It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program


www.nytimes.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Uh oh!


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.


This wouldn't be good if it's true. If something only hits at 20%, then it is highly inefficient and should not even be considered as a number 1 defense system.

...Of course, then again, this story may just be another story from the MSM as to why the US needs to be an agressor towards Iran (since of course, their defense system is too inefficient to sit around and wait for Iran to make a move). Could be another lead up to war.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
20% effective and ridiculously expensive. Sounds like a pretty much standard U.S. program that the taxpayers can pay for.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
This entire program is a corporate venture.

The military industrial complex will not let this program die. This is but one among numerous examples of the excess of trust we have placed in the 'symbiotic' relationship between corporate military contractors and the Pentagon.

It's all about money with these people. Always.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


...And when they build weapons to attack Iran (since defending won't work), it will be another corporate venture.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Yep and the nuts in the Pentagon and White House in the 80s wanted to do a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union confident that the missile shield would stop any missile left.

At least Reagan wasn't THAT crazy...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


I don't particularly want to play devil's advocate here as I'm all for more nuclear dismantling & Dr. Postol was right about the Patriot Missile, but this article takes things out of context.

1. The American Nuclear arsenal still has more than enough potential to destroy the Earth 8 times over.

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.
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.space.com...

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.

3. If the "alleged intent" of our interception batteries is to counter rogue missile launches from "hostile states" (i.e. one missile at a time largely based on Soviet-era technology), than the SM-3 is overkill.

The Iranian Shahab & Ghadr series of missiles can barely push 1,500km in practical situations and only mount 1 ton warheads.
Their entire missile fleet is just scrapped together from various amalgamations of the Russian Tech of yesteryear.

The reason the doubts are being played up here is because the whole purpose of the Aegis BMD is countering and negating any Russian advances in its mobile ICBM fleet (like the new series of TOPOLs), which can be launched from depressed trajectories in secret and hence give the US little warning time. The Hawks in the Pentagon want a far more pervasive solution.

-That's why they've proposed the European Missile Shield.
-That's why Ticonderoga/Burke Destroyers patrol the Black Sea.
-That's why Japan is being leased SM-3 Capability.

If anyone here is seriously entertaining the notion of an Iranian-launched MRBM threatening the US mainland or military in anyway you are kidding yourselves.

[edit on 18/5/10 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



At least Reagan wasn't THAT crazy...


You're right.

He was even worse. He spent $100 billion dollars on the god-damn Strategic Defence Initiative ("StarWars") to intercept ICBMs with space-based lasers, which are still currently in 2010 decades away from realization.

Obama has his flaws, but taking ridiculous amounts of expenditure away from "Anti-Phantom Threat" programs is the right way to go now.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.space.com...

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 Dr. Postol picked the 10 worst performances of the system, I feel that in a case like this it is the wisest thing to do. I feel that it gives a more "real world" view of the system. While hoped that it would perform @ 100% as its designed to, you must take into account the "murphy" factor. Is it not wise to realize that system has some serious flaws or should we just fool ourselves into believing that it will work perfectly?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by azrael36
 



While hoped that it would perform @ 100% as its designed to, you must take into account the "murphy" factor.


This is absolutely no such that thing as a 100% Kill Ratio for any weapons system in the world.

Dr. Postol admirable and informative as he is, is fundamentally trapped in that scientific, logically-based, absolutive mindset.
To him it can either be a 1 or a 0. Nothing in between.

Being "realistic" in this context means accepting there is no definitive, 100% successful ABM system in deployment and won't be for the next century most likely.
Chemical Lasers like the YAL-1 basically require their own miniature power plants to fuel them and dissipate very quickly.
MIRACL & THEL can be negated with reflective coatings and have immense power requirements.
THAAD has had more failures than successes in testing.
Rail Guns are impossible to cool down and are effectively single-use only right now.
I'm not even going to entertain pure Sci-Fi speculation like space-based satellite lasers, Particle Beams, Masers, etc.

What is Dr. Postol's suggestion here?

Of course it's easy to criticize, you can pick apart the US Military's ineffective budgeting faster than it takes a rabbit to climax.

The Aegis BDM is currently the most viable, down-to-earth, cost-effective measure the US has against MRBMs. Period.

Hell even bad weather or a overcast of cloud cover can through off course a missile. You have to understand the environment in which ABM defences are designed to work.

Hitting a moving target over 100 miles away, travelling at anywhere from Mach 5 to Mach 17, leaving you nanoseconds to compute a flight path and constantly recalculate before the missile leaves boost phase and you have no hope of chasing it anymore.

There are no guarantees in Anti-Ballistic Missile warfare.

[edit on 18/5/10 by The Godfather of Conspira]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join