US missile defense systems misses target!

Think how much wind power we could get for 9 billion dollars!

"WASHINGTON - Flight tests of the nation's missile defense system will not resume until this fall at the earliest as the military revamps the program following two failures in the past seven months, a military official says.

The military may conduct two tests by year's end, with the earliest possibly this fall, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no schedule has been announced.

It is uncertain whether the military will have a target missile ready for launch, however, and the first test may not involve an attempt to hit a target.
The delay further protracts

Pentagon efforts to validate a multibillion-dollar program that supporters say will help protect the nation from intercontinental ballistic missiles. Critics say that claim remains unproven.

Even though the military occasionally activates interceptor bases in Alaska and California, they are not yet on around-the-clock alert as envisioned. The system has not had a successful intercept of a target since October 2002. Three tests have ended in failure.

The Bush administration had said the system would be working by the end of 2004.
An independent review, performed this year by experts for the Pentagon Missile Defense Agency, suggested that the rush to deploy the defenses led to inadequate quality control during the tests. The report was posted online by the Center for Defense Information, a defense policy think-tank in Washington.

Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner acknowledged that the report raised some issues regarding quality control that, "quite frankly, we didn't pay enough attention to, and now we are."

President Bush is seeking $9 billion for the program in the upcoming budget year, $1 billion less than previously planned. Since 1983, the government has spent $92 billion to develop a system to shield the U.S. from attack by ballistic missiles.

In the two most recent tests, each costing $85 million, the interceptors failed to get out of their silos.

Last Dec. 15, the test missile did not launch because of a problem with communications software. The second test, on Feb. 14, failed because an arm that holds up the interceptor did not fully retract in the moments before it launched, officials said. The interceptor shut down automatically.

Both tests were to involve launching an interceptor from Kwajalein Island in the Pacific Ocean at a target launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050710/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

__________________
Classic American liberal

$92 billion for a nonworking system. And we're not talking about the hard part -- actually hitting a target. We're talking about basic stuff like a reliable launch sequence.

The answer, according to supporters: Throw more money at it!

Don't they criticize the same thing when liberals do it?

And never mind that the system can be bypassed for substantially less than $1 billion. Or that there are greater and more immediate threats to spend $92 billion on.

I support research into missile defenses. Heck, I just think it's cool to have gigawatt lasers and such. But we keep trying to deploy actual systems long before the underlying technology has matured, which just leads to boondoggle after boondoggle. And expensive boondoggles at that.

Fund the basic research, but back off on the deployment until such time as we're actually ready.

__________________
Man up.

like the 6th or 7th time?

Crikey!!

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

Why...are you thinking we might be able blow incoming missiles away with windmills or something?

Defense is expensive. Pioneering defense technology is even more expensive. The alternatives are worse. Missile attack is the only form of attack we are 100% vulnerable to right now. Every administration since it's inception (Republican and Democrat alike) has agreed with the necessity for NMD.

A reliable launch sequence is MUCH easier to do than hitting the target. Hitting the target is the hard part, which is why so few nations have this technology.

And the tests have been successful in the past, even if they are not 100% reliable...which shows that it can be done. It is worth it even if it is never 100% reliable. A 10% chance to defend against an incoming nuke is much better than a 0% chance.

It's worked before.

Not on issues of Defense.

Interesting that our enemies seem so worried about a system that can be bypassed so easily...

The PRC has b:tched about NMD many many times. I can provide links.

That's my point. We're still having trouble with the basics. Once the interceptor is in the air, that's when the REALLY hard work begins.

Not regardless of price, however.

Ah. So if it's a social program and it doesn't work, cancel it. But if it's a defense program and it doesn't work, keep funding it. Got it.

I'm searching for the consistent principle behind that mindset and I just can't find it.

Maybe they're using reverse psychology. They ARE Chinese, after all.

AFAIK, the Chinese complaints center on defensive concerns. A working U.S. missile shield completely shreds mutual assured destruction, rendering China's nuclear force useless as a deterrent, and (in their opinion) opening the door to offensive U.S. nuclear strikes.

