US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success 391
An anonymous reader writes to mention that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and Lockheed Martin recently reported success in the test flight of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system. "THAAD is designed to defend U.S. troops, allied forces, population centers and critical infrastructure against short- to intermediate range ballistic missiles. THAAD comprises a fire control and communications system, interceptors, launchers and a radar. The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets, and is the only weapon system that engages threat ballistic missiles at both endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes."
3...2...1... (Score:1, Interesting)
Whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Space debris (Score:0, Interesting)
Think about 100,000 half-pound tungsten carbide balls floating around. It wont take many launches to get 'em up there and it would reduce the lifespan of anything in LEO (low earth orbit) down to a year and permanently ground human missions for everyone.
Re:New arms race? (Score:4, Interesting)
The system works on short and intermediate range missiles - the kind presumably launched from submarines.
The arms race isn't new - it's an ongoing thing if you have an army. The only option is to do away with it to get out of the race. But if you're a large nation with many useful resources - stuff other people might want - you're stuck in the race.
Still the danger here is if you (temporarily) have a way to avoid taking damage from an enemy, that makes it MORE likely that you will strike with less hesitation. Frankly I look forward to the day that this technology can be defeated. A little fear and hesitation is good for foreign policy once in a while. It begets respect.
The article fails to mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New arms race? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because the system is nearly impossible to scale up or upgrade effectively, and it is very vulnerable to countermeasures.
Therefore, there's simply no reason for the arms race.
Re:Not anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think MAD only works when both sides are somewhat rational and realize how much they stand to lose. It is foreseeable that all your opponents will not be so rations or won't have as much to lose as an entire nation/state. Say what you will about the US vs USSR in the cold war but at least both sides had sence enough to keep it a cold war.
Re:Just a few quibbles... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yet more killing technology... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And nuclear weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New arms race? (Score:1, Interesting)
With the capability to shoot down even a limited number of incoming nukes, the US could deny either leadership this grimly life insurance and thereby increase strategic pressure on the NK and Iranian leaders.
I can't believe that at any point a US government would be willing to actually gamble an attempt at such a regime change, risking its peoples' lives at the faith in its countermeasures, but in my opinion, even in this unthinkable scenario the missile defense would probably not significantly increase the likelihood of US attacking the NK. The nuke is just the last card up the NK government's sleeve. Seoul houses 23 million South Koreans just 80 kilometers from the NK border and artillery. An all-out war between the two Koreas would cost too much to the world economy. Additionally, NK's starving people wouldn't be such a huge prize for a successful conquest.
It feels like the chances of a US attack on Iran are limited by the US economy's capacity to absorb the cost of another occupation. Otherwise Iran seems the obvious next project even without any kind of a US missile defense; it hasn't even been able to set off a nuke and its land is soaked with oil, making for lucrative loot for the companies of the neocons near and comprising the current US regime. As a bonus to the US that comes with the risk of a WMD shootout with Iran, the US could probably leave any megadeath by nuclear retaliation it sees necessary to Israel. Israel hasn't appeared too caring of its reputation, much less of epic international hatred lately. Maybe a promise of having a working missile defense would make a conquest of Iran an easier sale to the US Star Wars fans.
I'm not an expert in international relations either.
Re:Mission Accomplished? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's done too. Iraqi Army, which used to threaten our aircraft patrolling North (Kurds) and South (Shia) of the country, is disbanded. The threat to our allies in the region (Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia) is gone too, thank you very much...
Iran now has 100+K American troops next to it, which is good if we want to contain it. USSR (so contained earlier) is gone — America's decades-long presence in Western Europe accomplished its purpose. Now it is Middle East's turn...
Only if "your head" is somewhere in Najaf's orchards plotting to kill prominent Iraqis or US soldiers...
Re:Not anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? They have their uses and are not that inhumane — supposedly, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings have taken less lives, than the weeks of conventional bombings before them (something like 150K lives per night is allegedly attributable to the latter).
And they ended the war, possibly several months earlier...
Today, for another example, using "tactical" nukes to bust Iran's nuclear-research bunkers would, likely, be quite efficient and kill fewer people than any alternative... It would, of course, be a political barrel of worms with anti-Americans world wide screaming their heads off (I wish they did!), but in cold blooded objectivity, it would be rather beneficial for all concerned, including Iranians (tough love and all).
Arms race is just a part of the general race (technological, cultural, scientific). There is nothing particularly immoral about it. Killing people sucks (and is often immoral), but it sucks even more to be killed — or seeing someone dear being killed...
Re:Not anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull. Palestinians have been on the Knesset (whereas the PLO didn't even have an elected body until after Arafat died.)
Also, the Palis had trade and stores, etc. until the homicidal amongst them got them removed from most of Israeli society.
But Palis could vote and own land. In fact, until Iraq the only place Arabs had ever been democratically elected in the Middle East was in Israel.
Re:New arms race? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever seen napalm? White phosphorous? Thermite? They'll all melt the flesh off your bones, too, and more people met their ends that way, than have ever died in nuclear blasts. Why so much less outrage there? More people died in a night of fire-bombings of wooden cities, than in the atomic bombings; they're just more spectacular.
Nuclear weapons aren't particularly unique. Several of the invasion plans that were tossed around prior to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan involved saturating the islands with nerve gas, and just taking it by default after the population had been decimated.
that too (Score:3, Interesting)
We can use hit-to-kill like THAAD. We can use ground lasers, orbiting lasers, and airborne lasers. We can use sabotage of the enemy equiment, physically or by screwing up the software. We can use diplomacy. We can use the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We can have a sneaky sniper on enemy territory shoot an ICBM right at launch -- a hole in the boost rocket will do the job. We can use an X-ray laser. We can use economics as both carrot and stick. We can export out culture to reduce misunderstanding and general hatred in the long term. We can use radar-controlled heavy machine guns to stop incoming devices.
As a final protection, there is always the cave 10 feet underground stocked with calcium and iodine supplements.
Nothing is 100% perfect. Every little bit helps.