U.S. Interceptor Downs Missile in Test Over Pacific

[DealMonkey]

I'm starting to change my mind on this idea of a "missile shield" AKA Star Wars or whatever you want to call it. In this day and age, especially with the ongoing fiasco with NK (and to a lesser degree, Iran), if this system can work I think we need to fund it. Big time.

U.S. Interceptor Downs Missile in Test Over Pacific

Jim Wolf
Reuters
Friday, September 1, 2006; 3:44 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military shot down a target ballistic missile over the Pacific Friday in the widest test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the Defense Department announced.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had successfully completed an important exercise involving the launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack.

The test results will help improve the performance of a multibillion-dollar shield against the type of long-range ballistic missile that could be used to attack a U.S. city with a weapon of mass destruction, the agency said in a statement.

Officially, the $85 million test was designed to collect data rather than shoot down the target.

It was the first involving a live target since interceptor rockets failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005.

It was also the first since the ground-based system, which is part of a layered shield that includes naval and aerial components, was activated to guard against ballistic missiles test-fired on July 4 and 5 by North Korea.

Boeing Co. is prime contractor for the ground-based mid-course defense. Major subcontractors include Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Raytheon Co.

In the exercise, a target missile was launched from Kodiak, Alaska. And for the first time, the ground-based interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in central California. Previous launches have been from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

Linkage

 

[Genx87]

I agree, we need to stay ahead of the curve here. We cant expect to stop a russian attack but maybe a rogue missiles from N Korea or some other nation we can.

On top of that the the lessons learned can help with other missile defense systems for troop and armor formations.

 

[BrownTown]

I like the laser Isreal and the US are designing to shoot down rockets. I used to wonder what the point was of using lasers to shoot down WWII Katushya rockets. But then you see what just happened in Iswreal, and i bet they wished they had some of those deployed.

 

[Extelleron]

Great news. This project needs much more funding, it's one of the most important things we need for defense. Deploy these in SIGNIFICANT numbers and even China or Russia won't be able to threaten us with nuclear war anymore. It might take another 10-20 years, but eventually no one will be able to hit us.

 

[BrownTown]

you wish

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
you wish

:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

 

[Kwaipie]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, the evil Zur is in the process of developing ballistic missile stealth technology.

Cold war all over again, defense contractors and investors breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Carry on.

 

[Paddington]

The interceptors are cheaper to build than the nukes, which take nuclear materials. There's no reason the U.S. couldn't eventually have 1-1 interceptors for all the nukes China and Russia have, as well as additional ones that North Korea, etc. have.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BrownTown
you wish

:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

I agree any anti-missle system needs to be able to destory hundreds if not thousands of missles along with their decoys to be effective. The current anti-missle systems might be good for a 1 on 1 scenario but to have a truely effective anti-missle system you need one that can handle a massive wave of missles and decoys. Don't think that their won't be missle systems designed to keep in step with anti-missle technology.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Paddington
The interceptors are cheaper to build than the nukes, which take nuclear materials. There's no reason the U.S. couldn't eventually have 1-1 interceptors for all the nukes China and Russia have, as well as additional ones that North Korea, etc. have.

Russian ICMB's break up into several missles and they can easily come up with decoy ICMB's designed to overwhelm the system.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Paddington
The interceptors are cheaper to build than the nukes, which take nuclear materials. There's no reason the U.S. couldn't eventually have 1-1 interceptors for all the nukes China and Russia have, as well as additional ones that North Korea, etc. have.

Russian ICMB's break up into several missles and they can easily come up with decoy ICMB's designed to overwhelm the system.

I thought they just fail to fire or completely miss their targets?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Paddington
The interceptors are cheaper to build than the nukes, which take nuclear materials. There's no reason the U.S. couldn't eventually have 1-1 interceptors for all the nukes China and Russia have, as well as additional ones that North Korea, etc. have.

Russians ICMB's break up into several missles and they can easily come up with decoy ICMB's designed to overwhelm the system.

I thought they just fail to fire or completely miss their targets?

The Russian along with the US have had the ability to pack several warheads into a single ICMB for a while.

 

[Polish3d]

I too agree that this is a good idea, as more and more regimes will begin acquiring nuclear weapons. If we could manage to make our ports more secure, make ourselves energy independent, it would allow us two less serious points of leverage by other countries.

People need to get past their partisanship on this from the Reagan years, grow the f uck up, and build this thing. It might not stop Russia, but it could stop less developed nations' nuclear weapons.


