In Historic Test, US Navy Shoots Down an Intercontinental Ballastic Missile (popularmechanics.com) 175
"In a historic test, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer shot down an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warhead aimed at a patch of ocean off the Hawaiian Islands," reports Popular Mechanics:
Once the missile launched, a network of sensors picked it up. The data was then handed off to the guided missile destroyer USS John Finn, which launched a SM-3 Block IIA interceptor. Just as the ICBM released a [simulated] nuclear warhead, the SM-3 released an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) designed to smash itself into the incoming warhead. Infrared cameras recorded a visible explosion as the EKV took out the simulated nuclear warhead.
Most types of ballistic missiles are basically small payload space rockets designed to boost nuclear warheads into low-Earth orbit. Once in space, the warhead coasts through orbit at several thousand miles per hour — the so-called midcourse phase when the warhead is midway between its launch point and target. The warhead then de-orbits into a trajectory that sends it plunging toward its target.
Meanwhile, space-based infrared sensors pick up the hot launch plume of the ballistic missile. A launch alert is passed on to ground-based long range radars, which search the skies for the incoming threat. As the missile falls away and the warhead continues on to its target, missile defense radars track the target, plot its trajectory, and alert any "shooters" in the flight path capable of shooting down the warhead. The shooter then launches an interceptor, and the EKV steers itself into the warhead path...
The article includes video of the test, and concludes that the ability to shoot down missiles is "terrible news for China" — while adding this "could very well cause Beijing to increase its nuclear arsenal."
Most types of ballistic missiles are basically small payload space rockets designed to boost nuclear warheads into low-Earth orbit. Once in space, the warhead coasts through orbit at several thousand miles per hour — the so-called midcourse phase when the warhead is midway between its launch point and target. The warhead then de-orbits into a trajectory that sends it plunging toward its target.
Meanwhile, space-based infrared sensors pick up the hot launch plume of the ballistic missile. A launch alert is passed on to ground-based long range radars, which search the skies for the incoming threat. As the missile falls away and the warhead continues on to its target, missile defense radars track the target, plot its trajectory, and alert any "shooters" in the flight path capable of shooting down the warhead. The shooter then launches an interceptor, and the EKV steers itself into the warhead path...
The article includes video of the test, and concludes that the ability to shoot down missiles is "terrible news for China" — while adding this "could very well cause Beijing to increase its nuclear arsenal."
"terrible news for China" (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? China would just put a giant H-bomb into a shipping container, one of the 40.000 that land in the US every day.
No need for rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they will use hypersonic missiles.
The US is the first to demonstrate this technology but everyone knew it was coming and assumed everyone else was working on it. Hypersonic missiles are the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, they will use hypersonic missiles.
You mean hydrosonic? Those are super-super.
Re: (Score:2)
A solution of what, precisely?
Re: (Score:2)
A shipping container would only be useful in a surprise attack.
I'd consider a US-China war an unlikely scenario. But if it happens it will likely be a conflict where actual warfare is limited to a certain area, e.g. the strait of Taiwan. Maybe the US could try to shoot down some of the non-nuclear Chinese missiles targeted at Taiwan in such a scenario (but I guess China would plenty of non-ballistic missiles to use instead). In such a scenario, there would be embargoes, so shipping containers were not an op
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ground level bursts are not nearly as effective, and it would be detected long before it could be set off.
Re: (Score:2)
We test shipping containers. They use both geiger counters and x-ray machines on them. Don't get all of them, but my understanding it has about a 30% chance of detonating miles out at sea.
Re: "terrible news for China" (Score:3)
That would be a preemptive attack, and is not something China would do, as they've repeatedly stated, and unlike other nations which are much more likely to be the people in mind with this demonstration.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its very unlikely China or Russia would attack the US with nuclear weapons. Why use 20th century technology when the 21st century attacks are so effective, and so much harder to stop.
The risk is "rogue states" that might only have a few missiles, and I suspect we check cargo from those states very carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
Ports are scanned, retard.
