TA-ANALYSIS: Missile Defense Plans Reaffirmed by White House

In a White House news briefing Thursday, Pentagon officials pointed out that President Bush remains commited to implement a missile defense system soon. Citing that five of eight intercept tests have been successful since 1999, resulting in a hit, the Pentagon downplayed the recent failed missile test setback. The decision to declare the missile defense system operational would be made regardless of the outcome of the latest test, according to the Pentagon.



I think ideally, it would be good to have a missile defense system, for the most part. But not with a foreignly agressive administration, because it can be interpreted to mean that we are trying to put ourselves in a position to be able to use nukes without paying the price of retaliation. This mostly applies to smaller nuke club countries such as N. Korea and Pakistan who might be tempted to fire one or more nukes at the US. I think most would agree that any missile defense attempts at preventing major retaliation from Russia or China would not have much affect at this point, but could possibly be developed in the future.

A pertinent and interesting thread on ATS regarding nuclear posture and incorporating missile defense:

Nuclear Posture

Related News Links:
wireservice.wired.com
www.turkishpress.com
www.news.com.au

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
U.S. prepares to activate missile defense system
NEWS: U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails
Missile Interceptor in Alaska to be First in National Defense System

[edit on 16-12-2004 by TrueAmerican]

Well as much as I support the missile defense system I dont' think it should be declared operational. 5/8 isn't to bad right now but it's not good enough, we should keep improving before we just consider things operational. Remember what happened to the death star?, remember when Dubya declared "Mission Acomplished"? You can't rush things like this. Personally I'd rather have a few working systems than a few rushed ineffective systems.

It's a Faith Based Missile Shield

Pray for it!



[edit on 16-12-2004 by Nerdling]

My question is that even if we stop an attack
wouldn't the fallout still kill a lot of people.
I am not sure what the specs are for this system
but I know that fallout from a 1 megaton can kill
people up to 32 miles or so depending on weather
conditions, that is however if it is normally detonated
I am not sure about if it is just shot down
if anyone has any info on that I would be interested.

geo

Originally posted by geocom
My question is that even if we stop an attack
wouldn't the fallout still kill a lot of people.
I am not sure what the specs are for this system
but I know that fallout from a 1 megaton can kill
people up to 32 miles or so depending on weather
conditions, that is however if it is normally detonated
I am not sure about if it is just shot down
if anyone has any info on that I would be interested.

geo

If It were shot down I don't think the missile would detonate ,it would only be the radio active debris that would be dangerous and if it were to shot down the debris would probably fall in the pacific .

As for the missile shield I totally agree with it,it might not be to affective now but give them a few more years to perfect the guidence/tracking systems and the airborne laser will be alot stronger with further range.Let's just hope nobody attacks before we perfect it!

It seems to me it would be almost a dereliction of duty of the US administration NOT employ missile defense. If you have the technology and ability, it simply has to be done.

Imagine the scenario:

There was no missile dense shield in place and a couple of nukes from say N. Korea successfully hit the US.... it is not difficult to imagine the entire senior administration (including Franks and Bush) being hauled up before a commission and being asked the question "so even though you had the ability to employ a defense shield to protect the nation, you failed to do so ?? why ??"

See what I mean ? What could they say ?
maybe they could try something along the lines of "well it wasn't a very popular idea, might upset Canada or the EU or somebody, would have cost money..... errr.... we decided not to bother with it after all ??"

Nope, it has to be done.

It's not just that it's expensive, but that the feasiblity of implimentation has been doubtful. There hasn't been much success with this sort of thing(at least with a global 'umbrella' sort of mentality), and we've been at it since the early 1980s.

What does this actaully involve? Some kind of Patriot-type surface to air missile racing up to destroy an incoming warhead? This worked succesfully in a Tom Clancy novel, but in real life....?

The other ways that I've heard of include the airborn laser (ABL) system, but that deals with missiles before the warhead separates from them.

Can anyone tell me what exactly is used to shoot down these warheads?