NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't make this shit up--I'm not that funny.

Clicky (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041210/2004-12-10T093042Z_01_N10459820_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ARMS-MISSILE-USA-DC.html)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first flight test in nearly two years of a planned U.S. missile-defense shield has been scrapped two days in a row this week because of bad weather, the Pentagon said on Friday.

Strong rain squalls over the Kwajalein atoll launch site in the central Pacific caused the latest postponement, Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said shortly after the decision to scrap the test. A new attempt might be made later in the day, he said.

Forget the fact that we don't really face a major missile threat at present-- bear in mind that any missile threat that this system would ostensibly be able to counteract would be coming across the Pacific toward the west coast. If they can't even test the program in bad weather--and this is a program that is supposed to be online by the end of this month according to our fearless leader--then how the hell are we supposed to intercept a missile that's headed for, oh, I don't know, San Francisco or Seattle?

Besides--it's not like this program has a sterling track record in the first place.
The test would be the first since a December 2002 failure in which the "kill vehicle" -- a Raytheon Co. -built 120-pound package of sensors, chips and thrusters -- failed to separate from its booster rocket. Of eight intercepts attempted so far, five hit their targets, but under highly scripted conditions....

Coyle said the tests so far and the coming one gave him no such confidence.

"The target launch time and location, the flight trajectory, the point of impact, what the target looks like, and the make-up of other objects in the target cluster have all been known in advance to plot the intercept," he said. "No enemy would cooperate by providing all that information in advance."
Your tax dollars hard at work.

*laughing*

nice.

I can't make this shit up--I'm not that funny.

Clicky (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041210/2004-12-10T093042Z_01_N10459820_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ARMS-MISSILE-USA-DC.html)


Forget the fact that we don't really face a major missile threat at present-- bear in mind that any missile threat that this system would ostensibly be able to counteract would be coming across the Pacific toward the west coast. If they can't even test the program in bad weather--and this is a program that is supposed to be online by the end of this month according to our fearless leader--then how the hell are we supposed to intercept a missile that's headed for, oh, I don't know, San Francisco or Seattle?

Besides--it's not like this program has a sterling track record in the first place.

Your tax dollars hard at work.


While I agree in theory I have to wonder if it just wasn’t canceled because the “big brass” wanted a good show more then it would actually effect performance.

Also if things go wrong I am sure it would cause a lot more trouble for observer planes to capture what exactly went wrong (or right for that matter) good video tape of what goes on could mean the difference between wasting millions or getting it tweaked just right (if possible)

I would rather the postpone in order to get good observation on the launch and probably save a LOT of money

Sorry just being realistic

While I agree in theory I have to wonder if it just wasn’t canceled because the “big brass” wanted a good show more then it would actually effect performance.

Also if things go wrong I am sure it would cause a lot more trouble for observer planes to capture what exactly went wrong (or right for that matter) good video tape of what goes on could mean the difference between wasting millions or getting it tweaked just right (if possible)

I would rather the postpone in order to get good observation on the launch and probably save a LOT of money

Sorry just being realistic
My point is more that the Bush administration has been talking this system up like 1) it's necessary to begin with and 2) that it's ready for installation. It's been clear for a while that 1 really isn't the case and that 2 certainly isn't. This article was just further proof of that.

While I agree in theory I have to wonder if it just wasn’t canceled because the “big brass” wanted a good show more then it would actually effect performance.

Also if things go wrong I am sure it would cause a lot more trouble for observer planes to capture what exactly went wrong (or right for that matter) good video tape of what goes on could mean the difference between wasting millions or getting it tweaked just right (if possible)

I would rather the postpone in order to get good observation on the launch and probably save a LOT of money

Sorry just being realistic
I agree with this. I believe the government already has the system in place and fully functional. I bet the feds have had it working for a year or so. This "test" was just a way to show it off and demostrate it to the world.