Additionally I saw on CNN today that oil shale, if developed, would provide enough energy for the US (from the US) for hundreds of years. If the report was accurate, Shell is telling the truth and the environmental concerns (local) are the only thing holding it back, (they are trying to develop means to do it "environmentally well") I personally say forget the environment for now, it's a far greater priority to become energy independent than it is to protect a few thousand acres. It's foolish to not begin using this stuff now and work to lessen its impact on the local environment later.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

We might be able to stop 500-1000, but that's not necessarily going to do it because, if they're like the US, they have admitted to having over 10,000 nukes. Last I saw, the US acknowledged 12,500 (either warheads or weapons... can't remember). Simply the computer power needed to track that many missiles boggles the mind, let alone trying to intercept them. I'm not saying it can't be done, nor that we shouldn't try to do it, but it's probably a good ways off. I'm cautiously optimistic in the long run.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BrownTown
you wish

:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

Wildly optimistic, and temporary at best. The offense will always have the advantage.

 

[RightIsWrong]

You do all realize that these are tests. And in testing, the interceptors are only at ~50% success rate. Also, I don't think that the enemy is going to be giving out launch times and coordinates.

 

[conehead433]

Needs more funding? LOL. One of the few successes of this system since being built after throwing away zillions on Star Wars defense. not sure which is better- feeling like your actually safe after spending a few zillion more dollars and a couple of more successful tests out of hundreds or possibly learning how to have diplomatic relations with the rest of world including those the chimp named as part of an axis of evil.

 

[Aisengard]

Once we pull out of Iraq and stop most other military spending, sure, then spend it on missile defense.

Otherwise, NO. The military has taken enough of our money as it is, with not much to show for it. "Defending me as I sleep" my ass. They couldn't even scramble fast enough to get to a hijacked commercial airline heading towards our most populated and important city.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Extelleron
:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

We might be able to stop 500-1000, but that's not necessarily going to do it because, if they're like the US, they have admitted to having over 10,000 nukes. Last I saw, the US acknowledged 12,500 (either warheads or weapons... can't remember). Simply the computer power needed to track that many missiles boggles the mind, let alone trying to intercept them. I'm not saying it can't be done, nor that we shouldn't try to do it, but it's probably a good ways off. I'm cautiously optimistic in the long run.

I'm pretty sure that Russia, in its current state, could not afford to keep 10,000+ warheads operational. They might have had that many, but plenty have been destroyed I believe, and still most others are just sitting around. I'm not going to pretend to know alot about it, but I think keeping alot of nuclear ICBM's operational and "ready to fire" is expensive.

 

[tommywishbone]

I wonder if it helped that the incoming missle's schedule & trajectory were known factors before the test? I sure hope those evil doers call us in advance.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Extelleron
:disgust:

You deploy enough intereptors, and tell me why you can't stop an attack of 500-1000 missiles. As I said, it won't be enough NOW, but when we've ironed out the problems of the system, we can begin building interceptors in large quantities.

We might be able to stop 500-1000, but that's not necessarily going to do it because, if they're like the US, they have admitted to having over 10,000 nukes. Last I saw, the US acknowledged 12,500 (either warheads or weapons... can't remember). Simply the computer power needed to track that many missiles boggles the mind, let alone trying to intercept them. I'm not saying it can't be done, nor that we shouldn't try to do it, but it's probably a good ways off. I'm cautiously optimistic in the long run.

The likely culprit will be NK or maybe Iran. NK has maybe one nuke, maybe a handful. Definitely not hundreds. Iran is still years away (probably) from a nuke, but would have levels similar to NK. China, a likely threat, has maybe slightly better than 100.

Russia on the other hand would probably overwhelm any system with sheer numbers.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Once we pull out of Iraq and stop most other military spending, sure, then spend it on missile defense.

Otherwise, NO. The military has taken enough of our money as it is, with not much to show for it. "Defending me as I sleep" my ass. They couldn't even scramble fast enough to get to a hijacked commercial airline heading towards our most populated and important city.

.....

You realize thousands of flights occur each day, and fly over NYC? How the heck was the military supposed to know that terrorists were on that flight?

Anyway, defense is the top priority of the government and thus a $400 Billion budget is neccessary and justified. Programs such as the missile defense system may require extra funding, but unless you want to die, it's important to spend that money.

 

[Acanthus]

Lets not even discuss the logstics of the EMP that would be caused by intercepting a nuke and having it go off miles over the US.

(you are talking a massive EMP that would wipe out electricity for 1/4 of the US if it was destroyed over the continental US.)

Edit: typo

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lets not even discuss the logstics of of the EMP that would be caused by intercepting a nuke and having it go off miles over the US.

(you are talking a massive EMP that would wipe out electricity for 1/4 of the US if it was destroyed over the continental US.)

It'll be destroyed in the ocean, not in the air over the U.S.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lets not even discuss the logstics of of the EMP that would be caused by intercepting a nuke and having it go off miles over the US.

(you are talking a massive EMP that would wipe out electricity for 1/4 of the US if it was destroyed over the continental US.)

It'll be destroyed in the ocean, not in the air over the U.S.

You think that they can get it to 100% AND fast enough to destroy them over the ocean?

Id say slim to none in a real world situation.

The EMP would still wipe out installations on the pacific islands, specifically the very installations that shoot down the missles.