Missile defense system is up and running, military says

DuH2 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 01:22 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON: After a successful test last week, the tracking radars and interceptor rockets of a new American missile defense system can be turned on at any time to respond to an emerging crisis in Asia, senior military officers said Tuesday.

General Victor Renuart Jr., the senior commander for defense of United States territory, said that the antimissile system could guard against the risk of ballistic missile attack from North Korea even while development continues on a series of radars in California and the Pacific Ocean and on interceptor missiles in Alaska and California.

While the new system is limited, it is the most extensive anti-ballistic missile system the Pentagon has fielded since the Safeguard ABM system near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota was briefly operated, starting in 1975. Congress immediately voted to shut it down, and it operated for only a few months.

"We can bring missiles up or take them down as need be so that they can continue doing the testing," said Renuart, commander of the military's Northern Command, based in Colorado Springs. But, he added, "I'm fully confident that we have all of the pieces in place that, if the nation needed to, we could respond."

He said the system showed an initial capability in July 2006, when American missile defense went on alert as North Korea staged missile tests. Because the array of interceptors and radars remains under development, it has never received the military's official status of being an operational weapons system.

Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the target missile was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and tracked by radar at Beale Air Force Base, near Sacramento. The interceptor missile was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base, north of Santa Barbara, California, scoring a direct hit on the dummy warhead.

"Does the system work? The answer is yes to that," Obering said. "Is it going to work against more complex threats in the future? We believe it will."

Obering acknowledged that no decoys were flown in the path of the interceptor on Friday as might be expected in a real missile attack. Skeptics have challenged the Missile Defense Agency to conduct more realistic tests that would include even primitive technologies designed to fool the interceptor. These include balloons and chunks of metal that separate from the missile along with the warhead.

The general said the next test, which is expected in the first half of 2008, would include countermeasures to gauge the interceptor's ability to differentiate between the real warhead and decoys. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are scheduled to meet up in Moscow later this month for joint talks with their counterparts on Russia's objections to American proposals for missile defense in Central Europe. American plans call for 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic to defend against a possible missile attack from Iran.

Obering said Friday's successful test would help make the Bush administration's case with allies.

"I think it helps us in a very real way, because, as I have had conversations with our European partners and allies and NATO partners in the past, one of the questions I do get asked is, well, this system is not proven," Obering said. And this, he added, goes a long way "to answering that question."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/.../03missile.php

So much for the system not working....

I'd rather have a chance no matter how remote(and the odds are pretty high they will hit their target) of intercepting a missile before it delivers it payload over a US or allied City then have to watch it fly in go off and then listen to those who oppsoed the ABM system (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about not having one.

Those who point to cost need to explain why its cheaper to have say downtown Sacramento obliterated...good luck.

justabubba · #2 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 03:54 AM

Quote:

While a MIRVed attacking missile can have multiple (3–12 on various United States missiles) warheads, interceptors can only have one warhead per missile. Thus, in both a military and economic sense, MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
great situation if you are in the business of selling the government expensive interceptor systems.

Quote:

Those who point to cost need to explain why its cheaper to have say downtown Sacramento obliterated.

goody, now we purchase enough hardware as our counter measure to assure no warhead is able to get past to destroy old sacramento. so we have to have as many antimissiles as they have missles for the new anti-nuclear condom to be effective in offering national protection. tell us duh, how many interceptors will we then need? answer that question and i will then be able to respond to your financial query about the cost incurred to protect california's capital

Sadistic-Savior · #3 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

goody, now we purchase enough hardware as our counter measure to assure no warhead is able to get past to destroy old sacramento.

Even without any further countermeasures at all, Sacramento now has more than a 0% chance to survive a missile.

Quote:

how many interceptors will we then need?

Even if we only have one, we now have some protection against missile attack where we had none before.

Daybreaker · #4 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:56 AM

Remember back in the first Gulf War, which was partly a big commercial for the Patriot missile? Which didn't work nearly as well as they claimed. Of course, they rushed to go fix the problems -- but it still didn't work. But they claimed it did!