My point is more that the Bush administration has been talking this system up like 1) it's necessary to begin with and 2) that it's ready for installation. It's been clear for a while that 1 really isn't the case and that 2 certainly isn't. This article was just further proof of that.
Even if it is ready for installation what value is doing a test you can not accurate observe?
(specially considering that it is probably an expensive test) might as well make it count

Not just fire it cause you can

i sure hope that martin doesn't agree to go along with this piece of shit.

My point is more that the Bush administration has been talking this system up like 1) it's necessary to begin with and 2) that it's ready for installation. It's been clear for a while that 1 really isn't the case and that 2 certainly isn't. This article was just further proof of that.

Dude 1) is necessary with all the countrys pissed off with ameriaca i think it is defanitly necessary! by the way I know this because unlike u guys i dont get fed bulls*** propraganda


Bush and his mum :fluffle:

As bad as the missile defense system sounds did you read about the brand new $9.5 billion dollar spy satelite the republicans in the senate "Intelligence" Committe are pushing for which only works durring the day and only durring clear weather? (Mind you we already have cheaper satelites which work at night and can see through clouds) I'm sure it has kim jong ill shaking in his booties!



New Spy Plan Said to Involve Satellite System
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: December 12, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - A highly classified intelligence program that the Senate Intelligence Committee has tried unsuccessfully to kill is a new $9.5 billion spy satellite system that could take photographs only in daylight hours and in clear weather, current and former government officials say.

Hadn't heard about that one. Jeez.

Look at it this way:

Major storm = very low visibility
Major storm = poor radar performance

This was a test. You don't conduct tests with a thousand different variables affecting it. They probably wanted to make sure the stupid thing works before they test it in adverse conditions.

Look at it this way:

Major storm = very low visibility
Major storm = poor radar performance

This was a test. You don't conduct tests with a thousand different variables affecting it. They probably wanted to make sure the stupid thing works before they test it in adverse conditions.
Lol I tried that line of reasoning

Along with visibility effecting observation rather then missile performance

Ehhh oh well

hope the north koreans dont launch missiles at us when its raining...

Well, it's more likely they canceled the test because of visibility of the test, like UpwardThrust said. But I don't think the system is anywhere near ready for use, we don't quite have the technology yet to do this sort of thing.
Besides, history has proven time and time again that nothing can beat a human piloted aircraft in intercept and spy roles.
Does anyone else here remember the Boemark missile system?
Or perhaps the fact that they still use the U2 and the SR-71 (I think they retired all but 1 or 2, but they may have retired those as well since I last checked) for spy missions, even with all these satalites going around.
Computers and machines can be fooled more easily then a well trained, undrugged, human at the controls.

The full system, as designed, doesn't even exist yet.

A system is more than a test range radar, a firing position, and some missiles.
There should be a battle management system (a fully automated system that does not require human intervention in order to defend the country), a network of radars and sensors, and other support items.

These do not exist. Just the missiles. These tests are just to do proof of concept and to exercise software and other engineering ideas.

There will be, for instance, both radar and IR sensors in orbit when the full system is complete. And due to the fact that people cannot react fast enough to incoming threats, the system will not require human intervention in order to fire at targets.

And the missile they are testing will not be the only one in the system.

Currently, they have successfully tested the improved version of Standard (fired from AEGIS cruisers) against incoming ballistic missile warheads - at sea on a moving ship, in bad weather, and with little prior warning of the incoming threat. That will also be part of the system.

And the Airborne Laser, which has evidently been shown recently to produce the power levels necessary aboard a 747, is also scheduled to be part of the system.

So don't laugh too soon. Warfare is changing in a way that you cannot visualize - or accept - it's just an engineering problem at this point, not a technical infeasibility.

The full system, as designed, doesn't even exist yet.

A system is more than a test range radar, a firing position, and some missiles.
There should be a battle management system (a fully automated system that does not require human intervention in order to defend the country), a network of radars and sensors, and other support items.

These do not exist. Just the missiles. These tests are just to do proof of concept and to exercise software and other engineering ideas.

