Interceptor missile hits test target

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Are you saying that this particular system has been under development for 15 years? It seems to me that 5 successful tests in a row is promising.

I'm not claiming to be an aerospace expert, I'm just telling you what I have read regarding the issues. You can not put much weight on what I say, but the fact remains that current interceptors are incapable of detecting the differences between decoys and actual warheads. Ask anyone involved in the know abuot the program.

Second, you can have your opinion about this, but think about how far we have gotten in 15 years. Even in peak conditions we don't have really high success rates. Also, the threat of an ICBM attack has all but disappeared, and there is a chance that it will trigger another arms race.

Just because it cannot detect differences now does not mean that it is impossible. Let me ask you, are you an engineer? I'm just curious. The reason I'm asking is that you seem to have a defeatist attitude.

Are you saying that this particular program has been in development for over 15 years? There are over 10 missile-defense systems in the US though, as well as global partnerships.

This particular system seems to have decent success rate for something that is still in development - 5 straight successes out of 6 tries.

Who is it going to trigger an arms race against? Any military development will cause someone else to develop themselves, be it a missile defense system or not.

If you read my post, you'd realize I was talking about long range missile defense against ICBM's (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). These are short range ballistic missiles that would be intercepted, and pretty useless defending the US homeland (except for against Cuba). While this system has faired much better than it's bigger brother, it's usefulness is questionable. Granted, we could employ such a system in Japan and Taiwan to deter an attack by the N. Koreans or Chinese but that can cause serious instability in the region.

This would trigger an arms race between us building these defenses and countries building missiles that can outwit these defenses (Korea, China, Iran, etc.).
Also, military development does not always cause others to develop newer technology (for instance defense buildup often does not cause build up of arms by others).

My main point here is that although there may be some success, employing a system based on the current idea of shooting down missiles with interceptors will always be full of holes. The deployment of such a system will not only almost certainly be unreliable, it will also cause political instability.

You say I have a defeatist attitude? Maybe it's because I look at the current defciits and realize that my generation will have to pay off this absurd debt. Saving that much money per year and using it to eventually pay off our national debt would be greater for this country than any defense system. I'm just sick of silly antiquated defense systems getting so much funding. Why are we still developing nuclear weapons? (Yes, we are spending valuable research dollars developing bunker busting nuclear weapons). Don't you think lowering our debt or spending more money defending ports (a greater threat) than on a missile defense system that may/may not work but will likely never be tested?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

If you read my post, you'd realize I was talking about long range missile defense against ICBM's (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). These are short range ballistic missiles that would be intercepted, and pretty useless defending the US homeland (except for against Cuba). While this system has faired much better than it's bigger brother, it's usefulness is questionable. Granted, we could employ such a system in Japan and Taiwan to deter an attack by the N. Koreans or Chinese but that can cause serious instability in the region.

I'd think the N. Koreans or Chinese launching weapons at Japan or Taiwan would case serious instability in the region.

This would trigger an arms race between us building these defenses and countries building missiles that can outwit these defenses (Korea, China, Iran, etc.).
Also, military development does not always cause others to develop newer technology (for instance defense buildup often does not cause build up of arms by others).

I just don't think that we should be held hostage due to the potential actions of others. This is a defensive system.

My main point here is that although there may be some success, employing a system based on the current idea of shooting down missiles with interceptors will always be full of holes. The deployment of such a system will not only almost certainly be unreliable, it will also cause political instability.

You say I have a defeatist attitude? Maybe it's because I look at the current defciits and realize that my generation will have to pay off this absurd debt. Saving that much money per year and using it to eventually pay off our national debt would be greater for this country than any defense system. I'm just sick of silly antiquated defense systems getting so much funding. Why are we still developing nuclear weapons? (Yes, we are spending valuable research dollars developing bunker busting nuclear weapons). Don't you think lowering our debt or spending more money defending ports (a greater threat) than on a missile defense system that may/may not work but will likely never be tested?

I think the funding problems is a valid criticism. However, I feel that military investment usually reaps great rewards in terms of research.

