US Missile Defense Test Fails 317
KingRobot sends news that a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed. The test of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense interceptor apparently had a problem with the sea-based X-band radar. Both the target missile, launched from the Pacific, and the interceptor, launched from California, performed as expected. "Yesterday's test was intended to quell doubters of the entire missile-defense approach, with the target missile deploying countermeasures. Critics of the GMD programme say that tests thus far, which have not included such spoilers, have been too kind to the intercept tech. The [military] isn't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster' of warhead(s) and decoys, or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target."
Re:No surprise, really (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you're wrong.
In the first place, the Patriot missiles were only partially successful. Since they weren't intended for the purpose of defending large areas, that is acceptable, and they've been improved since them. But the Patriot missiles are a short range defense.
There have been previous successful tests. A simple google search turned up the following:
Reuters [reuters.com]
Military Defense Agency [mda.mil]
Heritage Foundation [heritage.org]
Re:No surprise, really (Score:5, Informative)
Funny you should mention that. The effectiveness of Patriots in Gulf War I is hotly [fas.org] contested [fas.org].
Both sides rely on subjective arguments about what constitutes a "successful intercept", neither have any hard data on how many (if any) Scuds were actually downed, and the folks that were having the Scuds aimed at them said that they were getting through pretty well, so I'd have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is that Patriot was a propaganda weapon in Gulf War I.
I should note that plenty of money has been thrown at defence contractors since then, and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't work. It's just that nobody has shown that they do.
You fail. (Score:4, Informative)
US medical spending is over $2.5 trillion http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016 [medpagetoday.com]
US defense spending is $685 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Free your mind
Not all missile defense sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You fail. (Score:4, Informative)
That's spending by the entire nation, not the budget allocation of the federal government. If you look at the recent NYTimes graphic, spending on defense in this budget almost exactly equals SS spending, and is greater than government health care spending. But think of what we get for it!
Re:Money (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh*
A mere decade ago, I'd have laughed at your statement. Today? I almost agree with you - and I'm a US citizen! Bush changed things an awful lot when he launched that preemptive war on Iraq. Afghanistan, not so much, but Iraq certainly.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You fail. (Score:5, Informative)
$685 billion is the base. Then through the course of year the defense gets more money from congress.
We are spending $10 Billion/month in Iraq. We have already spent over several Trillions dollars are the Iraq fiasco alone!!
Get a clue moron, defense spending is the largest part of the US expenditures. The deference is it's not an entitlement program, it just acts like one.
We can't afford this. (Score:4, Informative)
Two decades and what have we got to show for it? A bunch of rich industrialists. We've needed to cut spending for decades, let us start here. There won't be much to defend if the government taxes us to death to pay for these useless toys.
Re:Money (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the reason the Japanese did not rapidly surrender immediately after Hiroshima is more complex. Bureaucratic inertia insured a pretty slow response. (The leaders did not even meet for two days following the attack, and debated the issue for half the day) The Emperor himself had been pushing for peace for some time following the Japanese defeat at Okinawa, but the Allied insistence on unconditional surrender, as well as political subterfuge by Stalin (who played on Japanese hopes of Soviet assistance while preparing his own attack against Japan), fed fire to an already heated debate among Japanese leaders. In an all-too-familiar story, political infighting prevented the country from taking prompt, sensible action.
Re:Money (Score:3, Informative)