There will be, for instance, both radar and IR sensors in orbit when the full system is complete. And due to the fact that people cannot react fast enough to incoming threats, the system will not require human intervention in order to fire at targets.

And the missile they are testing will not be the only one in the system.

Currently, they have successfully tested the improved version of Standard (fired from AEGIS cruisers) against incoming ballistic missile warheads - at sea on a moving ship, in bad weather, and with little prior warning of the incoming threat. That will also be part of the system.

And the Airborne Laser, which has evidently been shown recently to produce the power levels necessary aboard a 747, is also scheduled to be part of the system.

So don't laugh too soon. Warfare is changing in a way that you cannot visualize - or accept - it's just an engineering problem at this point, not a technical infeasibility.


I'm sorry, but if Terminator has taught me anything, it's that fully automated computer-controled defense systems are BAD.

If it cant work in the rain lets hope they dont attack at nite u wont stand a chance!!

I'm sorry, but if Terminator has taught me anything, it's that fully automated computer-controled defense systems are BAD.

You have evidently not been around much lately.

If you are an MLRS crewman (Multiple Launch Rocket System), you sit in a vehicle at a pre-designated point. You drive the vehicle to various nearby firing points, so the vehicle will know where they are.

Now you take a nap.

When the FDC sends the order to your vehicle to fire, the vehicle, not you, drives to a firing point, slews the launcher around, and fires the assigned number of rockets downrange. You don't do ANYTHING. It then immediately retreats to the original point, where you get out and reload.

So your job is not the primary job of firing and selecting targets. Your job is to take care of the vehicle and feed it long range rockets.

Get it? It's already happened. Too late for you!

for the system to really work anyways you need to have loads of radars in various countries around the globe.. you have any idea how easy targets they'll be? you blow up a few radars in the uk and whoops, there's a hole in the system :) :) :) :) :) :) besides the russians are already testing a missile which gets past your system anyways :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

for the system to really work anyways you need to have loads of radars in various countries around the globe.. you have any idea how easy targets they'll be? you blow up a few radars in the uk and whoops, there's a hole in the system :) :) :) :) :) :) besides the russians are already testing a missile which gets past your system anyways :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

The radars and other sensors are going to be largely in orbit or on ships. Not in other countries.

The ones on the ground now are only used for system validation and testing. Not for end deployment.

As for getting past the system, it all depends on how many you fire. The system is designed to defend against North Korea, not Russia.

Do the math. There won't be more than 100 interceptors all around when fully deployed (not counting the laser). There are tens of thousands of Russian missiles. So they could use the ones they have and not waste the money.

It's a bit harder for North Korea to make so many.

The radars and other sensors are going to be largely in orbit or on ships. Not in other countries.

The ones on the ground now are only used for system validation and testing. Not for end deployment.

As for getting past the system, it all depends on how many you fire. The system is designed to defend against North Korea, not Russia.

Do the math. There won't be more than 100 interceptors all around when fully deployed (not counting the laser). There are tens of thousands of Russian missiles. So they could use the ones they have and not waste the money.

It's a bit harder for North Korea to make so many.

Right. On ships. *cough*

Right. On ships. *cough*

What's wrong with ships?

I think the NMDS is porkbarrel... but it isn't my life.
Anywy, what's the problem with ships?

You have evidently not been around much lately.

If you are an MLRS crewman (Multiple Launch Rocket System), you sit in a vehicle at a pre-designated point. You drive the vehicle to various nearby firing points, so the vehicle will know where they are.

Now you take a nap.

When the FDC sends the order to your vehicle to fire, the vehicle, not you, drives to a firing point, slews the launcher around, and fires the assigned number of rockets downrange. You don't do ANYTHING. It then immediately retreats to the original point, where you get out and reload.

So your job is not the primary job of firing and selecting targets. Your job is to take care of the vehicle and feed it long range rockets.

Get it? It's already happened. Too late for you!


