US Missile Defense test fails in Alaska, first in over 2 yrs, missile can't even follow script

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If we can somehow create an Missile Defense System that is 100% accurate then we can use our Nuclear Arsenal without fear of retaliation.

We are nowhere near that capacity. All the current setup would do is protect us from a small strike(china,nk maybe)

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

Worked as planned??

With homing beacons on the missles:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...ly-dec01/nmd_7-16.html

"MARGARET WARNER: All right. But going back to this weekend's test, so how much help did the interceptor, the kill vehicle, have in homing in on the target?

PHILIP COYLE: The kill vehicle is guided early on by a satellite system and by radars on the ground, and then by a radar beacon, which is actually on the target. This is a necessary thing at this point because we don't have a forward-based radar such as you would have in a real operational situation. But that radar beacon obviously having an active beacon on the target is not something you would have in a realistic war-time situation."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

Worked as planned??

With homing beacons on the missles:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...ly-dec01/nmd_7-16.html

"MARGARET WARNER: All right. But going back to this weekend's test, so how much help did the interceptor, the kill vehicle, have in homing in on the target?

PHILIP COYLE: The kill vehicle is guided early on by a satellite system and by radars on the ground, and then by a radar beacon, which is actually on the target. This is a necessary thing at this point because we don't have a forward-based radar such as you would have in a real operational situation. But that radar beacon obviously having an active beacon on the target is not something you would have in a realistic war-time situation."

Yes, but the tests also got more difficult as time passed, including decoys.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow. Something didn't go right in a highly complex ssytem during a T&A phase.

May as well stick a fork in it now. It's obviously a total failure.

Yup. Let's give up on anything that is difficult or that has problems in development stages.

If it's so worthwhile, then lets raise taxes to pay for it then instead of borrowing more money?

OK.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yup. Let's give up on anything that is difficult or that has problems in development stages.

if a beeline of nukes can stop an incoming nuke, then there is no need to waste $250 billion. the $250 billion would be better spent on a colony on mars or paying down debt (which is a greater threat to natl security)

or finding osama

Got any links about the beeline of nukes? I mean even you seem to acknowledge a major fault with it.

 

[cumhail]

Where is Lt. Col. James Burton when we need him?

cumhail

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

if we were serious about stopping nukes, we would have much tougher border inspections to the point where only a few hundred make it across each day (as opposed to 6,000/day), even including fresh off the boats. and it probably wouldn't even cost anywhere near $250 billion. the net effect of this is that we would actually win the war on drugs, even if unintentionally

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

a working missile shield that actually downs a [single] nuke removes our capability for retaliating with a nuke. because then we would not be able to justify a largescale loss of civilian lives because technically we are no longer under imminent threat (assuming we can shoot down ever [singular] incoming nuke one at a time)

not to mention the diplomatic ramifications of voiding the ABM treaties

We have radiation detectors all along the border (and satalites that do the same) and in airports/ports that inspect the stuff. You don't have to scan all the cargo to find a nuclear weapon, it'll pick up the radiation being emitted.

Is that why one of the news stations (ABC I think) smuggled two samples of uranium into the country, one via the east coast and one via the west coast, with no detection?

Click me!

Oh, and just because this story is over a year old doesn't mean much, as nothing in those ports have changed yet.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would it actually have to work? With imaginary "threats", it seems pretty obvious that defenses having imaginary effectiveness would be quite sufficient.

I strongly suspect that the contractors work know it'll never work, but that won't stop 'em from sucking every dollar possible from that govt teat that CsG so often references...

Can you spell pork? can you spell manipulation and fearmongering?

Hoo-eee! Just look at them pigs slurpin' down your tax dollars!

 

[f95toli]

Neither uranium-235 nor plutonium -239 emitts large doses of radioactivity and as long as you do not collect too much material in the same place (which would make it go critical) you can actually handle both materials without much safety equipment.

