Aside from any arguments on the philosphy of missile defense, the successful test of an interceptor is an encouraging result in the performance of the physical system.
The test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system began at 1:22 p.m. Eastern when a long-range ballistic missile target lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. Seventeen minutes later, military operators launched an interceptor from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. After flying into space, the interceptor released its exo-atmospheric kill vehicle, which proceeded to track the target warhead. Due to earlier program accomplishments, several test objectives were accelerated and included in this test.
The test achieved several significant objectives for the first time:
- An operationally configured interceptor was fired from an operational GMD site;
- An operationally configured interceptor tracked a ballistic missile;
- A newly upgraded missile-warning radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., provided target data to an in-flight interceptor;
- The mission-control center at the Joint National Integration Center in Colorado Springs, Colo., controlled a live GMD engagement.
Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle intercepted the warhead and destroyed it. This was the first intercept with an operationally configured interceptor.
Three cheers for the guys and gals at the Missile Defense Agency, they did a good job.
indeed. I am no big fan of BMD – since it likely would not work against a real attack, when cheap decoys can overwhelm expensive interceptors – but hitting a bullet with a bullet is quite a technical feat.
Excellent – now when a terrorist launches a nuclear missle at the US like they did on 9-11, we can –
Oh. Well, I guess that money could have been used in additional intelligence agency needs to actually track down the bad guys (a la Bruce Sneider’s comment that the only way to reduce terrorist threats are to actually arrest terrorists).
Sorry – I’ll get off my soap box now :(.
Right on!!! The Bush adminstration who have consistently lied to us about every single last national security issue to date, have finally started to tell the truth! I for one welcome this new openess.
If they can get it to work for real, then all kudos to them. But reality is that nukes can be transported in so many other ways than in long-range missiles.
Great!
Now if only they could use this technology to shoot down misquotes and prevent the next biological death virus outbreak.
Listening to them tout this “rigged for success test” reminds me of the wonderful movie satire “The Pentagon Wars” starring Kelsey Grammar released in 1998. In the movie, the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle was always failing performance benchmarks, so they merely kept lowering the bar until it passed. Troops be dammed who actually had to field this death trap. There is no way this missile defense shield could actually stop a “real world” threat, but if the American public feels safer and the defense contractor feels richer, that all that really matters.
To all of those congratulating DOD for a succesfull test: are you really that gullible?
During the first Gulf War, the Patrot missile was touted as having shot down dozens of Iraqi ballistic missiles, with a very high effective rate. At least that is what they told us at the time. The reality: there is a possibility that maybe ONE interception took place, and that is still debatable.
So when a highly rigged test, under optimal conditions and highly scripted design takes place, it should really be shrugged off as interesting but of low significance, or just a minor test step, but nothing to really be too excited about.
In reality a system like this adds about as much security to our nation as removing fingernail clippers from passengers adds security to airplane flights… only the gullible think that it does anything of real meaning.
Totally misplaced spending priorities. Always has been, always will be, even with “successes.” Ike was right, beware the Military Industrial Complex.
If the current administration’s assessment is that the biggest threat to the US is terrorism, how does the good old “Star Wars Sheild” make anyone feel safer? Is Bin Ladin threatening to stuff himself into a ICBM and be fired at the US? Or is North Korea the excuse for this now?
The only reason the project continues is that it makes billions for certain defense contractors. Follow the money.
I just hope the government doesn’t start believing they can actually stop ICBMs – it’d pretty much destroy MAD if the US thought they could nuke with (relative) impunity.
The law of unintended consequences…….
Ref #9
If this system is designed to repel a first strike, our now exposed enemies (including those with missiles) are motivated to surreptitious, anonymous delivery by low-tech means – such as a nuclear truck bomb.
Because of their new vulnerability, paranoia amongst every potential aggressor is increased; they will now see a first strike as their only option if / when political tensions rise out of control.
Each is thereby motivated to come at us first as a terrorist, or through terrorists, with the blame going to Bin Laden et al. They can then make their moves politically as we lick our wounds. In that respect, this new technology is very destabilizing as if any enemy might “put a contract out” on us.
Further: While this system may be seen as inadequate to protect the US against a massive first strike, it is likely enough to protect Israel against initial external attack. The temptation to install it first in northern Israel may therefore be uncontrollable. Yet if deployed, it would have the same destabilizing effect in the middle east.
