Missile defence test fails

[arsenal]

CNN

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.

A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. EST, in the first launch of a target missile from Kodiak in support of a full flight test of the system.

However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor "experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched" from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 16 minutes after the target missile left Alaska.

Nothing really new, or un-expected. Shooting down a rocket with another rocket would be extremely difficult.

[peter12]

Or if there is an actual ICBM attack... shooting down 30 missiles with 30 missiles will be impossible.

[Looger]

not if they hand defence over to a little kid and give him a trackball...

obligatory missile command reference

[FlamesAllTheWay]

I had to do a stupid essay for class and chose the subject of whether or not Canada should join missile defence. Not saying that my 'extensive research' into the subject makes me an expert and makes my opinion 100% cold hard truth, but the level of inefficiency the system has right now is pretty shocking.

It's almost as if Bush wants to create a false sense of security for the USA because if a country decides to launch an ICBM at America, chances are better than good that it's going to go right through the Missile Defence System and crater itself on the mainland. There are so many (cheap, I might add) ways to fool the system in the form of countermeasures it's not even funny and if America is going to get nuked, it's going to be internally through one smuggled into the country, not an ICBM. That's not to say that a system like this might be feasible and wise in the future, but definitely not right now. There are far better ways to spend money in securing America, in my opinion.

I've said for awhile people seem to be confusing activity with results when it comes to Iraq, and I think that the same can be applied to the Defence Shield. Tons of money going in, lots of research and development, loads of 'America is safer' rhetoric but at the end of the day, America isn't any safer in my eyes and may actually be worse off because of it...

[arsenal]

But every technology has to go through certain stages.

Take the shuttle for instance. There is alot of trial and error. Now, sending people into space is fairly routine and relatively safe. I am not saying that space travel is not dangerous, just that it is safer than it used to be.

The missle defence system, while fairly anemic at this point in time, is still in the purely developmental phase. It may become a viable technology in 5-10 years, but it requires funding in order to get to that point.

As far as there being any threat of a missle attack against the US, it is still a possibility, but it is a minimal one at that. The justification of the cost is really up to the administration to decide. And that changes depending on who is in office.

[Looger]

i tend to think that if an icbm from north korea or whomever is on its way and there's a 1% chance of shooting it down,

take the shot man.

take a few.

the missile shield idea is not new and has been a backburner development everywhere since von braun's v-2s were flying over the channel.

it doesn't work too well right now against high-speed icbms but the only way to get better is to pour money down a huge hole, unfortunately. r&d at this stage of the game is not cheap.

rogue states launching few or even single icbms? unlikely.

but possible.

[Looger]

actually i liken the missile shield to the phalanx gun mounted on most american and many western surface ships, destroyers etc.

great against exocets, useless against sunburns.

what's going to be flying at these ships in a war? sunburns.

but they're still putting these systems on ships, what the hell - might be good against _something_, could save lives.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by arsenal@Dec 15 2004, 02:35 PM
But every technology has to go through certain stages.

Take the shuttle for instance. There is alot of trial and error. Now, sending people into space is fairly routine and relatively safe. I am not saying that space travel is not dangerous, just that it is safer than it used to be.

The missle defence system, while fairly anemic at this point in time, is still in the purely developmental phase. It may become a viable technology in 5-10 years, but it requires funding in order to get to that point.

As far as there being any threat of a missle attack against the US, it is still a possibility, but it is a minimal one at that. The justification of the cost is really# up to the administration to decide. And that changes depending on who is in office.

Exactly, which is why I said it may be feasible in the future. But why waste so much money to install it today when the technology is not even there to allow the system to do what it is designed to do? Bush is rushing this thing into existence, they're going to have bases ready in Alaska and California by next year. These bases will be nothing more than eyecandy and dead end investments because a) They don't work and b ) I don't see too many ICBM's flying over my head nowadays, but money will be dumped into maintaining the system anyways.

I fail to see the point of spending all this money now to install and maintain these systems today as, again, they do not work today. R&D? Sure, go right ahead as I think this thing would be a wise investment down the road. But I liken the present day Missile Defence plan to someone developing a cure for AIDS that would be ready in 50 years, but released it today. Or if you spent billions on building a castle immune to catapult fire, but then left all the gates open...

[Daradon]

I don't know, I don't see this EVER being a feasible technology. As fast as they make the defense better, there will be new countermeasures. THey can't even shoot down ONE missile with any encouraging percentage of success yet. Never mind a war with multiple missiles, ICBM's rapid fire missiles shot from space (forget what these are called, course it could be argued the U.S. is the only real country able to afford this), missiles with any number of type of cheap decoys. And it doesn't protect against anything snuck into the country, which make my words, is how it will happen if it does. Maybe not a nuke, but a biological weapon then.