The difference here is that the MLRS is completely dependant upon humans, thus Humans are integrated. This missile defense system is sounding more and more like Skynet then anything.
As well, if I remember, the MLRS is used as rocket artillery, which means SOMEONE has to choose the target.

The radar and missile system on the AEGIS cruisers (ships) is the only full system that is currently operational, and has a perfect hit record in all weather.

Go figure how a pacifist could be an actual authority on how a weapon system could work.

The same people a decade ago said that it was technologically impossible for a "hit to kill" interceptor to ever work, even against a fully cooperative target. Now we have one that works against targets that are obscured against decoys. And if the radar was stationed in orbit, as planned, the rain would not matter.

The same people said that a laser powerful enough to burn a missile out of the sky from several thousand kilometers away was technologically impossible. Now there are two 747s in existence now that both have proven that they carry a laser capable of doing just that - multiple times.

How many times will they have to be proven wrong before they understand that these proposals are merely engineering hurdles? I bet that they already know that these things will work if we spend money and time on them. It's just that they would rather get nuked by a North Korea than work to prevent a disaster.

The same people who voted for a President who was offered Bin Laden three times on a silver platter by Sudan - and who refused to take him, even though there were plenty of charges to hold him on.

I'm not that funny.


One of the first accurate things I have seen you post.


Did you ever stop to think that maybe there is a process to developing and testing weapons systems? Did you interupt you blatent anti-military screed to stop and think that maybe the had to test it in an ideal setting first to work out kinks? Did you ever stop to think that maybe they wanted to work out all the kinks in good weather before they start testing it under stress?

Do you ever stop to think?

Shaddap.

Within a few years all the kinks will be worked out, thanks to not being hasty and testing in bad weather before the design is finalized.

It wasn't scheduled to be fully operational until 2006. The 2004 date is there because it is the first time that any part of the system will be operational, if not at full capacity.
And btw, why do we need the missile shield. One, there are still missile threats that exist. Sure, none of the countries with missiles are particularly hostile to us now, and those that are we can grind into the earth with nuclear warheads. But Russia and China have them, and they are both questionable at the moment. Fifteen or twenty years down the road, someone worse than Putin or Hu could come along, and the technology takes far too long to develope.
Secondly, I see this as a diplomatic oppritunity for the US. It is the ultimate defense weapon, and will not only defend a wide area from missile threats, but it'll also make the act of having ICBMs toothless. Growing military powers like China can have as good of a military as they want, but it'll have no real leverage in the world until they develope a system to counteract ours.
I see this as part of a series of weapons systems that gurantee the US diplomatic, if not military dominance for decades to come. The others are mini-nukes, spaced-based weaponry, and of course, two militaries: one strictly for combat, the other for occupation. I see all of those forming right now.

We'll it stopped raining and they finally just got a chance to do the test.
Ah another brilliant success for the US military....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html

WASHINGTON -- An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defense system in nearly two years.

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.

An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly."

The agency gave no other details and said program officials will review pre-launch data to determine the cause for the shutdown.

The military is in final preparations to activate missile defenses designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

Wednesday's test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

We'll it stopped raining and they finally just got a chance to do the test.
Ah another brilliant success for the US military....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html

WASHINGTON -- An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defense system in nearly two years.

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.

An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly."

The agency gave no other details and said program officials will review pre-launch data to determine the cause for the shutdown.

The military is in final preparations to activate missile defenses designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

Wednesday's test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.


That’s how it goes when you are doing something new … sometimes it works sometimes It don’t


Just usually things like this were so classified in the past you didn’t hear about all the failures just the outcome of the testing

Better it happening in a test then when it really counts

Dude 1) is necessary with all the countrys pissed off with ameriaca i think it is defanitly necessary! by the way I know this because unlike u guys i dont get fed bulls*** propraganda

That's right, guys. Labora Solia doesn't get fed bullshit propaganda... he makes it up himself.

I guess this means the apocalypse better occur on a sunny day.

