PDA

View Full Version : US makes missile defense system operational


mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 08:45 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, the United States has moved its ground-based interceptor missile defense system from test mode to operational, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed a Washington Times report that the Pentagon has activated the system, which has been in the developmental stage for years.

"It's good to be ready," the official said.

U.S. officials say evidence such as satellite pictures suggests Pyongyang may have finished fueling a Taepodong-2 missile, which some experts said could reach as far as Alaska.



"There's real caution in how to characterize it so as to not be provocative in our own approach," the defense official said of the move to activate the system.

Story... (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-06-20T140019Z_01_N20421649_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-MISSILE.xml&archived=False)

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 08:48 AM
I knew we could do it. Any country that could put a man on the moon and make Nancy Pelosi walk and talk without the benefit of having a brain should be able to knock a missile down.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 09:02 AM
I knew we could do it. Any country that could put a man on the moon and make Nancy Pelosi walk and talk without the benefit of having a brain should be able to knock a missile down.

I wouldn’t be so sure ‘bout that.
Have you actually seen Pelosi walk and chew gum at the same time? ;)

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Also from Reuters


The Pentagon’s testing office said in January it may may offer only “some” protection, despite about $10 billion a year in development spending under President George W. Bush.

In eight intercept tests of the ground-based missile defense system, the interceptor has hit a mock incoming warhead five times. Testing was suspended after interceptors failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005 — failures blamed on quality-control issues.

“When and if the missile-defense system is in an operational status, it has a capability against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack,” said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

‘Star Wars’ shield hampered by difficulties
Bush told the military in 2002 to field an initial missile-defense capability by the end of 2004.

It was to be a very limited version of a far more comprehensive space-based missile defense shield — nicknamed Star Wars — proposed by the late President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The test failures and technical challenges have delayed plans to declare it operational, although commanders say it has a rudimentary capability against a limited missile attack.

The system could be put on alert quickly if U.S. leaders determined there was a sudden threat, defense officials say.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13374443/

oldandslow
06-20-2006, 09:19 AM
65% is not good enough. If we do attempt to knock down the NK missile we sure as hell better not miss.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 09:38 AM
65% is not good enough. If we do attempt to knock down the NK missile we sure as hell better not miss.

It’s MO that it could actually be better if we didn’t attempt to shoot it down, or purposely miss.
If we shoot it down, we’ll have some good BB material to chuckle over then everyone will forget ‘bout it think’n we’re safe from a nuke strike, while the rest of the world sets ‘bout a means to defeat it.
If we don’t even try, or try and miss, the rest of the world is less likely to work on a way of defeat’n a system that’s “proven” it doesn’t work.
At least that’s one way of look’n at it. :shrug:

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 09:50 AM
Think ‘bout this for a minute, Banyon, particularly the part you bolded.

In eight intercept tests of the ground-based missile defense system, the interceptor has hit a mock incoming warhead five times. Testing was suspended after interceptors failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005 — failures blamed on quality-control issues.

How many missiles have we successfully launched over the years, decades?
Launch’n a missile isn’t the hard part and a failure to clear the launch plateform would certainly sound like a “quality issue” to me.
Take'n out a missile with a missile is a proven theory. We’ve done it with missiles that weren’t even designed to do it (Patriot and HAWK).

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hawk/hawk_06_corp_intcpt.jpg

So, the engineering hurdle becomes detection, then engagement, then tracking/guidance. None of these are insurmountable and the technology to do it has been available for decades now.

This is all aside from the fact that intercepter missiles are only part of the equation, and the BFL (Big Fugg’n Laser) used for another part of the equation has already been successfully tested.

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 10:13 AM
i surprised with the improved guidance tech and the increased speed of planes these days that Air to Air missile intercept isn't considered more.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 10:26 AM
I don't think the system is being made operational with the intent of shooting down an NK test missile.

Just any that are pointed at us.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 10:32 AM
i surprised with the improved guidance tech and the increased speed of planes these days that Air to Air missile intercept isn't considered more.

That’s actually a possible use for a version of the BFL I posted a picture of.
It’s my understand’n that it’ll be placed into the nose cone of a big jet, something like a 777 or bigger, and patrol areas likely to be flown over by an inbound missile.
Details are still pretty sketchy on this stuff though, it’s all fairly new, so I don’t know how big of an area something like that could cover.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 11:30 AM
I knew before even scrolling past the thread starter that I was going to be able to scroll down and see banyon saying that it wouldn't work.

Brock
06-20-2006, 11:34 AM
5/8 is pretty amazing at this point in time.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 11:43 AM
65% is not good enough. If we do attempt to knock down the NK missile we sure as hell better not miss.

Good enough for what? 65% is way better than 0% unless it's against a force of missiles large enough that 35% means total anhiliation.