These things haven't worked well in the past. Getting one bullet to hit another bullet in the air is really tricky. Thing is, lying about one's own capabilities is a pretty standard military maneuver.

So who knows if it works or not? Not North Korea, I suppose, which I guess is the point.

It just reminds me of how many times the government has lied to us about these things, though. That ticks me off.

stekim · #5 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

It just reminds me of how many times the government has lied to us about these things, though. That ticks me off.

But you must at least be used to it by now.

One of the issues with high technology military equipment is the budget process. Although Congress will throw money down a hole at the drop of a hat, they do eventually stop funding expensive things that don't work. So if you want to keep the gravy train going you need to show your Giant Ray Gun works or at the very least is getting closer to working. To do that you talk a really nice game and then set up a very rudamentary and likely unrealistic test for your Giant Ray Gun, "pass" the test, then keep talking a nice game so the funds flow. It's not as much a straight out lie as it is Boeing and the military folks in charge working the system to get their buckets of cash.

shintao · #6 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:55 AM

Its good to see the Liberal nation of California will be safe from incoming missiles. And it also good that Liberal Hillary will decide when to turn the system on based on whether it is a red or blue state on the conservative map.

Daybreaker · #7 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:56 AM

Why would Boeing/other contractors not just do their jobs and actually make stuff that works, though? I mean, as opposed to stuff that doesn't. Aren't they protecting their own assets and investments, too?

It's like, you hire a security guard to watch the fridge and make sure nobody takes the sandwiches, right? Somebody bribes the security guard and takes the sandwiches. But the security guard's sandwich was in there, too!

Okay, that's a terrible analogy.

But you get what I'm saying.

It just seems like bad strategy to me.

stekim · #8 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Why would Boeing/other contractors not just do their jobs and actually make stuff that works, though? I mean, as opposed to stuff that doesn't. Aren't they protecting their own assets and investments, too?

Of course they want to make stuff that works. But with cutting edge technology it's not always that easy. There is no known blueprint to follow. So they convince the military they can do it, then they do what they need to do to keep the money flowing. Maybe they can make the bubble shield work. Maybe not. But in the latter case they will do everything they can to convince people it will eventually work.

Sadistic-Savior · #9 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Remember back in the first Gulf War, which was partly a big commercial for the Patriot missile? Which didn't work nearly as well as they claimed.

Good example. That technology has matured. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#PAC-3 -

Quote:

Of course, they rushed to go fix the problems -- but it still didn't work. But they claimed it did!

So what? The problems were fixed with the Patriot, and NMD's technology will mature as well.

Quote:

These things haven't worked well in the past.

I wonder what would have happened if the wright brothers had said the same thing about flight? "Well, we can only keep it airborn for a few minutes...there's no way we can make a weapon out of this"

Quote:

Getting one bullet to hit another bullet in the air is really tricky.

Getting past the speed of sound was tricky at one point too...BFD. Things change. Transsonic flight is so easy now we have a fighter that doesnt even need afterburners to do it.

Quote:

Its good to see the Liberal nation of California will be safe from incoming missiles.

Since California is on our Western border, it is more than just California that is safe.

Quote:

Why would Boeing/other contractors not just do their jobs and actually make stuff that works, though?

So you assume that this is so easy that the only way they cant progress is if they are DELIBERATELY failing??

Quote:

But in the latter case they will do everything they can to convince people it will eventually work.

Which it will. If the US hadnt been the first to make a plane, someone else would have done it eventually. A missile shield is obviously not impossible...it is just a matter of who is going to get it first and how good it will be.

Russia has it's own NMD program...its not just the US that thinks it will work. China has been throwing a non-stop hissy fit over NMD for years claiming that it neutralizes their deterrant (their nukes). Why would they do that if they were convinced it wouldnt work?

stekim · #10 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Which it will. If the US hadnt been the first to make a plane, someone else would have done it eventually. A missile shield is obviously not impossible...it is just a matter of who is going to get it first and how good it will be.

How good? It either stops the incoming missile(s) or it doesn't. Will it work? I have no idea. Will the end benefit to us be worth the final cost? Very likely not.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode