It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
President Obama’s plans for reducing America’s nuclear arsenal and defeating Iran’s missiles rely heavily on a new generation of antimissile defenses, which last year he called “proven and effective.”
But now, a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics, at M.I.T. and Cornell, casts doubt on the reliability of the new weapon.
The dispute between the academics and the Pentagon centers on whether it is enough for a speeding interceptor to hit the body of a spent rocket moving through outer space or whether it must hit the attached warhead. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees.
At least Reagan wasn't THAT crazy...
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Portugoal
2. The RIM-161 family of interceptors of which the SM-3 is the latest variant are highly proven.
Dr. Postol cherry-picked 10 of the worst performers within 8 years of testing, which includes dozens upon dozens of confirmed high-altitude kills.
Including the 2005 & 2008 Anti-Satellite tests in which the SM-3 intercepted defunct US satellites that were more than 100 miles in space and with a closing velocity of 22,783mph.
The kinetic energy of an SM-3 hitting an ICBM is equivalent to the force released when a ten ton truck travelling at 600 miles per hour hits a wall.
I sincerely doubt any guidance computers on an ICBM will be functioning after that kind of impact.
[edit on 18/5/10 by The Godfather of Conspira]
While hoped that it would perform @ 100% as its designed to, you must take into account the "murphy" factor.