JBucc
06-20-2006, 11:56 AM
Here' a pic of the missile defense system interface. It's a very simple point and click system.
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5397/107102050300large1hg.gif

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 12:01 PM
Here' a pic of the missile defense system interface. It's a very simple point and click system.
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5397/107102050300large1hg.gif

:clap: I always sucked at Missile Command.
Good thing for us that someone else is do’n that job. ;)

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 12:02 PM
Here' a pic of the missile defense system interface. It's a very simple point and click system.


ROFL

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:31 PM
Good. I hope that every peckerhead that shat all over our missile defense system is quietly saying, "Damn. Thanks." No, it's not perfect, but no defense system is. And perhaps, just perhaps, it's better than is publically known.

Besides, if NK has a three stager, chances are it'll blow on the pad.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 04:03 PM
Besides, if NK has a three stager, chances are it'll blow on the pad.

That would be a terrible accident, wouldn't it? Just tragic if something like that were to happen. Hmm. I wonder what could cause such a thing. What a bit of misfortune for the North Koreans that would be.

Donger
06-20-2006, 04:27 PM
That would be a terrible accident, wouldn't it? Just tragic if something like that were to happen. Hmm. I wonder what could cause such a thing. What a bit of misfortune for the North Koreans that would be.

Well, multi-stage rocketry is a tricky business.

go bowe
06-20-2006, 09:05 PM
nukes and long range missiles in the hands of a totally wonked out paranoid maniac?

i would hope that somehow somewhere we get a handle on this before he ends up incinerating la...

patteeu
06-20-2006, 09:08 PM
nukes and long range missiles in the hands of a totally wonked out paranoid maniac?

i would hope that somehow somewhere we get a handle on this before he ends up incinerating la...

How about right after LA but right before Bakersfield? ;)

Cochise
06-20-2006, 09:09 PM
Well, multi-stage rocketry is a tricky business.

I was just thinking that if we had human assets in al queda, surely we have some in the North Korean nuclear program too.

Logical
06-20-2006, 09:18 PM
I hope it works, it is at least worth trying.

unlurking
06-20-2006, 09:19 PM
Why not use a shotgun approach?

Have multiple targeting/tracking systems tied to multiple rockets. If you have a 65% chance of success with 1 rocket/tracking/targeting system per 1 inbound ICBM, what would the percentage be of 3 rocket/tracking/targeting systems per 1 inbound ICBM?

Figure 3 tracking/targeting systems (20 rockets per system) managing the same 20 inbound ICBMS would have to seriously increase the success rate.

Logical
06-20-2006, 09:22 PM
How about right after LA but right before Bakersfield? ;)I see the smilie but should we really joke when 5 million lives are on the line?

Logical
06-20-2006, 09:28 PM
That would be a terrible accident, wouldn't it? Just tragic if something like that were to happen. Hmm. I wonder what could cause such a thing. What a bit of misfortune for the North Koreans that would be.Definitely agree with you on this one.

Logical
06-20-2006, 09:31 PM
i surprised with the improved guidance tech and the increased speed of planes these days that Air to Air missile intercept isn't considered more.It is an angular logistics problem, jets are traveling at most 2K and that is after they have to be launched and set on course. A missile is traveling a minimum 10x faster our air to air missiles don't travel as fast as the ballistic missile, you can calculate the intercept odds.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 09:42 PM
I see the smilie but should we really joke when 5 million lives are on the line?

I guess I don't really take this threat too seriously yet.

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:24 PM
So this time we're going to mount a defense BEFORE they blow our $#it up.

He's not the brightest star in the summer sky but he's learnin'...

go bowe
06-20-2006, 10:24 PM
I guess I don't really take this threat too seriously yet. we're more likely to be attacked by gay terrorists with outrageous fashion ideas...

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:31 PM
I was just thinking that if we had human assets in al queda, surely we have some in the North Korean nuclear program too.

Knowing the Mossad it wouldn't shock me if they've found a way to make a hasidic jew look Korean...

Rausch
06-20-2006, 10:34 PM
we're more likely to be attacked by gay terrorists with outrageous fashion ideas...

You can't make this stuff up... (http://www.irishqueers.org/)

http://www.irishqueers.org/newiqnav.jpg

go bowe
06-20-2006, 10:35 PM
So this time we're going to mount a defense BEFORE they blow our $#it up. . .that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?

maybe we should have gone a little further with star wars or at least some comprehensive approach to abm's...

of course, now that the cold war is over, maybe develping effective abm's won't be as destabilizing or start another arms race...

nutjobs are going to get ahold of small numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery systems effective enough to hit the u.s., perhaps without pinpoint accuracy (which i think is overrated in the case of a nuclear bomb, since it pretty much takes out everything in the general area/region and doesn't need to be accurate)...

hell, they could fly 'em blind like the v2's and still hit a target as big as america...

we need effective abm's more than we need iraq...

maybe we're investing in the wrong area of the military (that being iraq rather than abm's, for example)...