Haven't we gotten to the point yet were we realize the only way to protect ourselves is to be peaceful and help out others? Not push our nations agendas on other countries? The weapons get bigger and more dangerous, and new religious fundamentalists probably don't care about their nation the same way the Soviets did about theirs. Meaning a catastrophic event is more likely to happen because all these God fearing wackos (on both sides may I add) think that they'll be getting into heaven, and that's it's their duty to destroy their enemy.

Not saying we have to be utopian or anything remotely like that here, but I think the only way to ensure peace is to be peaceful. If such damage could be done with a few planes...

No amount of missile defense is going to protect a country or a people whom have angered another (not arguing fair or not). It's just time to cut the losses and build for the future.

[sawchuk103]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Dec 15 2004, 01:24 PM
I had to do a stupid essay for class and chose the subject of whether or not Canada should join missile defence. Not saying that my 'extensive research' into the subject makes me an expert and makes my opinion 100% cold hard truth, but the level of inefficiency the system has right now is pretty shocking.

It's almost as if Bush wants to create a false sense of security for the USA because if a country decides to launch an ICBM at America, chances are better than good that it's going to go right through the Missile Defence System and crater itself on the mainland. There are so many (cheap, I might add) ways to fool the system in the form of countermeasures it's not even funny and if America is going to get nuked, it's going to be internally through one smuggled into the country, not an ICBM. That's not to say that a system like this might be feasible and wise in the future, but definitely not right now. There are far better ways to spend money in securing America, in my opinion.

I've said for awhile people seem to be confusing activity with results when it comes to Iraq, and I think that the same can be applied to the Defence Shield. Tons of money going in, lots of research and development, loads of 'America is safer' rhetoric but at the end of the day, America isn't any safer in my eyes and may actually be worse off because of it...

as an american, i'm strongly against using a missile defense shield.....

according to many physic professors, the plan has failed to work...

just the other day, i read that russia is planning on building a missile that would fool a defense system...

this bush is an idiot......

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Looger@Dec 15 2004, 01:46 PM
i tend to think that if an icbm from north korea or whomever is on its way and there's a 1% chance of shooting it down,

take the shot man.

take a few.

I don't think anyone is saying "don't take the shot" so that is not the issue. Of course "take the shot" if you can but don't spend all your money on on the 1% chance that you'll get to take that 1% shot.

If you know someone is going to poison the well or send nastiness through the mail you wouldn't blow the budget on bullet-proof glass.

[BlackArcher101]

Can you say Bomarc?

A missile system that doesn't work and will never be used because it won't have to be. Just a pile of metal after years of inactivity requiring either high costs in upgrages/maintenace or abandonment. Thet US government is just using the fear factor of the citizens to gain approval of the project. This system would have done nothing to prevent 9/11, nor would it prevent another terrorist attack. The biggest threat is biological/chemical agents, but the preperations for that are lacking and are on the back burner. Another hot topic, dirty bombs.

Right now this so called system for shooting down other missiles is laughable. Not needed and overly expensive. However, look who's in power and look at what sectors benefit from this "development".

[CaramonLS]

Wow to think this useless pile of money p*ssed off a bunch of other nations (such as the Russians) and the Bush Administration did it FOR NO GOOD REASON. What a useless pile of crap this system is.

They would have better luck sticking a bunch of Aegis Cruisers Pointing their missle "up" when an ICBM is launched at the US and firing everything they've got.

What a stupid waste of money.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Daradon@Dec 16 2004, 10:37 PM
I don't know, I don't see this EVER being a feasible technology. As fast as they make the defense better, there will be new countermeasures. THey can't even shoot down ONE missile with any encouraging percentage of success yet. Never mind a war with multiple missiles, ICBM's rapid fire missiles shot from space (forget what these are called, course it could be argued the U.S. is the only real country able to afford this), missiles with any number of type of cheap decoys. And it doesn't protect against anything snuck into the country, which make my words, is how it will happen if it does. Maybe not a nuke, but a biological weapon then.

Bleh, I don't know when it comes to this. Sometimes I use 'maybe it'll be wise in the future' and sometimes I use 'it'll be a wise investment for the future.' I guess when you really think about it, if someone is really that angry at America then they will find a way through the system (which right now seems to be about as complex as launching one missile at America and knowing the Defence Shield will take care of screwing itself up).

At the same time, though, if the technology down the road is actually there to set up a Missile Defence shield that actually works, then why not? Every once in awhile some crazy loon that hates America and the rest of the Western World seems to get control of a country. What's to prevent this person from launching a bunch of nukes at America knowing full well they will be nuked into oblivion in return, but not caring? Right now not many countries can actually launch an ICBM that'll hit America but in the future, who really knows?

Of course, I will always think that the real threat will be nukes and bio-weapons smuggled into the country as they are cheaper and easier to deploy. So in order to fund a system like the Missle Defence Shield you either gotta take away money from defending against the threat of internal weapons or create more debt. Neither choice is good it would seem.