So they detonate the bomb while in port. That takes out a place to receive/ship goods, takes out the people who run the port as well as civilians nearby. Imagine the damage to the port of Los Angeles and its surrounding communities if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Now imagine if multiple ports on the West coast had the same thing done to them.
And this doesn't take into consideration the nuclear fallout which would spread inland thanks to the prevailing winds.
Re: (Score:2)
How would destroying Los Angeles benefit China?
America would massively retaliate and our arsenal is twenty times the size of China's.
The transit time from Ningbo to Long Beach is 21 days. So a container bomb would not be a responsive option in a crisis.
In a crisis, such as a military confrontation over Taiwan, shipping between America and China would likely be halted.
The point of nukes is to deter and intimidate. If you ever have to actually use them, they have failed.
Re: (Score:3)
While lauded as some sort of "achievement", this is actually a major destabilizing factor, underlined by the sad fact that there are 70+ million US citizens who will stand behind any populist idiot, no matter how dangerous, as long as he scratches their patriotism or matriotism and promises to fuck up those bad and misbehaving foreign enemies.
It is not that much of a destabilizing factor. First-tier nuclear power Russia has an overwhelmingly large arsenal, capable of overwhelming any defence system. Second-tier nuclear powers UK, France, and India have submarine-based missiles; this defence system will not work against those.
This is primarily a defence that works against third-tier nuclear powers like North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel. Pakistan is actively pursuing nuclear submarines to get second-tier status, North Korea will do everything they
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Ports are scanned, retard."
You idiot, they are detonated a couple of hundred yards away from the port, H-Bombs just like water to produce a better fallout.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ports are scanned, retard."
You idiot, they are detonated a couple of hundred yards away from the port, H-Bombs just like water to produce a better fallout.
And what's that supposed to do for a country which is economically dependent on exports that go all over the world in shipping containers?
Some people are so keen to imagine comic-book villains that they miss basic self-interest in other humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would, in the words of the summary, this be “terrible news for China” in the first place? Declaring all out war on the US and launching ICBMs would impact Chinas trade with the US just as much as detonating a smuggled nuke on a containership at a US port...
If the US and China is going to war, trade between the two is going to be devastated anyway - China removing the ability for the US to trade with the rest of the world by nuking their deep water ports (perhaps with high fallout bombs
Re: (Score:2)
No one would care about "such restrictions".
The sooner the US are wiped from the planet, the better.
Unfortunately: they have nukes, so not going to happen any time soon.
Re:"terrible news for China" (Score:5, Funny)
Ports are scanned
I, too, can use nmap.
I wonder how effective this system is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how effective this system is? (Score:5, Informative)
This was more than 15 years ago and the Patriot missile afaik wasn't designed for the task, but it only happened to work to some effect that it became major news. The Patriot's initial function was against air crafts.
Now the tech has advanced and is being designed specifically for this task. The SM-3 is even capable of reaching low Earth orbits. So I'm sure one can expect a bit more from it than from a Patriot missile in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. The anti-missile capability was achieved by cobbling a couple of systems. The Patriot SAM plus a more capable missile acquisition and tracking system. The software patch that allowed the two systems to talk together didn't sync their clocks perfectly. Over time, an error would accumulate, resulting in the tracking system's handing off incorrect coordinates to the missile battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I was unaware that the Patriot's main goal was for aircraft. That would explain a lot then.
It will probably surprise you, but pretty much all anti-aircraft missile sets were designed to shoot down aircraft, not just Patriot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This was a drone swarm attack, which is not what the Patriot was designed for. If you look at the other attacks, it appears all were intercepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Everything about what you said is false: Saudi Arabia didn't use the modern system; they did shoot down the incoming missiles in the cases where they fired the patriot missiles at the correct range. The ones where they waited too long because they didn't trust their shitty radar maintenance, those ones missed, or hit the main rocket stage after the warhead had separated. The older models don't have the software to detect separation and switch the target to the warhead; that's the system that was being teste
Re: (Score:2)
"The base in Iraq did not attempt to intercept the incoming rocket barrage; each Patriot missiles is worth more than a dozen of those rockets." Ok, but isn't that sort of missing the point? A bullet is pretty cheap, but if I had an expensive way of deflecting one coming at me, I'd sure as heck try.