I think the defending the ports is important, too. I think that there are many important threats to consider and we should cover many of them. The only problem is funding.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Granted, we could employ such a system in Japan and Taiwan to deter an attack by the N. Koreans or Chinese but that can cause serious instability in the region.

This would trigger an arms race between us building these defenses and countries building missiles that can outwit these defenses (Korea, China, Iran, etc.).

The second assumption actually makes a couple of false assumptions. In the case of North Korea, its economy is in horrible shape and it can barely sustain its current military. Medium range missiles are not cheap to make, and if North Korea tries to engage in an arms race with more missiles to overwhelm defenses, its not going to be able to continue to maintain its conventional military. The fact the US currently has around 50 Aegis Air Defense Capable ships gives the US alot of platform they can potentially upgrade if they need to. Japan is also already planning to buy some SM-3 Missiles right now for its own Aegis ships so its not like the US is going to be solely stuck with the defensive burden to defending Japan from medium range missile attacks.

With regards to Iran, Israel has an entirely different land based Arrow 2 anti-Missile defense system that it uses to protect itself. The SM-3 missile wouldn't even be in the right position to protect against such a strike no matter where its currently deployed. Ultimately though, the biggest Israeli deterent to a Iranian Nuclear Missile Strike is going to be Mutually Assured Destruction. This is enchanched by the fact Israeli is now widely believed to have independantly armed its 3 diesel submarines with domestically designed nuclear tipped cruise missiles in order to ensure a second strike capability under any circumstance.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/...issiles/popeye_turbo/Popeye_Turbo.html

The China argument about buildup is probably the best, but only defending Japan really applies. Realisticly China wanted to recapture Taiwan intact, not incinerate it with nukes. The Chinese rhetoric about Taiwan being an integral part of China actually makes nuking it far less acceptable internally, since that means they are nuking their own people.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/missile.defense.ap/index.html

Good news from a different component of the missle defense (this is for shorter range missles). Pretty encouraging results actually, hopefully this can translate to a successful full missle defense shield.

++ for paranoid americans (you)

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/missile.defense.ap/index.html

Good news from a different component of the missle defense (this is for shorter range missles). Pretty encouraging results actually, hopefully this can translate to a successful full missle defense shield.

++ for paranoid americans (you)

We are the #1 target in the world, we have reason to be paranoid.

 

[conjur]

Bush admin to Canada? Screw you!


U.S. will deploy missiles
U.S. says it will still fire over Canada
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/24/941137-cp.html

OTTAWA (CP) - The United States will decide when to fire missiles over Canadian airspace whether Canada likes it or not, says America's ambassador.

The blunt warning from Paul Cellucci came minutes after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday that he will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program. "We will deploy. We will defend North America," Cellucci said.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming toward Canada."

The warning was no slip of the tongue - Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had handed over some of its sovereignty to the U.S.

Cellucci said he understands the political issues that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to endorse an unpopular American plan. Polls have suggested most Canadians oppose the project and Martin might even have faced a revolt within his own Liberal caucus.

While the Conservatives support missile defence, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals oppose it.

News of Canada's decision quickly appeared on news websites around the world. Many countries oppose the American plan. Opponents argue the scheme could trigger a new arms race, question why it's necessary in a post-Cold War climate, and note that the anti-missile technology is unproven.

Mending fences alright.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/24/missile.defense.ap/index.html

Good news from a different component of the missle defense (this is for shorter range missles). Pretty encouraging results actually, hopefully this can translate to a successful full missle defense shield.

++ for paranoid americans (you)

We are the #1 target in the world, we have reason to be paranoid.

Well, tell Bush to put down the big brush and paint can.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Colt45
The russkij's will make something that will defeat it for a 10th of the cost

And probably work 1/50th of the time

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Raildogg, you say in your post that we need to protect ourselves against rogue nations. What seems more likely, them getting the technology (Iran for instance) to launch a strike at us or them giving it to some terrorists to throw on a boat and blow up the harbor (only 5% of cargo is checked ... and we are "secure"). This whole missile defense system is a relic of the cold war, and though it seems less likely to trigger another arms race, its use is limited. Any decoys in the warhead would almost certainly lead to the failure of the interceptor missile, as it can currently only lock onto one target. Also, sending several missiles at the same time could easily overwhelm our defense shield. The costs of this system are ridiculous, over 10 billion a year and we have a 5/8 success rate in optimal conditions. So far, the two tests that were not in optimal conditions have failed.