#4 Fred and Geoffrey Hoyle in their 1978 novel Westminster Disaster outlined the, ah, delivery of a fission bomb on the banks of the Thames. Their writing problem was not so much to invent the materiel and personnel, but to give their characters a motivation, a WHY they would do it. Those were the days.
Big difference. A big nuke is set to detonate at the altitudes surface-to-air missiles currently target, 20,000 to 30,000 feet. The danger is not that the missile impact would set off the nuke, but that the nuke may detonate before the missile gets to it.
@jbellies #11
Yes, unfortunately those days are long gone. You’ve got plenty of numnuts who are willing to carry out a mission like that nowadays.
Many have pointed out the idea that others would attack the U.S. or the U.K. if they felt that they had the defense sheild technology. They forget that the Iraq war was launched as a pre-emptive strike because of the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction that they believed Iraq to have. If a nation believes that they can attack and not worry about counterattack then the fear or repercussions is eliminated. The Western cultures are afraid and when people are afraid they do things they normally would not do. They are defending themselves so actions are defensible.
John
#15, John, interesting point. I don’t disagree with you, but…
If a 1 or 2 megaton nuclear bomb went off in a container in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego, or San Fransisco ports, would there be enough pieces to forensically determine who put it in the mail?
That is all it would take to halt all ship traffic and international trade. Probably even with Canada and Mexico. All it would take is just that one bomb and we have so many enemies we would have no idea who sent it.
The Iranians with some extra fuel? North Koreans looking to self preservation? Russian patriots? Libya flexing herself? Chinese toppling the superpower? Even Pakistani interests. Or a dozen other countries with a grudge.
#16, Mr. Fusion, perhaps my comment was poorly worded and gave a different meaning then the one it was meant to give. My point had to due with the perception that an operational missile defence system or the belief that you had an operational missile defence system might have more of an effect on the country that has it than other countries that do not. Perhaps I am not completely understanding your comment, however, as I do not see how a real or imaginary missile shield would be used in your scenario. Having reread other posts I realized I just reposted what Bruce IV stated in post #9. Oh well I might have an original thought one day.
John
#17, John, I took your post as saying the missile defense shield would make many people feel more secure. I think you meant to be sarcastic or ironic in that assessment. I agree that that would be a false security.
My point is that a simpler, cheap, surreptitious delivery method would be even more effective. There would be no warning and no traceability after the fact. The surety of the missile working is also much more uncertain from the aggressor’s position. A missile can be tracked from its launch even if it can’t be stopped. And it would take a whole lot of missiles to take out the US.
My apologies if I wasn’t clear.
#11: I remember reading a “what if” short story sometime in the early 60s (probably in the Saturday Evening Post magazine, to which my parents subscribed) about this particular scenario.
In that story, the US and Russia were the big boys with most of the nukes. China floated a nuke on a tugboat (because they are everywhere and ignored) into New York Harbor, then destroyed the south end of Manhattan. I’ve forgotten the reason they did this in the story (maybe to get them to fighting/nuking each other, then grab the spoils), but religious fanatics need no reasons other than those virgins in Paradise.
Most of you are as emotional as schoogirls and clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Someday every angry teenager will be able to build a missile in his back yard, not to mention every tinpot dictator and all the “insurgents” of the day. It would be criminally stupid not to continue to work on a missile defense — all arguments against that are total nonsense. You’ve got to do other things too, but you certainly got to do this.
The point is not that a crackpot may get access to a nuke, but how they would deliver it. Missiles are far and away the most complicated delivery systems on the planet. A suicide boat, truck, plane, or car makes far more sense, and an anti-missile system will not defend us from it.
WHEN this test can:
Shoot down multiple missles.
Be launched from multiple areas.
Then I will consider it…
But for ALL the money spent we could have protected our Imports, and borders for what?? 10+ years??
Consider that they can only protect us, from companies sending imports in Large batches in the port cities, at about 10%. And only checking incomeing import from spacific countries..
ICBM’s intercontenental balistic missles, are NOT little things, and ARE NOT easy to test in Private…Ask N. Koriea.
Then think about it, PLEASE…
Do you really need radio active material to cause ALOT of damage, esp when MOST of the material is ALREADY HERE…