Re: (Score:2)
Patriots went through several redesigns after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:I wonder how effective this system is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patriot was the first deployed weapon in a series that has culminated in the SM-3.
Current model Patriot missiles shoot down scuds no problem, and in fact also shoot down fighter jets.
So many people don't understand what this technology is, what they've done with it, how many different surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles systems have converged. Our current air-to-air missiles can hit orbital targets when fired from the flight ceiling of our current jets. Our standard surface-to-air protection systems have merged with our ballistic missile defense systems.
Imagine a future that exists. A future where we didn't burn the planet down to the rock. It is perhaps possible.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:great, but its not going to be very helpful. (Score:4, Interesting)
Come on, ABM systems are effective against enemies that have small payload barely suborbital rockets and are too dumb to use fishing boats or shipping containers as delivery vehicles. That's a large and important group!
Re: great, but its not going to be very helpful. (Score:2)
Fishing boats and cargo containers as delivery systems preclude the most damaging effects of nuclear devices: air burst detonations. When you set one off at ground level, the earth absorbs most of the energy. Terrain features such as small hills and large man made structures such as those surrounding ports have a tremendous effect on directing the explosive energy up and away from doing substantial, widespread damage. The infrared flash is largely mitigated to a very small area--to those who are right at gr
Re: (Score:3)
Wiping out the ports of a port city is ecological devastation. Doing so against a city that relies on dikes and sea walls, such as New Orleaans, could channel the artificial tsunami up the river and destroy the ability to navigate the river for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, you'd maybe wipe out a chunk of a large port, handicapping it for a while. You'd not be wiping out the surrounding port city.
Try again. This article [battleswarmblog.com] attempts to estimate the explosive force of the Beirut explosion. Using a best guess estimate based on observable damage, the author comes up with a 2.75 KT explosion.
The port is now fully operational [middleeastmonitor.com] according to the director of the port, after three weeks of repairs. However, they can only receive goods, not store them, because their warehouses w
Re: (Score:2)
Except I suggest you watch the video of the explosion. It was in large tall storage towers, move it back to the ground and the effect to the surrounding area would have been lower.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that any part of the city not affected by immediately fatal radiation or blast would be completely unaffected. But right off the bat dealing with the sheer number of severely injured survivors would be a crushing economic and social burden. If you choose your spot carefully you can deal devastating damage to that city's economy.
There's maybe ten of fifteen square blocks of Lower Manhattan which destroying would not only bring the city to its knees, it would deal a devastating economic blow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
too dumb to use fishing boats or shipping containers as delivery vehicles
Now learn about radiation, how far away it can be detected, and if shielding actually makes it invisible, or just increases the time term on the detector. Because if it only increases the time term on the detector, then shipping might be easily monitored from space for nuclear material.
Also, the displacement of a ship is visible from space, and all shipping is automatically tracked by US government computer systems. When you load a container ship with cargo, the US government knows how much each container w
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is meant to be used against Russia or China.
Shooting down ICBMs (or other long-range ballistic missiles) could still be very useful when the USA attack e.g. North Korea, Iran or Pakistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was coming here to make the same comment (except I didn't think of Iran or Pakistan). The comments about China are, IMO, just missing the point; sort of like the negative comments about Reagan's Star Wars missed the point. Sure, no one knew whether it would actually work, but the Soviets were really afraid it would.
Re: (Score:2)
with the impending addition of hypersonics, its hard to conceive of a meaningful kill strategy at all.
It defends against any insane North Korean leader. It will be a long time before they can surpass this technology.
As for China or Russia, we really really don't want a war with them in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
China might not even have enough warheads to get past the missile defenses we sold to Japan.