I wasn't aware that their complaints were based on fear that such a system would be working any time soon; it's always struck me as a general philosophical opposition.

__________________
Man up.

attacking the U.S., I would launch a couple of nukes and about 100 empty missles. The system would have next to no chance of hitting the nukes.

Who are we proposing is going to attack us via intercontinental ballistic missle? Just wondering.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

You are thinking sequentially. Both can be worked on independent of each other. The more difficult task has already been accomplished.

The launch problems will be solved eventually. No one is making the claim that the launch mechanism cant be made to work. It is only a matter of time.

I disagree. There is no issue more important than defense. How much is it worth to you to to prevent LA or San Francisco from being nuked? All it would take is one.

Correct. Defense > Social programs. That seems like a simple enough equation to me.

The alternative is worse. We need a defense against missile attack. A minimal defense at the very least.

Perhaps you arnt looking hard enough. It's there.

Or maybe they think it really will work. Is that a possibility?

I found a good overview of their concerns here:

The site goes into tight detail on each of these points. The PRC has made no secret of how p!ssed off they are that the US is persuing NMD.

Sure, they can work out both. But it defies logic to think that they've solved the more difficult problem first. The only successful intercepts have been in highly controlled tests -- and the accuracy still left much to be desired.

I'm saying that if they can't even get the launch mechanism to work -- something that is based on decades of proven technology -- I'm not holding out much hope that the hard part has been solved.

True. But considering we've had ICBMs for decades now and have yet to lose a city, I'm pretty sure it's not worth $1 trillion to build a system that will fail 9 out of 10 times even on a good day. Especially when we might put that $1 trillion to better use elsewhere.

Not until we can get one that actually works, and at reasonable cost. I think we need laser-armed interceptors capable of FTL travel, but I'm pretty sure trying to deploy such a system would be a waste of money right now.

Fund the research. Heavily fund it, even, especially if it's in basic research with broader implications. But quit deploying nonworking systems.

Like I thought, general defensive and political concerns. Even if they think the system will never work, they don't want to see us transferring missile technology to Japan and Taiwan, or cozying up to Taiwan, or any of their other pet peeves. Nowhere do I see "we're really worried that this system will be operational anytime soon."

__________________
Man up.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. IMO, most people would agree that hitting a missile with another missile is harder than getting the launch mechanism to work.

The tests simulated real-world conditions. What kinds of tests would satisfy you short of an actual missile strike from China?

We know that accidental launches HAVE come close to happening in the past. We know that we have come close to a nuclear confrontation before.

I dont share your faith in the restraint or competency of our enemies.

What is a reasonable cost to prevent the deaths of several hundred thousand (or even millions of) people and trillions of dollars in damage?

Actually, I didnt make that claim. I made the claim that they were convinced NMD could work.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I agree that hitting a missile with another missile is harder. My point is, the launch mechanism, the simple part, doesn't even work yet. So I'm skeptical that the intercept part, the hard part, is working yet.

No they didn't. My memory may be faulty, but I recall tests being scrubbed because of bad weather (!!!) and tests being considered successful when they achieved a "fly-by" rather than an actual hit. I also recall the tests involved single target drones flying predictable courses.

This system is FAR from ready for primetime.

Accidental launches are one thing. But how much money should we spend to protect against the possibility of an accident that has never happened?

Further, the risk of accidental launch has been largely erased by simple stand-down measures, such as no longer maintaining bombers on five-minute alert, no longer maintaining missiles in fully-fueled and launchable status, the "de-targeting" of missiles so even if they do launch accidentally they won't hit anything, etc.

As far as the "restraint" of our enemies, I rely on the knowledge that any attack on us will ensure their own destruction. It's worked well for 60 years.

As soon as a reliable missile-defense system is feasible, I'll buy one; I don't really like living under nuclear blackmail. But the crap we're installing now is just a waste of money.

It's more complicated than that. It's "what is the chance of such a thing happening" as well as "what else could we do with the money if we weren't spending it on this."

I see nothing in the data you provided that indicates they were "convinced" of anything.

__________________
Man up.