Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
Is this the same NORAD that completely lost track of four civilian planes on 9/11 in their own airspace and were completely baffled at how to react?
I have no doubt that NORAD makes these claims. I also have no doubt that it is possible, with the right intelligence. As long as you have the knowledge of what type of missile is being launched, the number of stages, the payload weight, and the angle at which it was launched, you can make a pretty good guess as to where it's going to land. But when you readily admit that you do NOT have any intelligence on the weapon, that you're unsure of the stage configuration, and you're not sure of the fuel situation or payload, you can't predict a damn thing.
Quick, answer me this question:
I'm leaving my house this morning, how far will I get before I run out of gas? Come on fellas, you're all really smart guys, how far do I get?
BTW... let's not forget that something came off the missile at launch, does that affect the ability of NORAD to track or predict anything? Also, NORAD is able to identify missiles by signatures from engines, identified through collection of data from observation of test launches. If this was the maiden flight, what data would there be to identify anything? Sometimes "military intelligence" really is an oxymoron.
 |
On the first part, I can't really disagree with you without making an ass out of myself. However there are some givens here. When the missile launches if you have a good look at it you can get a pretty good feel for its characteristics just by looking at the acceleration curve from first ignition until it reaches its consistant top boost phase. Also except for the Chinese who have thier missiles more or less angled in thier silos or the Russians who set initial aiming points on thier SRBM's by angling thier launching vehicles, most missiles come out of thier launch tubes, and then rotate and angle onto thier headings. Between these things you can get a pretty good picture of where its going and how far its going to go. After that it becomes straight math based around stage stage firings and times of burn, it has very little to do with the intelligence on the rockets, the U.S. does thier actual classifications based around data gathered during observed test launches.
On your hypothtical on the car and gas thing, its a little different here Lanny and you know it. A liquid fueled missile is carrying a full load of fuel because missiles have to be light and they are incredibly fragile/ The Fuel actually gives a missile its strength and rigidity. So again you can time burn rates on stages and be pretty consistant on knowing the missiles range. But if we were take your car with a full fuel load, and we know where you were going and had a consistant state of the conditions of your course we could pretty accurately calculate your length of travel and probable destination with a certain degree of confidence. IE if we fueled up your car to the max, put you and your wife in it with a consistant load of payroll and fired you from a catapult, we can calculate with a certain degree of certainty where your car and you would land (and explode).
We can also look at probable tagets between your start points and your course as a second source of data.
Yes a part coming off of the rocket would certainly effect thing, again I'm not denying that, however it came off after the initial boost phase (right). So they were through the boost phase and rotation.
However I don't think that this bomb aimed at Hawaii story has any legs. As it stands if Bush was the Darth Vader of the century he would have been on the roof tops bleating about this and firing cruise missiles into N Korea as justification for his war on terror.
I think we're jumping at shadows, and the missiles targets would be the west coast people . . . the west coast. That part of the states was suppossed to slide into the sea years ago, its beyond its lifespan and has had a good run.