The missile system that was featured in this successful test is the one we already have widely deployed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:great, but its not going to be very helpful. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of what the TFA and TFS say, this is not aimed at China. It's aimed at North Korea, and at other countries like it.
I did missile defense software for 8 years in the early 2000s. Everyone in the business knew that Russia and China could overwhelm point defenses. This sort of thing is to defend against a "rogue nation".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did. I no longer do so, and I am certainly not discussing anything classified.
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming that the MIRV warhead has already deployed. I think the intent here is to strike an ICBM earlier in transit, before MIRV deployment.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that the system was somehow meant to get ahead in the global weapons race against Russia and China. It isn't. It is meant to deter smaller countries from trying anything stupid. Hence was it launched from a ship, which as you know, makes the missile deployable anywhere in the world where there could be another conflict occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that the system was somehow meant to get ahead in the global weapons race against Russia and China.
It says it right there in the summary -- "terrible news for China."
Now maybe the summary is wrong, but attack the summarizer, not the comment poster.
Re: (Score:2)
It says it right there in the summary -- "terrible news for China."
Did it also say that you should believe anything without question? Because I didn't see it and yet did you do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in the summary attributed to Popular Mechanics. I'm sure they're a reliable source for international politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Each MIRV warhead costs a lot more money than an SM-3, though. Your idea that 16 is an insurmountable number ignores this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
It was conceived and then terminated, most likely in favor of directed energy weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.defense.gov/Explor... [defense.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it feasible to *not* try to hit a hypersonic, but to throw debris in its projected path?
Re: (Score:2)
You might call them Brilliant Pebbles.
Re: (Score:2)
I figure it's mostly intended to guard against something that Kimjong or Iran might throw around in the next 10-20 years. Doesn't look like they have MIRVs yet, at least not reliable ones, and even those can be countered to an extent (you just need to have 10x more interceptors than they have MIRVs). Hypersonics are going to be a ways out for those guys still.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so meaningless, but not so necessary once direct energy weapons are in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.defense.gov/Explor... [defense.gov]
Yup, the fucker again (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [wikipedia.org] was ended in 2002 when the George W. Bush administration withdrew from it. This action, nearly 20 years ago, has nothing to do with Trump.
Terrible news for North Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
They are far more unstable than China despite the buddy-buddy relationship that Trumpo has with Kim. PErhaps that will be where Donald will hide away from the SDNY Tax investigation after 20th Jan?
Re: (Score:3)
They are far more unstable than China despite the buddy-buddy relationship that Trumpo has with Kim. PErhaps that will be where Donald will hide away from the SDNY Tax investigation after 20th Jan?
Do you think North Korea and China are separate issues? Even though North Korea isn't China's lapdog (and they really don't want to be), foreign policy with the two countries is tied together. Getting cozy with North Korea irritates China because they don't want a US ally (or friendly) on their border. Threatening North Korea irritates China because destabilizing it would flood them with refugees and is also a show of power against China.
I've been reading about demonstrations like this (Score:3)
for decades now. It almost always turns out to be under highly unrealistic conditions. Sometimes for politically high stakes demonstrations (e.g. Reagan's Star Wars) the tests are tweaked to give impressive looking visuals.
Not to minimize the technical achievement here, nobody should take this as proof that the US can shoot down a real-life ICBM launch.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1984, SDI fed Congress faked test data to secure funding (source [independent.co.uk]).
Name (Score:2)
That's an impressive feat, but nobody will pay any attention unless it gets a much better name. Reporters don't like talking about a "SM-3 Block IIA interceptor." If you want Congress to fund this, you need a name like, "Dragonfire Missile Killer."
I'm only half serious, but there's a reason we talk about "Patriot Missiles" and not "MIM-104C missiles."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump had won this election, I expect the SoD would have decreed it be named the "Trump Great American Defender" or something like that...
Re: (Score:2)
How about the "Trump Ultimate Retaliatory Destructor"?