Better it happening in a test then when it really counts

That is an understatement...

I think it is interesting how the article said it was to protect against missiles from North korea or "elsewhere in Eastern Asia" which obviously means China but they don't want to actually say China becasue that will piss them off.
I wonder if this will lead China to begin building up its fleet of long range ICBMs. From what I understand they only have a few now.

Go ahead, keep saying it's impossible. It's worked several times already, and as soon as the whole system (including the space based radar) is up, there won't be a weather problem.

Same people who said stealth wouldn't work. Laser guided bombs won't work. GPS guided bombs won't work. Laser weapons won't work.

It's only a matter of engineering and time. And when it does work, you'll look rather foolish.

China has a small number of ICBMs, less than the number of interceptors the US is planning to install (even less if you count the Airborne Laser).

China would probably have to build and maintain several hundred to overwhelm the defense.

U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041215/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc


Regardless of weather, but I suppose it could be tried again when it is raining or something.


I think NMDS is porkbarrel... but it is not my life that is at stake.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said.


AFP/File Photo



About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile carrying a mock warhead had been successfully fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, according to a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.


The aborted $85 million test appeared likely to set back plans for activation of a rudimentary bulwark against long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like North Korea (news - web sites).


In 2002, President Bush (news - web sites) pledged to have initial elements of the program up and running by the end of this year while testing and development continued.


An "anomaly" of unknown origin caused the interceptor to shut down automatically in its silo at the Kwajalein Test Range in the Marshall Islands, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's missile agency.


The test followed a week of delays caused by weather and technical glitches, including malfunction of an internal battery aboard the target missile on Tuesday, he said.


"This is a serious setback for a program that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under late President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), said in an e-mail exchange.

U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041215/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc


Regardless of weather, but I suppose it could be tried again when it is raining or something.


I think NMDS is porkbarrel... but it is not my life that is at stake.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said.


AFP/File Photo



About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile carrying a mock warhead had been successfully fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, according to a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.


The aborted $85 million test appeared likely to set back plans for activation of a rudimentary bulwark against long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by countries like North Korea (news - web sites).


In 2002, President Bush (news - web sites) pledged to have initial elements of the program up and running by the end of this year while testing and development continued.


An "anomaly" of unknown origin caused the interceptor to shut down automatically in its silo at the Kwajalein Test Range in the Marshall Islands, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's missile agency.


The test followed a week of delays caused by weather and technical glitches, including malfunction of an internal battery aboard the target missile on Tuesday, he said.


"This is a serious setback for a program that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under late President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), said in an e-mail exchange.


psst already posted ... read first ... we know it failed

psst already posted ... read first ... we know it failed

psst. it's likely that the missile will end up working perfectly. as I've posted before, you should be more frightened of the battle management system. It's software designed to decide when to engage targets on its own.

Software. Right. And hooked to missiles that will probably work.

I'd worry more about flying a plane in the operational area, and being selected as a target, and shot down before a human can intervene.

Why don't we just use air to air nukes? It's much easier to do it that way. Instead of hitting a bullet with a bullet it's like hitting a bullet with a grenade. I heard the Russians have a system like that, but I can't find any info on it.

psst. it's likely that the missile will end up working perfectly. as I've posted before, you should be more frightened of the battle management system. It's software designed to decide when to engage targets on its own.

Software. Right. And hooked to missiles that will probably work.

I'd worry more about flying a plane in the operational area, and being selected as a target, and shot down before a human can intervene.
Lol I agreed with you why are you arguing with me … was just makin fun of the slow one above that didn’t read before posting the “new” evidence

I understand the concept of testing

psst. it's likely that the missile will end up working perfectly. as I've posted before, you should be more frightened of the battle management system. It's software designed to decide when to engage targets on its own.

Software. Right. And hooked to missiles that will probably work.

I'd worry more about flying a plane in the operational area, and being selected as a target, and shot down before a human can intervene.


