U.S. Says Missile Defense Has Successful Intercept

How often are these tests ran? Any know?
www.bloomberg.com...

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.



[edit on 1/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Great!
The world is now a safer place!

Oh, wait... no it isn't.

This is an unbelievable waste of money and research.

Let's stop for a moment and ask a couple pointed questions;

When was the last time an ICBM was used in and intercontenental conflict?

Is North Korea (or anyone else) really insane enough to launch anything at the US?

How will this help to prevent briefcase bombs or other (much more effective) methods of blowing stuff up?

I'm hoping you catch my drift here.
This technology is out-of-date before it's even deployed. The modern battlefield has very little to do with the old ways of waging war. If people want to develop bigger-badder toys, they should be focused on infantry support/defence, comunications, and urban tactical training.

Better yet, how about putting away the toys and focusing on the causes of the problems?
Ie, stop tweaking off the world and start focusing on real peace.

You should inform the Pentagon how this is such a waste of money. Apparently, you know more about modern warfare than they do.

Originally posted by pugachev
You should inform the Pentagon how this is such a waste of money. Apparently, you know more about modern warfare than they do.

Yeah, funny that, isn't it?

Do you have a point to make?
Would you like to actually attempt to adress my post, or would you prefer to blow smoke and pretend it makes you cool?

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Great!
The world is now a safer place!

Oh, wait... no it isn't.

This is an unbelievable waste of money and research.

Uhm, forgive me for being being blunt but since when the hell do canadians care what the US government spends it's money on?

Or more to the point, why the hell should I care that you think it is a waste of money?

IT doesnt matter anyway canada and the US are so close together a missile defense for the US means a missile defense for canada too. So why are you belly aching?

Because apparently if a technology isn't perfectly successful as a prototype it's worthless and should never be looked into.

Double post.

Original here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Wow.

What happened to the quality of the posting 'round here since last time I swung by?

Why is a Canadian interested in what the US does for money?

Maybe ecause the US is right next door and they've got a nasty habbit of taking advantage of Canada when their ecconomics go down hill. Just recently, they're right back at it with a new form of tariff using pop-terror as an excuse to milk more money out of their supposed best ally. I already started a thread on that issue: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But no.
The real answer is, I don't really.
I was making an observation, nothing more.
What's with the strawman tactics anyway?

Well, back to the topic:

I had a chat with a friend on this issue. Specificly on the point that any country would have to be totally insane to launch an ICBM against the US. It's just not rational. He brought up the point that a terrorist could use a stollen nuke or buy one of the ones missing from Soviat stockpiles.

Well, that's a more realistic fear, but it's still one that you shouldn't be too worked up over.

The topic sent me out to do some research and I think I can support a solid case that no super terrorist group will be using an ICBM against the US (outside of James Bond movies, that is).

Here's 3 solid points to think about:

1) ICBMs are BIG! They are very large because they have to be. Warheads have gotten smaller, but the rocket that drives 'em are still rather massive. We're talking about missiles that actually are capabile of attaining orbit if you aim them right. That's how they work. The smallest ICBM currently in service is the Trident, with a lenght of 13.1 meters and a weight of 58,500 kg. It's unlikely that any of these would fall into the hands of the enemy, however. The US is perty good at keeping these things accounted for (there's a couple broken arrows out there, but they've all been reported as unrecoverable. Ie, they're in very deep water).
The most likely ICBM to fall into the wrong hands (I don't really know who the "right" hands are) is the RT-2PM Topol, aka the Sickle. There were lots of these around as the Soviat Union fell and it remains unclear how many are unaccounted for. However, they are 21.5 meters long and weigh in at 45.1 tons! That's a perty damned big toy.

2) ICBMs aren't like bottle rockets. You don't just stand 'em on end and light their fuse. They require a launcher, either mobile or from a silo. So if you have the rocket and warhead, you still need a launch base.

3) This IS rocket science! Aiming and launching an ICBM isn't like BF2 artillery. It's not point and click. You have to know what you're doing to fire these things. Your average Joe couldn't fire an RPG without being shown how. I highly doubt you're going to find launch instructions for a city killer posted on the net (I lokked Razz). This means there's a limited number of people in the world that know how to fire one of these suckers and I'm sure as s*** that most of them are being kept under tabs.

While it's still possible that a rogue group could aquire an ICBM, consider those 3 points above. You'd have to steal/buy your missile with mobile launcher (a very expensive and dangerous transaction), hide it until you're read to use it (without someone tripping over it or ratting you out), then deploy it (without being spotted), and finnally launch (if you know how the hell you turn the thing on!). Alternatively, you could raid a silo and jack a missile in the tube... but that would be one hell of an impressive raid and your chances of getting a launch off without detection would be almost non-existant (all ICBMs have a master destruct fuction).

Remember, we're dealing with an enemy that felled the Towers using box cutters as weapons then proceeded to terrorise the country for months by sending out envolopes full of babypowder (after delivering one single dose of actual Anthrax).

So my rather lenghty point is that you aren't really any safer with this system in place (which it isn't yet, BTW. They've only shot down one target during tests). The new enemy isn't going to launch ICBMs. They are going to use sneaky ass tactics to kill people.

Besides, all the terrorists saw the report on this anti-ICBM system on CNN tonight. They simply ain't gonna bother!

HOWEVER!
[This is speculation that occured to me while diggin around and will likely rob me of some sleep]
What this system does provide is a way to be agressive against nuclear nations without fear of reprisal. Mutually Assured Destruction is a great balancer. It makes sure no-one does anything too stupid. I fear what could happen if that constrant is removed.

Simply put, this is a system to support a policy of nuclear buligerance.
That scares the hell outta me.