Re: (Score:2)
That's an impressive feat, but nobody will pay any attention unless it gets a much better name. Reporters don't like talking about a "SM-3 Block IIA interceptor." If you want Congress to fund this, you need a name like, "Dragonfire Missile Killer."
I'm only half serious, but there's a reason we talk about "Patriot Missiles" and not "MIM-104C missiles."
I feel like there is a missed opportunity here to call it the Yellowfin Early Entry Terminator, or YEET Missile.
The first test was in 1988... (Score:3)
But it shot down an Airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
A single warhead... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That was planned for deployment many years ago, but terminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Does it have the appropriate StarCraft effects? (Score:2)
Does nobody care about the ICBM? (Score:2)
The ICBM was simply trying to make it across continents and the mean interceptor blocked it.
Re: (Score:2)
Should test it out on North Korea (Score:2)
It will not be long before they begin firing 'test' missiles over Japan again. It's not like Trump ever got any real commitment done with them.
Re: Should test it out on North Korea (Score:2)
.... Or give the system to North Korea so they aren't so threatened by the USA in the first place.
Headline unclear (Score:2)
Not an orbit (Score:5, Informative)
Most types of ballistic missiles are basically small payload space rockets designed to boost nuclear warheads into low-Earth orbit. Once in space, the warhead coasts through orbit at several thousand miles per hour — the so-called midcourse phase when the warhead is midway between its launch point and target. The warhead then de-orbits into a trajectory that sends it plunging toward its target.
Unless I missed something, this is not how ICBM work. ICBM follow a suborbital trajectory, going high into space and falling back to earth. It is just free fall, no de-orbiting.
What is describe here is FOBS [wikipedia.org]. A delivery method developed by the Soviet Union in the 60s but now decommissioned, and also banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you call it ICBM or FOBS doesn't matter much, I think. In both cases, most of the trajectory is a kind of orbit that does not require (much) additional propulsion, which implies 8 km/s velocity (18,000 mph). In both cases it's very hard for a counter-missile to catch up and then match two 8 km/s trajectories such that they intercept with 1 m accuracy in space and 1 ms in time.
"Ballastic Missile"? (Score:2)
What good is shooting down a missile that's just dead weight?
China... (Score:2)
> while adding this "could very well cause Beijing to increase its nuclear arsenal."
Couldn't they just develop the same technology, and prevent the US nuclear attack from reaching China? That's much more in line with their purely defensive and deterrent intentions, as they've repeatedly stated.
Geodetic mapping (Score:2)
Good, now make it available to everybody. (Score:2)
In the end, making icbms useless is probably a good thing for the entire world and the capability should be made available world wide so they can be decommissioned and the risk of launching them by mistake is removed from the world.
That is, unless the USA wants to leverage this in an aggressive manner... They wouldn't do that, would they?
Status-6 "Kanyon" (Score:2)
This is why the Russians developed the Status-6 system. Eventually the US will work out how to shoot down warheads so they designed a nuclear powered and armed torpedo system that cruises quietly into a port and then detonates its warhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I don't know where the Chinese are up to in regard to hypersonic *maneuvering* warheads but the Russians are certainly all over it.
The takeaway is that no one's giving up their advantage. The US works
Presumably in real life would use a nuke (Score:2)
The direct kinetic kill capability is impressive, but I would assume that in a real intercept a nuclear armed version would be used. There is good reason to think neutron bombs were developed to intercept in coming missiles (the neutrons travel quickly and a near critical warhead is very sensitive to neutrons).
At least I hope this is the case, since a nuclear armed interceptor would have a much higher probability of success.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reagan's Star Wars program (Score:4, Informative)
It was probably a mix of both.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, it wasn't that smart. It cost US taxpayers about 30 billion 1980 dollars.
The Soviets initially suspected that the thing was a hoax, but they responded it to it by carrying on something there were doing anyway: increasing the size of their arsenal and throw weight of their missiles. That was not something likely to bankrupt them. By the time START was negotiated the Soviets had established a massive throw-weight advantage over the US.
