It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Antimissile System doesn't Work

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 01:12 PM
M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws in Antimissile System

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is looking into accusations that its premier laboratory lied to cover up serious problems with the technology at the heart of the administration's proposed antimissile defense system.

"Dr. Postol became known as an antimissile critic after the Persian Gulf war in 1991, when he argued that contrary to Pentagon assertions Patriot missiles had shot down few if any Iraqi Scud missiles. His contention, at first ridiculed, in time became accepted as truth."

Follow this story, since last month Bush stated that the US is deploying a missile defense system ( that's not yet completed....go figure) over the next two years.

[Edited on 2-1-2003 by Bout Time]

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 08:20 PM
This has been on the wind for quite some time: at every stage in the testing there have been allegations of rigging, of beacons in the target-missile(s) and the like.
It is, of course, not impossible that these doubts are a smokescreen and that the system is considerably better than one is being led to believe.
The inadequacies of Patriot are pretty much a matter of record now, I believe -witness the efforts the Israelis are making (probably courtesy of the US taxpayer) with their Arrow system.
If you look over the history of AMM technology you'll find that much more of it has been wishful thinking, speculation and diluted sci-fi than has ever been hard fact and achievememnt.

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 11:12 PM
We had New Year's dinner with some defense contractor programmers and they were pretty much skeptical of the whole issue.

Come to think of it, the cartoonists were having a field day with the problems about 3 weeks ago.

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 11:24 PM
"Antimissile System Doesn't Work"

Yes, I do agree that the newly acclaimed AM defense system that President Bush has ordered to be initiated, is not operable yet.

But I would remind everyone that this is a system that will evolve, which of course is just the way most weapons or defense systems begin. It does appear to me to have enough technology, expertise and existing "hardware" to warrant this initial deployment.

Good post;


posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 11:33 PM
Maybe the ABM system is a cover for more exotic programs, such as the airbourne laser.
As far as using missiles to shoot down oppsosing missiles, this seems like old technology. Surely directe energy weapons etc would be far more useful.

posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:23 AM
....but I remember seeing something about the Russians having something far better than any ABM system we're working through. Anyone else see or hear of that?

posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 09:56 AM
While most of what one's read on the topic has been moonshine, or the vodka-based equivalent, B-T there was a flurry of speculation about Russian plasma-technology ( and, as I recall possible joint-work with Boeing when the Russian piggy-bank was empty) a few years back, and a search might get you something there. Likewise, tales about Russian/Chinese co-operation on laser weapons in space.

If you ignore the years of nonsense about ABM treaties, most of what's come from Russia has been about missiles to beat the US shields rather than their own anti-missile capacity.
the Russians were, of course, into this field well ahead of the Americans; but much of what I've read has been little more than desperate attempts to sell old SAM's and the like to Third World desperadoes.
Happy searching - I'm sure you'll find something there.

posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 02:24 PM
Thank you, I thought as much. But, I always think of the steroid anology when thinking about the two former nemesis superpowers: Russia won weightlifting medals on juice, while Americans won Mr. Universe bodybuilding titles.........real strength versus looking like you're the strongest.....a telling philosophy.

posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 10:44 PM
It's a new analogy to me, B-T and-if I may say so-rather a good one.

posted on Jan, 3 2003 @ 10:49 PM
As for concrete (no pun intended) efforts: despite the vaunted defences of Moscow: much of what was done in the old USSR with regard to ABM defences -and I suspect in US/UK etc. too - consisted of digging, and reinforcing, bloody great holes in the ground so that apparatchiks and the lite could watch the world evaporate from the comfort of their armchairs.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 07:56 AM
HELs (High Energy Lasers) seem to have been getting a lot of documentary press lately (Discovery, TLC, etc.) and are already in existence. Heck, there was actually video footage of the device and tests (both from ground-based, as well as plane-based), instead of just artist concepts, etc.

new topics

top topics


log in