal and improved laser launch designs, which as we all know have
yielded more CATS than we know what to do with.
“kill vehicle”
cool
The fact is that space war is all sword and no shield. It would be very easy to destroy most of what America has in space with nuclear detonations or counter-orbiting “kegs of nails”.
That’s one reason why there it’s a good idea to shoot the missile attacker down while it is ascending and has not yet released its payload. Midcourse interception has drawbacks.
So it’s not that deterrence is a good solution or a moral solution. It’s the only solution.
Aside from a pre-emptive first strike.
Gun control or no gun control, it is a basic lesson of adulthood that collective deterrence is your main source of personal protection. It’s what keeps large, armed gangs from kidnapping you for ransom.
No, your main source of personal protection from thugs are armed men who go and arrest the criminals, perhaps shooting it out with the thugs in the process. … As is your capability to defend yourself with deadly force.
I use “your” here in the generic sense. Progressive-minded Americans and Brits, oh-so-enlightened, rely on other men to protect them and call that progress.
Robet Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society.”
I also claim that strict, determined law enforcement that uses deadly force when necessary is a type of pre-emptive first strike on criminals and would-be violent criminals.
///////////////////
Btw, long range missile defense is also needed for non-nuclear war. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has talked about shooting down American GPS and communications satellites. Even in a conventional war, these US space-based assets require defense.
Since we have an English gent among us, I’ll mention this:
Hypothesis: the English Establishment pushed gun control during the 20th century in an effort to disarm the Irish independece movement.
“David: Can you cite any evidence to back up that Lefty urban myth?
Check with any police department (at least honest ones). That said, I did slightly mis-state the statistic. It should have said, “However, it is statistically true that if you keep a gun in your home, it is far more likely to be used by an intruder or a member of your own family to kill you than it is to be used by you to kill an intruder.””
Donald, that is simply pure, unalduterated GARBAGE! It has been throughly disproven for years.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?
Introduction
Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner’s gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore “the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.” The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, “Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home.” (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)
The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner’s gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, “for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.” Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios “nonsensical.” (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)
Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.
Not only is Kellermann’s methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let’s see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.
Refutation
First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.
Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann’s paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).
Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.
Let’s apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.
Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Suicide2 347
Unknown 0
Total 397
Self-protection homicide3 4
This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.
So having applied Kellermann’s methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.
Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann’s study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.
For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a “nonsense ratio?” Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann’s approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.
What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.
To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a “kill” ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)
For a different approach in critique of Kellermann’s study see The 43: 1 Fallacy by Dave Kopel.
For Further Reading
GunCite’s critique of Kellermann’s “3:1″ study. More generally, see GunCite’s Gun Control Research.
A criticism of Kellermann’s subsequent research, and the bias of the Center for Disease Control’s firearm related research: Kates, Schaffer, and Waters, Public Health Pot Shots: How the CDC Succumbed to the Gun “Epidemic”, Reason Magazine, April 1997.
Scroll down to part part XV:”Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home”: Kates, Schafer, et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).
Letters to the New England Journal of Medicine regarding Kellerman’s paper titled: “Guns and Homicide in the Home”.
Kellermann responds.
Kleck, Gary, What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.
A differing view from Kleck’s: Peter Cummings; Thomas D. Koepsell, Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.
Letter to the editor and a response from Kleck, JAMA, July 14, 1999.
Notes:
1. Non-gun criminal homicide calculation:
According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 45 percent of all homicides in King County.
41 firearm criminal homicides / .45 = 91 total criminal homicides.
Non-gun criminal homicides = 91 / (1 – .45) = 50 non-gun criminal homicides.
2. Non-gun suicide calculation:
According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 49 percent of all suicides in King County.
333 firearm suicides / .49 = 680 total suicides.
Non-gun suicides = 680 / (1 – .49) = 347 non-gun suicides.
3. Self-protection calculation:
According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (p. 24), from 1993 to 1997, non-gun justifiable homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides. 30% was used instead of 13%.
9 firearm justifiable homicides / (1 – .3) = 13 total justifiable homicides.
13 total justifiable homicides – 9 firearm justifiable homicides = 4 non-gun justifiable homicides.
Mike, I can find papers and statistics just as easily as you, as in, here.
Nothing you and other gun owner appoligists say can change the fact that the country that allows the widest distribution of guns also suffers the by far greatest number of deaths due to gun use. Why this would be a surprise to anyone is beyond me. Now, I do agree that arguing that the theoretical benefits of gun ownership could outweigh the very real price is a ligitimate case to make, but the facts are what they are.
BTW, while I have lived in Britain, I am as American as you or David could possibly be. I just happen to disagree with you. If that simple fact makes me “un-American,” our country has no future that its founders would have desired, guns or no guns.
— Donald
“Mike, I can find papers and statistics just as easily as you”
Still does not change the FACT that the 43 to 1 Kellerman crap has beed debunked by dozens of reputable authorities as an egregous case of Selection Bias at its worst. Only people who haven got the memo or are intent on deliberatly distorting the debate continue to use it as it supports their preconcieved dogma.
“Nothing you and other gun owner appoligists say can change the fact that the country that allows the widest distribution of guns also suffers the by far greatest number of deaths due to gun use. Why this would be a surprise to anyone is beyond me. Now, I do agree that arguing that the theoretical benefits of gun ownership could outweigh the very real price is a ligitimate case to make, but the facts are what they are.”
What facts Donald? Saying something is true does not make it so. Correlation does NOT equal causation. Fortunately, we have thrid party government provided NIJ statistics showing that increased rates of gun ownership doe not provide increasing levels of firearms violence. Please check the following graph.
http://www.guncite.com/gsupply.gif
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html
Blame the war on drugs, not gun ownership as the overwhelming majority of firearms related homicides are durggie on druggie related violence. Very few are Ward Cleaver blowing a fuse and going medieval.
As to your provided link, treating gun violence as a disease makes as much sense as treating the Avian Flu as a murder.
Perhaps you should also check out this chart:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Also note that Finland has at least as high rate of firearms ownership as we do as well as the ability to possess anything and everything including true fully automatic weapons. Switzerland issues fully automatic rifles to almost all adult males which are REQUIRED to be stored at home. They also allow the individual to purchase and own these weapons upon completion of their tenure in the militia.
So it is truth that more guns casue more homicide. Again, correlation does not equal causation.
“BTW, while I have lived in Britain, I am as American as you or David could possibly be. I just happen to disagree with you. If that simple fact makes me “un-American,” our country has no future that its founders would have desired, guns or no guns.
— Donald”
Why are you playing the victim? Did I say anything about your national interests and loyalties?
This is a forum for space policy discussion only. Please discontinue your debate on gun control.