Is missile defense a waste of time?

The russian missile Topol-m (SS-27) is a 3 staged mobile ICBM with a shotened booster stage and the ability to have its warheads to change course during re-entry.

So, if these new missiles have the ability to change course upon re-entry, would the THAAD be able to intercept them? Some people seem to doubt it.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

Source: www.csmonitor.com...

The source may shock some of you as it is the christian science monitor.

Some say that this missile is comparable to the minuteman III ICBM and apparently there was a technology exchange between the US and Russia that has spurred the russians to develop these on their own. Apparently a few IBM supercomputers were sold to russian nuclear labs under the clinton administration(of course :@@ and when UN/US weapons inspectors requested to make sure these werent being used for weapons development, they were denied access to them. Now, China is going to produce its own version of the Topol-M known as the DF-41. I guess its good to know that the dems arent above selling weapons of mass destruction if it guarantees them some campaign contributions.

Anyway, this will pretty much make the missile defense shield moot but the expalanation for its continuation is that will protect against small rogue states like Iran, NK, etc. What do you think?

Here is a video of the Topol-M.


www.youtube.com...

the current system is good only against countries like iraq or iran

they aren't designed to stop anything greater than that level

[edit on 3/9/2007 by warset]

You know - in the Medieval times, soldiers wore chain mail.

Great against swords - but bad against blunt objects and piercing arrows.

Even without plate mail they still wore the chain though.

Better 1/3rd of the enemy's arsenal is rendered useless, than none.

It is certainly good for the defence conglomerates who are receiving vast sums.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
It is certainly good for the defence conglomerates who are receiving vast sums.

Regards

Is that the truth? In actuality the defence conglomerates receive very little (about $800 million USD in the last 20 years, very high estimate) for researching BMD...

So no, they make more off of producing parts for B-52s.

There's a special aircraft that can shoot a sort of lasers to destroy missiles in mid-air.

So useless? I'd say not.

Click here

Now if those missiles could create decoys and swarm in whatever patterns, then yes, we would have to be scared.

Americal also supposedly has a special missile that can explode and release about 100 other missiles.
It's airburst, and it can hit specific targets (so it could blow up near your house and only leave a hole in the 2nd brick on the left from the 500th row from above)

[edit on 10/3/07 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by The_Investor
Is that the truth? In actuality the defence conglomerates receive very little (about $800 million USD in the last 20 years, very high estimate) for researching BMD...

I would be grateful for the source of your comment / assertion.

Depending on where you look, the price-tag for US BMD varies, but it is very expensive. A quick Google brings up a list of pricey offerings - these were the first three...

Link One

Link Two

Link Three

Anyway, missile defence is developed in collaboration with industry. Therefore, that's where the money goes!

Regards

Oh so over 21 years it was 124 Billion USD whatever that's miniscule compared to the nearly 10 Trillion USD spent on defense in that time.