Logical
06-20-2006, 10:55 PM
that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?

maybe we should have gone a little further with star wars or at least some comprehensive approach to abm's...

of course, now that the cold war is over, maybe develping effective abm's won't be as destabilizing or start another arms race...

nutjobs are going to get ahold of small numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery systems effective enough to hit the u.s., perhaps without pinpoint accuracy (which i think is overrated in the case of a nuclear bomb, since it pretty much takes out everything in the general area/region and doesn't need to be accurate)...

hell, they could fly 'em blind like the v2's and still hit a target as big as america...

we need effective abm's more than we need iraq...

maybe we're investing in the wrong area of the military (that being iraq rather than abm's, for example)...:clap::clap::clap:

patteeu
06-21-2006, 05:34 AM
maybe we're investing in the wrong area of the military (that being iraq rather than abm's, for example)...

Just ftr, the Bush administration focused on missile defense before it focused on Iraq.

banyon
06-21-2006, 08:17 AM
Just ftr, the Bush administration focused on missile defense before it focused on Iraq.

Bush also shifted funds away from proliferation control to developing "bunker-busting" nuclear armaments.

mlyonsd
06-21-2006, 09:47 AM
Bush also shifted funds away from proliferation control to developing "bunker-busting" nuclear armaments.

"proliferation control"? Is that a synonym for "extorsion fund"?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 10:02 AM
that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?

maybe we should have gone a little further with star wars or at least some comprehensive approach to abm's...

of course, now that the cold war is over, maybe develping effective abm's won't be as destabilizing or start another arms race...

nutjobs are going to get ahold of small numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery systems effective enough to hit the u.s., perhaps without pinpoint accuracy (which i think is overrated in the case of a nuclear bomb, since it pretty much takes out everything in the general area/region and doesn't need to be accurate)...

hell, they could fly 'em blind like the v2's and still hit a target as big as america...

we need effective abm's more than we need iraq...

maybe we're investing in the wrong area of the military (that being iraq rather than abm's, for example)...

You do realize that abm's will do nothing to protect us from a backpack nuke, which is by far the most likely method of delivery from a small cell of crazies. Stopping nuclear proliferation stops the problem at its source, not when it is on our doorstep.

banyon
06-21-2006, 10:08 AM
"proliferation control"? Is that a synonym for "extorsion fund"?

Some of the funds we were using to locate missing Ex-Soviet material and equipment that was lost after dissolution.

Mr. Laz
06-21-2006, 10:12 AM
It is an angular logistics problem, jets are traveling at most 2K and that is after they have to be launched and set on course. A missile is traveling a minimum 10x faster our air to air missiles don't travel as fast as the ballistic missile, you can calculate the intercept odds.

maybe we need to work on faster air-to-air ability then


laser mounted on our fastest jet interceptor???

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 10:18 AM
maybe we need to work on faster air-to-air ability then


laser mounted on our fastest jet interceptor???
:shake: The amount of money required to initiate such a program is orders of magnitude more expensive than comprehensive nuclear proliferation control would ever be. Why throw money down a bottomless pit on a proposition that is never likely to be effective any way.

Radar Chief
06-21-2006, 12:01 PM
:shake: The amount of money required to initiate such a program is orders of magnitude more expensive than comprehensive nuclear proliferation control would ever be. Why throw money down a bottomless pit on a proposition that is never likely to be effective any way.

Right cause, like, that nonproliferation thingy worked so well with NK. And now Iran. Seems like Pakistan fits in there also. :shrug:

Though I see you’ve dropped the “it’ll never work” mantra for the “it’s too expensive” one. :thumb: At least you’re consistent and admit when you’re wrong. ROFL

Radar Chief
06-21-2006, 12:07 PM
maybe we need to work on faster air-to-air ability then


laser mounted on our fastest jet interceptor???

But why bother when we can make a missile that’ll fly at Mach 4 or 5?
Hell, if we wanted to use SCRam Jet technology we could make a missile fly in excess of Mach 9.
It’s a little harder to get a manned jet to do that.

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:59 PM
You do realize that abm's will do nothing to protect us from a backpack nuke, which is by far the most likely method of delivery from a small cell of crazies. Stopping nuclear proliferation stops the problem at its source, not when it is on our doorstep.Unless you got a Gorilla the size of king kong to carry it, the backpack nuke is a complete myth.

unlurking
06-21-2006, 11:06 PM
Unless you got a Gorilla the size of king kong to carry it, the backpack nuke is a complete myth.
Looks like someone has never watched Manhattan Project.

