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:3, Interesting)
Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting)
***Maybe if the US stopped wasting money on boondoggles like this, they wouldn't have had to cancel plans to return to the Moon.***
Naw. Returning to the moon, while feasible, is pointless, and the chances that you were going to get to Mars were pretty close to nil. That's my idea of a boondoggle ... if not yours. If you ask me, the US manned space program has been stuck on a wrong track for four decades. First, you learn to build cheap reliable transport -- which may take half a century or more. Then, and only then, do you start seriously putting people into space.
This test, on the other hand is a test of a DEFENSIVE system, not another tool for getting into trouble. As a result of stuff I did many years ago in another life, I actually knew something about this stuff at one time. I personally think that it is probably impossible to build an effective anti-missile system -- at least for use against significant opponents. It's simply cheaper for the guys building the missiles (them) to create and deploy countermeasures than it is for the defenders (us) to overcome the countermeasures.
But we don't know that for sure if that's true if we don't do our R&D. And that's what this is -- Research and Development.
What is a boondogle IMHO is the Bush administration initiated deployment of "operational" anti-missile systems that almost certainly would not work worth a damn if called into action. If you ask me (and no one did or will), that never even rose to the level of stupid.
Re:Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the number of major cities around the world that are near, or have grown around, their airports. Airports that have large numbers of passenger and cargo flights going in and out every day. Flights that, in many cases(discoverable with the aid of any flight-tracking website, or a pair of binoculars and some patience) travel over densely populated, economically important, and/or symbolic areas at an altitude where a nuclear air-burst would seriously ruin the population's day. And many others are situated such that such an overflight could be achieved with a few minutes of course correction at the end of an otherwise routine flight, which should be doable before any but the twitchiest air-defence forces realize something is up and do something about it.
Building missiles is, well, rocket science. Smuggling things, probing for weaknesses in routine shipping mechanisms, and compromising customs and inspection mechanisms in order to move contraband, on the other hand, are widely distributed skills, with large numbers of uses, available to virtually any population which doesn't consist wholly of subsistence mud farmers.
Even for major powers, though, covert "terrorist-style" strikes have their advantages. An ICBM, or even a shorter range missile or military aircraft, is generally visible even when not intercept-able. Having it traced back to you leaves you facing whatever second strike capability the opposition has, general world condemnation, and other unpleasant consequences.
If, on the other hand, the trail of the warhead disappears into a maze of shady import/export companies with probable-but-not-cleanly-demonstrable links to assorted intelligence agencies, criminals, and radicals of assorted stripe, with a trail of losses, "thefts" and whatnot, the country who has been hit is left in a lousy position. Massive public fear and anger, massive demands to Do Something, no clear target. Odds are, they'll end up doing something inchoate and fairly stupid, just for the sake of doing something.
(Addendum to addendum: The analogue for strategically vital ports is, of course, either one of the thousands of perfectly legitimate smallish craft that float around on various business, or one of those sneaky mini-subs that the drug war has driven the development of. There are a lot of people whose days would be ruined if a major container port or oil-tanker loading/offloading site were to be annihilated unexpectedly.)
Re:Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatively i will just find a dumb ass thats prepared to set his underwear or shoes on fire. Saves on getting a nuke too, or even working explosives.
Re:Too hard...let's give up. (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, one has to give up the idea that missile shield is somehow a weapon of defense. It is only useful if you plan to attack first.
The original cold-war idea of a missile shield is an attempt to block a retaliation strike. No shield would withstand a full-scale missile attack from Russia, but if you successfully attack them first, you may have to block only a handful Russian missiles. That's where the shield shines, it reduces retaliation damage. That's why Russia is so keen on building mobile launch sites -- truly defensive weapons for a nuclear conflict.
Now, I'm not saying that USA is actually planning to nuke Russia like they did in 1949, but US' attempts to place anti-missile systems in Czech Republic and in Poland make an awful lot of sense if you think about it like that (I believe the US military wants to have all the opportunities, including the one to attack, just in case).
Re:"fails" (Score:3, Interesting)
The story I heard is that an admiral told Clancy he wished Clancy would take something out of the book. Clancy offered to, and asked what it was, and the admiral told Clancy he couldn't tell him.
What I most admire about his writing is his ability to give detailed explanations, sometimes of technical things, while keeping the reader riveted to the page.