Oh, target-discrimination-packages usually can be worked out.

Remember AEGIS? Killed a planeload of 'peaceful' pilgrils on the road to Mecca... but it happened once, not twice.

Why don't we just use air to air nukes? It's much easier to do it that way. Instead of hitting a bullet with a bullet it's like hitting a bullet with a grenade. I heard the Russians have a system like that, but I can't find any info on it.
Um if we dont catch the missile untell it is over a pop center our nuke will blow up ...

Does not matter who's nuke it is ... if the people get dead ...

Why don't we just use air to air nukes? It's much easier to do it that way. Instead of hitting a bullet with a bullet it's like hitting a bullet with a grenade. I heard the Russians have a system like that, but I can't find any info on it.

I agree with you there. I think the soviets had a nuclear anti ballistic shield around Moscow. It is the safest bet. Sure some people will get sick, but if you detonate the missiles over the pacific or the atlantic ocean the radiation danger should be minimal.

Why don't we just use air to air nukes? It's much easier to do it that way. Instead of hitting a bullet with a bullet it's like hitting a bullet with a grenade. I heard the Russians have a system like that, but I can't find any info on it.

The hit-to-kill is a proven concept. That isn't the reason for the failure.

It works for the ABM version of the Standard, it works for the PAC-3, and it works for the same missile they're testing.

You have to realize that there are other systems, such as the launch booster, which may have failed.

They have done successful intercepts before. Since Standard and PAC-3 are operational and proven to work, it's only a matter of time before this missile works.

The hit-to-kill is a proven concept. That isn't the reason for the failure.

It works for the ABM version of the Standard, it works for the PAC-3, and it works for the same missile they're testing.

You have to realize that there are other systems, such as the launch booster, which may have failed.

They have done successful intercepts before. Since Standard and PAC-3 are operational and proven to work, it's only a matter of time before this missile works.


One of my biggest grumbles about NMDS is that it is a grab-bag of proven concepts, but there is no assurance of ( or reason to believe in ) compatability. Remember the Sergeant York program? Same problem. Failed big time.

Anyway, what was wrong with the original Star Wars concept?

Here's the thing about the current missile defense system. I know that any new system takes time to work the kinks out, and that we need to do as much testing as possible to ensure that the thing will do what it's supposed to do when it needs to do it. That's not my beef.

My beef is with the Bush administration's consistent plan to deploy a system that's nowhere near ready. My beef is with their insistence on deploying a system that doesn't work even when the game is rigged consistently in its favor. Test the hell out of the thing, develop the necessary technology, but don't deploy the damn thing just to make it look like you're getting something done. That's wasteful and stupid, and it's certainly not fooling anyone in the governmental agencies of the countries who are our greatest potential enemies.

Here's what it really comes down to--there's way more money in deploying than there is in testing, especially since it's far harder to convince Congress to cancel a deployed program than one in the testing phase. And it's no coincidence that the companies who benefit the most from this deployment make huge political donations to the Republican party. This is quid pro quo, plain and simple.

One of my biggest grumbles about NMDS is that it is a grab-bag of proven concepts, but there is no assurance of ( or reason to believe in ) compatability. Remember the Sergeant York program? Same problem. Failed big time.

Anyway, what was wrong with the original Star Wars concept?
I seem to remember some treaty not to place weapons in orbit … Yeah that might be what’s wrong with the original star wars

One of my biggest grumbles about NMDS is that it is a grab-bag of proven concepts, but there is no assurance of ( or reason to believe in ) compatability. Remember the Sergeant York program? Same problem. Failed big time.

Anyway, what was wrong with the original Star Wars concept?

Space based lasers cost an order of magnitude more. Can't get the funding yet. So go with what they'll vote money for.

The internetworking of the multiple systems is the weakness - and you'll have no way to test that outside of a real attack.

Plus, due to the response times required, the system has to be able to game out a global scenario on its own without human intervention. Certain systems may only have seconds to conduct an engagement of a target in their envelopes. Can't waste that time having a human think about it. So it all has to be gamed out in advance.