We should focus on accounting for all the nuclear materials we are aware of, something the Bush administration only recently started to do, while claiming that nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat to America. Go figure that their rhetoric only began before the election and I haven't heard anything about it since.

Point is, missile defense is not useful in basically any situation. A nation that has technology sophisticated enough to build ICBM's has no trouble throwing decoys along with the warhead.
Our threats are more likely to come from unusual means that ICBM's, and that's where we should be focusing our money on, not a fantastic Gipper idea.

You need to do both. Remember China is an upcoming nation with nukes. N.Korea is working on missiles that can hit the western U.S.

In the end if something like a N. Korea lobs a few at us. Wouldnt you rather we spend a few billion now than pick up the remains of millions on the west coast?

This however doesnt mean they should forget about terrorism. They need to work on both at the same time. This going down a single path is what hurt us in the 1990s and 9/11. We need to be prepared for everything.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: judasmachine
anything will work you throw enough damn money at it.

Psssttt - DC gov't school system

But yes, there does seem to be alot of money being put into this shield. Ofcourse the Liberals should be loving this sort of thing so we don't have to go get rid of thugs and dictators - we could just shoot down their missiles.

CsG

Yes, I LOVE blowing tax dollars on something that can protect us from Canada. Can't you just keep your namecalling mouth shut and say something productive?

:roll: Calling Liberals - liberals is now namecalling? :roll
Why don't you try replying with something relevant ...or take your own advice and shut your yapper.

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Raildogg, you say in your post that we need to protect ourselves against rogue nations. What seems more likely, them getting the technology (Iran for instance) to launch a strike at us or them giving it to some terrorists to throw on a boat and blow up the harbor (only 5% of cargo is checked ... and we are "secure"). This whole missile defense system is a relic of the cold war, and though it seems less likely to trigger another arms race, its use is limited. Any decoys in the warhead would almost certainly lead to the failure of the interceptor missile, as it can currently only lock onto one target. Also, sending several missiles at the same time could easily overwhelm our defense shield. The costs of this system are ridiculous, over 10 billion a year and we have a 5/8 success rate in optimal conditions. So far, the two tests that were not in optimal conditions have failed.

We should focus on accounting for all the nuclear materials we are aware of, something the Bush administration only recently started to do, while claiming that nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat to America. Go figure that their rhetoric only began before the election and I haven't heard anything about it since.

Point is, missile defense is not useful in basically any situation. A nation that has technology sophisticated enough to build ICBM's has no trouble throwing decoys along with the warhead.
Our threats are more likely to come from unusual means that ICBM's, and that's where we should be focusing our money on, not a fantastic Gipper idea.

You need to do both. Remember China is an upcoming nation with nukes. N.Korea is working on missiles that can hit the western U.S.

In the end if something like a N. Korea lobs a few at us. Wouldnt you rather we spend a few billion now than pick up the remains of millions on the west coast?

This however doesnt mean they should forget about terrorism. They need to work on both at the same time. This going down a single path is what hurt us in the 1990s and 9/11. We need to be prepared for everything.

The way the current system works, without 6 weeks of prior notice, where the missle is in in the airspace, what speed the missile is at and what its intended target is, the system won't work. I doubt we will have a working defense shield by the time any of those nations can hit us (China can already nuke LA so this entire point is moot). No one is crazy enough to risk MAD. Nuclear deterrance is good enough.

Shame that missile defense can't stop bus bombings, hijacked planes and random snipers huh? If we were serious about security, these would be the type of threats we would be guarding against, not phantom missiles that won't be shot at us.

 

[MadRat]

Omar is taking the CONSERVATIVE stance on this issue. Its been dealt with several times during the nuclear age and a good offense beats a missile defense for national security. Money was better spent in precision-strike nuclear warheads for busting underground bunkers. The truth is it only takes a ten knot wind to bleed off two-thirds of its lift energy upon takeoff, thereby making it a fair weather instrument of war. Its the reason NASA takes weather forecasting so serious.