If you actually war game the various scenarios in which SDI might ha
Re: (Score:2)
"Nah, it wasn't that smart. It cost US taxpayers about 30 billion 1980 dollars."
And helped bring about the end of the Cold War, which cost how much?
Re: (Score:3)
SDI did not bring about the end of the Cold War. That's a myth. The Soviets did not spend themselves into oblivion responding to SDI; it would be obvious that they were destroying their own economy and why would they do that?
What trashed the Soviet economy was something they had no control over: the oil glut of the early 1980s. During the OPEC oil embargo of the 70s, the Soviets took advantage to become the world's largest exporter of petroleum. When Saudi Arabia turned the spigot back on Soviet reven
Re:Reagan's Star Wars program (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, I said that it helped. And there's plenty of articles that you can find that will agree with that, though others will disagree. I'm in no way refuting the fact that oil was also a factor. But, your claim that the Soviets ignored SDI is false.
https://www.politico.com/magaz... [politico.com]
FWIW, I'm a Cold War vet, who spent much of my time in SAC HQ command post, and Germany with USAF ESC during the fall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That was the result. Ronald Reagan was definitely suffering from Alzheimer's at that point, and it frightened them. Many of the "defense" systems, such as the atom-bomb primed X-ray laser project, were far more useful as orbital weapons against stable ground targets. Once orbited, they'd be a constant and obvious temptation.
Re:Reagan's Star Wars program (Score:5, Interesting)
RitchCraft confessed:
I thought I read somewhere that the Star Wars program was actually a misinformation campaign designed to confuse the then USSR into believing we were actually developing this technology, fake videos and all. The idea was to help the demise of the USSR by bankrupting them.
In his autobiography, George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State from 1982 to 1988, asserted the Strategic Defense Initiative [wikipedia.org] was mostly a hoax, designed to persuade the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself trying to defend against the orbital defense network they dubbed Star Wars (a label to which George Lucas vehemently objected, btw). He's repeated that claim in public speeches he's made to the Commonwealth Club and in other venues ever since.
Building a thermonuclear arsenal large enough to overwhelm the Star Wars orbital defense system may have contributed extra torque to the USSR's tottering economy, but its collapse was principally due to its failed venture into Afghanistan. That cost the Soviets many billions of dollars - but it was the blow to its prestige of retreating with its tail between its legs, combined with the large number of corrosively-bitter veterans of the campaign loudly and longly complaining about their incompetent commanders and the waste of so many of their comrades' lives that actually caused its fall ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're welcome.
Apropos of which, I once witnessed Jerry Pournelle sucker punch a guy for insisting that SDI was a fraud, and the "X-ray laser" technology that Edward Teller was promising was technically infeasible for decades to come - which, in point of fact, it was. (Pournelle was then on the White House's SDI Advisory Panel, and he was as gung-ho as they get about it..)
Then again, Pournelle always was a combative drunk with a way overdeveloped (and profoundly undeserved) sense of privilege. And a woefull
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly to fruition -- for that you'd have to field an effective system, not perform a demonstration.
The reason SDI was a crock was that the Soviets had a simple countermeasure to preserve their first strike capability: make that strike *bigger*. The other thing that would make sense is shift that strike form counterforce targets to countervalue. A first strike that only destroyed four or five US missile silos would be ineffective, but one that destroyed four or five US cities would be devastating.
SDI was
Re: (Score:2)
"Today we still couldn't build something to defend from the Russians or the Chinese. "
Except that we are.
https://www.nationaldefensemag... [nationalde...gazine.org]
Unfortunately...expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I'm a retired defense contractor. Yes, there's plenty of pork in the defense industry, as in all government contracting. All that said, our military weaponry still manages to make everyone else's look shabby. And btw, that $1B is just an annual budget. Those kinds of weapons have been in development for years.
Re: (Score:2)
That's theater defense stuff. It's not designed to provide an impenetrable shield to the entire continental US against a massive ICBM strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is your friend
https://nationalinterest.org/b... [nationalinterest.org]
https://www.defenseone.com/tec... [defenseone.com]