Hope they game it out right.

Here's the thing about the current missile defense system. I know that any new system takes time to work the kinks out, and that we need to do as much testing as possible to ensure that the thing will do what it's supposed to do when it needs to do it. That's not my beef.

My beef is with the Bush administration's consistent plan to deploy a system that's nowhere near ready. My beef is with their insistence on deploying a system that doesn't work even when the game is rigged consistently in its favor. Test the hell out of the thing, develop the necessary technology, but don't deploy the damn thing just to make it look like you're getting something done. That's wasteful and stupid, and it's certainly not fooling anyone in the governmental agencies of the countries who are our greatest potential enemies.

Here's what it really comes down to--there's way more money in deploying than there is in testing, especially since it's far harder to convince Congress to cancel a deployed program than one in the testing phase. And it's no coincidence that the companies who benefit the most from this deployment make huge political donations to the Republican party. This is quid pro quo, plain and simple.


My beef with missile defense is it terrifies me. The purpose seems to be, that the US military is pissed off because upstarts like China, Iran and N korea build a few nukes (well china has more then a few) and maybe even a few missiles that could hit the US.

Then the US is pissed off becasue we can't invade these countries without fear of nuclear retaliation so we try to build a shield so we can fight a "winnable" nuclear war. Of course if we fail millions die, plus we will end up nuking the hell out the other country killing millions and you get the picture.

My beef with missile defense is it terrifies me. The purpose seems to be, that the US military is pissed off because upstarts like China, Iran and N korea build a few nukes (well china has more then a few) and maybe even a few missiles that could hit the US.

Then the US is pissed off becasue we can't invade these countries without fear of nuclear retaliation so we try to build a shield so we can fight a "winnable" nuclear war. Of course if we fail millions die, plus we will end up nuking the hell out the other country killing millions and you get the picture.

Don't blame it on Bush. The official plan for ANY North Korean conflict was conceived of by Clinton, and involves a full scale nuclear attack on North Korea without any warning. At least 50 bombs.

Go ahead, keep saying it's impossible. It's worked several times already, and as soon as the whole system (including the space based radar) is up, there won't be a weather problem.

Well, I wouldn't say several, but a handful. Still, the failiure of this test will push the program back in time and upwards on cost. Especially since they don't know what caused it to fail. It will probably be several months of going over the test time and time again before they figure out what went wrong and many more to correct it or preventing it from happening again.

Will it ever work? Of course it will. All it needs is money and time, like everything else. However, it won't be an impenetrable defense. Believe it or not, the Chinese and the Russians are not stupid and also develop their own technology against threats to their own countries, including and eventual US missile shield or the existing Israel missile interception technology.

The US system will work in several stages, each using different technology. When in place it will be hard to penetrate, but not impossible. In fact, imagining a system that will operate with intelligent manouverable missiles instead of the current ballistic ones is not that difficult; and China has very good software programmers with a bent on AI. Space based radars can be taken out with ground based masers and decoys can be used to overwhelm plane-based lasers.

So, it's not the advantage that the Pentagon says it will be; it's just part of the running to stand still.

Don't blame it on Bush. The official plan for ANY North Korean conflict was conceived of by Clinton, and involves a full scale nuclear attack on North Korea without any warning. At least 50 bombs.

Yeah I know. I am not a democrat! Clinton was way more hawkish in East Asia than Bush (either one). He sent a carrier battle group out to protect Taiwan in 1996. It is not worth starting WW3 over! Let China have than god forsaken island if it is so imporatant to them!

I seem to remember some treaty not to place weapons in orbit … Yeah that might be what’s wrong with the original star wars

Er... nobody is even pretending that NMDS is not a violation either. Well, maybe a few folks online.

Might as well be hung for a pound as for a shilling.


I'm pretty sure that StarWars could be made to work, while OTOH NMDS gives me an 'Osprey'-feeling.