Perhaps all the orange and red alerts for terrorism we see every week are starting to make me paranoid... That's probably it actually... I go sleep now...

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm fully onboard with the missile defense shield especially since its going to cost us nothing, and its not putting offensive weapons into space

Lets be honest here

The MDS is not designed to stop a determined attack using the new generation of ICBM's that the Soviets possess or to a small extent the Chinese, thats where MAD still applies since the leaders of those countries are still rational.

Where the MDS does apply is a rougue nation like North Korea or a Iran or if god forbid a terrorist organization gets thier hands on a delivery vehicle and warhead. You can't use Mad against a North Korea or to a lessor extent Iran or some other nation because they're not exactly rational.

You also have to realize that the majority of the members of the Fallout club don't have

A) a lot of long distance warshots

B) Hardened and sophisticated delivery systems.

Most of thier delivery systems are based around either artillary or gravity dropped bombs.

So under its initial design the MDS should work

One failure dosen't mean an entire failure for the project

The scary thing is that there's not a whole lot more that the U.S can do about smuggled weapons from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to process now, and a airport security guard or customs officer can not take down a rogue missile unless he's a really good shot

It was an interesting comparison that somebody made with the missile defense system to the Phalanx CIWS mounted on Navy ships, except that the Phalanx is the last line of defense in a interlocking strategy, the Sunburn still has to go through 4 belts of antimissile systems before it even gets close enough for the Phalanx to fire, even the Russian Navy agreed that it was unlikely that it was going to happen unless they used the concept of overwhelming numbers of missiles. Which like the MDS the Phalanx isn't designed to do. The Phalanx is a mop up weapon put into place to knock down the few leakers left after the attack has run through the long and short range Sam defense.

The latest generation of Naval variant Sams were also designed with the Sunburns and other sea skimmers in mind.

The other funny thing about the Sunburn is that its got a 90 mile range, which means that any Russian or Chinese ship would be well within sensor range of a carrier task force before it could get its shot off, and likely to be attacked in the event of a hostile scenario.

In fact the U.S. navy just aquired a large portion of all varients of the Russian Navy Sunburns to test thier system.

The moral of the story.

National defense against a unpredicatable foe is to take into account every scenar. Interlocking defense. the MDS, increased border vigilance, better foreign intelligence all have to be there or the concept of being prepared is empty and hollow.

[Table 5]

Im all for military defense, but there has to be a sense of perspective.

Not one month goes by without a report on the news about a local New York airport FAILING a fake-bomb test. I dunno about you guys, but perhaps throwing a few hundred million into things that will actually make a difference (like airport security) sounds a lot more logical to me that applying billions into a project that seems to have either past its due date, or has a very unlikely chance of even working.

[arsenal]

You could say the same about NASA. How many missions have they done that have failed? They poured millions/billions of dollars into programs. All of which do not have a guarantee of working. The MDS looks like a huge black hole, but all it takes is one incident to either make it look brilliant, or what should have been in place.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by arsenal@Dec 17 2004, 01:27 PM
You could say the same about NASA. How many missions have they done that have failed? They poured millions/billions of dollars into programs. All of which do not have a guarantee of working. The MDS looks like a huge black hole, but all it takes is one incident to either make it look brilliant, or what should have been in place.

yes, but NASA has a very romantic sensibility to it....it plays on Mans need for exploration and discovery. People understood the need to go into space, it was the next logical step in our evolution. It took time and many billions of dollars, but there always was an underlying OK from people because it had appeal for humanity in general.

The Missile defense shield has none of that. In fact, to most people, it seems to be a step back in time, not an evolutionary move forward. It brings up images of the cold-war, something not many people look back to with too much fondness.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Table 5@Dec 17 2004, 06:21 PM
Im all for military defense, but there has to be a sense of perspective.

Not one month goes by without a report on the news about a local New York airport FAILING a fake-bomb test. I dunno about you guys, but perhaps throwing a few hundred million into things that will actually make a difference (like airport security) sounds a lot more logical to me that applying billions into a project that seems to have either past its due date, or has a very unlikely chance of even working.

I don't have access to the budget numbers, but i do have some questions about it

A) Is airport security under the homeland securities act? or is it a state enforcement

B) I'm not sure that adding more people or more dollars would be applicable. Listening to the radio the other day they said the biggest difficulty of adding more people to the equation is the fact that it inherantly makes the system more inefficient.

c) Is the issues with dollars or training and quality of personal. If so then that can be fixed without a massive increase of dollars

Like I mentioned before, in order for the states to feel totally secure they have to focus on all aspects of NBC defense, and that includes ballistic delivery. Because one thing can be sure. If the states seals its borders against the smuggling of weapons in (ie briefcase bombs) what do you think these rogues are going to look at doing next?

[arsenal]

I think airport security falls under Homeland Security. IE: They contract out to security companies.