;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 11:37 PM
Unless you got a Gorilla the size of king kong to carry it, the backpack nuke is a complete myth.

Per Wiki:

The Russian government's statements on this matter have been contradictory. First they denied that such weapons had ever existed; then they said that all of them had been destroyed. The best available information suggests that several hundred suitcase nukes were manufactured, but that they have a shelf life of at most a few months in between maintenance and parts replacement. Even if rumors that some suitcase nukes were stolen in the period between 1989 and 1992 are true, it is highly unlikely that they still would produce nominal yield. Most likely, an attempt to detonate one of these devices would scatter plutonium, but not produce any fission.

I know that you are an engineer, and I respect your opinion on scientific matters, but this is not a field in which I am unlearned. I've taken an entire class devoted to the history and physics of nuclear weapons and have read multiple texts on them both from a cultural and a military/scientific standpoint.

Logical
06-21-2006, 11:50 PM
Per Wiki:

The Russian government's statements on this matter have been contradictory. First they denied that such weapons had ever existed; then they said that all of them had been destroyed. The best available information suggests that several hundred suitcase nukes were manufactured, but that they have a shelf life of at most a few months in between maintenance and parts replacement. Even if rumors that some suitcase nukes were stolen in the period between 1989 and 1992 are true, it is highly unlikely that they still would produce nominal yield. Most likely, an attempt to detonate one of these devices would scatter plutonium, but not produce any fission.

I know that you are an engineer, and I respect your opinion on scientific matters, but this is not a field in which I am unlearned. I've taken an entire class devoted to the history and physics of nuclear weapons and have read multiple texts on them both from a cultural and a military/scientific standpoint.The problem is not the size of the nuke (it is manageable, the problem is it takes a lead lined container to protect the transporter. The suitcase is actually more the size of a trunk now imagine what that weighs with a 4 inch lead lining on all sides. The radiation emitted will kill the transporters without the protection in short order.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-22-2006, 12:21 AM
The problem is not the size of the nuke (it is manageable, the problem is it takes a lead lined container to protect the transporter. The suitcase is actually more the size of a trunk now imagine what that weighs with a 4 inch lead lining on all sides. The radiation emitted will kill the transporters without the protection in short order.

Given the rather laissez faire nature of extremists and their own lives, I don't think that it is infeasible that they would be careless with their own lives. Even if they were exposed to several hundred rads (which is unlikely, as the fissionable material must be stable enough to not decay in a short order), they would still be functional for quite a while until they sicken (there is an excellent table on the effects of radiation for the human body in Samuel Glasgow's "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons") Which I do not have with me at this moment.

Rausch
06-22-2006, 01:08 AM
Given the rather laissez faire nature of extremists and their own lives, I don't think that it is infeasible that they would be careless with their own lives. Even if they were exposed to several hundred rads (which is unlikely, as the fissionable material must be stable enough to not decay in a short order), they would still be functional for quite a while until they sicken (there is an excellent table on the effects of radiation for the human body in Samuel Glasgow's "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons") Which I do not have with me at this moment.

Point is they'd survive to carry one to the target.

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 08:15 AM
I gotta agree with Hamas Jenkins on this one.

A former science adviser to (Broken link for Boris Yeltsin) has also made public claims about Soviet programs to build suitcase or backpack sized nuclear weapons. Alexei Yablokov told PBS Frontline:
Yes, small atomic charges exist. They are very small. Several dozen kilos, thirty kilos, forty kilos [60 to 90 pounds]. I spoke with people that made them, I saw them. The American specimens can be seen on the Internet, they can be seen on photographs, they can even be seen in the movies. I have never seen Russian analogies, I have only seen American ones, but Russian ones do exist, because I spoke with people who made them, and I believe these people, these people knew what they were talking about. ... No one knows how many exist.

Always a Chief fan
06-22-2006, 01:02 PM
I would respectfully like to weigh in on this subject of human transported or "backpack nuclear weapons".As a veteran of the U.S.Army in Europe during the cold war,I can assure you that such a weapon has been in exsistance for many years,and we had Special Forces units that had the specific mission of using these weapons on the Warsaw Pact forces,should the "balloon" ever go up.A small amount of fissionable material can be effectivly shielded,delivered by a "snake eater",and detonated creating mass confusion due to the EMP(electromagnetic pulse) that would fry anything electronic. These weapons do exsist.

Always a Chief fan
06-22-2006, 01:20 PM
This thread got me to thinking about the North Korean's "Type o' Dong missle.If they launch it,what is to stop us from destroying it with a low yield nuclear weapon over the Sea of Japan.I'm talking in terms of kilotons,not megatons.If we could get in the ballpark in the upper atmosphere,would not the EMP from a small nuclear weapon fry the electronics on their ICBM making it ineffective?