I think it would be very difficult to detect radiation from for example uranium if it was sealed in a lead container with thick walls, you only have to make sure that the level of radiation outside the container is lower than the natural background and it can not be detected.
And for the same reason there is no way to detect radioactive material from orbit, even if we could make detectors that were that sensitive the signal would be much weaker than the natural background radiation coming from the ground.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

All were failures actually, but some were faked to look like successes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

if we were serious about stopping nukes, we would have much tougher border inspections to the point where only a few hundred make it across each day (as opposed to 6,000/day), even including fresh off the boats. and it probably wouldn't even cost anywhere near $250 billion. the net effect of this is that we would actually win the war on drugs, even if unintentionally

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

a working missile shield that actually downs a [single] nuke removes our capability for retaliating with a nuke. because then we would not be able to justify a largescale loss of civilian lives because technically we are no longer under imminent threat (assuming we can shoot down ever [singular] incoming nuke one at a time)

not to mention the diplomatic ramifications of voiding the ABM treaties

We have radiation detectors all along the border (and satalites that do the same) and in airports/ports that inspect the stuff. You don't have to scan all the cargo to find a nuclear weapon, it'll pick up the radiation being emitted.

Is that why one of the news stations (ABC I think) smuggled two samples of uranium into the country, one via the east coast and one via the west coast, with no detection?

Click me!

Oh, and just because this story is over a year old doesn't mean much, as nothing in those ports have changed yet.

This was depleted uranium. It is barely radioactive and very easy to sheild.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

All were failures actually, but some were faked to look like successes.

Feel free to back up these claims.

 

[villager]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

All were failures actually, but some were faked to look like successes.

Didnt the missiles even have a homing signal and they still missed them? Just remember missile defense was the Bush priority before 9/11 and it is still not working after decades of research.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: villager

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
u have to remember the most important thing about this missile defense system

there have been an EXTREMELY limited number of tests done, and on most of them AFAIK, it has failed. yet we continue without any changes, or further testing

Where do you get this info from that we continue without changes or further testing?

Actually where did he get that most were failures. Most worked as planned.

All were failures actually, but some were faked to look like successes.

Didnt the missiles even have a homing signal and they still missed them? Just remember missile defense was the Bush priority before 9/11 and it is still not working after decades of research.

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Spend more on weapons systems and war, less on people and cut revenue.

Staggering policy.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
Howwever most of the tests have been successful. I would doubt that any problems found would go unfixed.

From the original link: "In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles."

So that makes 9 tests with 5 successes. But the successes were in situations which were much more simple to succeed at than in real life. At our current technology, all 5 successes would have been failures if they didn't know ahead of time exactly the path of the missle and exactly when it would be launched. In war, we won't know that information. So at our current technology in war, we would have missed 9 out of 9. And remember they already started building this stuff - using technology from a few years back. Thus what we will build WON'T have corrected all of the problems.

 

[teiresias]

"All Things Considered" had an interview with a critic of the program on the show yesterday. You can find the link to the interview at:

Missile Defense Interview

 

[Genx87]

War on poverty has failed miserably and costed us trillions. Dont see you complaining about now do we?

 

[Genx87]

seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

Do you have any idea on what the critical mass is of a nuclear weapon? This wont change and it is something that somebody cant carry around in a suitcase.

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

And the millions we are spending on upgrading humvees is also using your logic.

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

Probably?!?!? So let me get this straight from a liberals perspective.

You think detonating 9 nuclear weapons to take out one is a better idea than the current one? ROTFLMAO!

Lets just make sure your house is downwind from the fallout and we can call it even.

Is that why one of the news stations (ABC I think) smuggled two samples of uranium into the country, one via the east coast and one via the west coast, with no detection?

Depleted uranium? I am pretty sure nuclear weapons require enriched uranium and a lot more than 7 kilos of it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

if we were serious about stopping nukes, we would have much tougher border inspections to the point where only a few hundred make it across each day (as opposed to 6,000/day), even including fresh off the boats. and it probably wouldn't even cost anywhere near $250 billion. the net effect of this is that we would actually win the war on drugs, even if unintentionally

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

a working missile shield that actually downs a [single] nuke removes our capability for retaliating with a nuke. because then we would not be able to justify a largescale loss of civilian lives because technically we are no longer under imminent threat (assuming we can shoot down ever [singular] incoming nuke one at a time)

not to mention the diplomatic ramifications of voiding the ABM treaties

We have radiation detectors all along the border (and satalites that do the same) and in airports/ports that inspect the stuff. You don't have to scan all the cargo to find a nuclear weapon, it'll pick up the radiation being emitted.

There aren't any detectors in ports and airports. The vast majority of cargo still goes uninspected over three years after September 11, 2001.

What about a suitcase bomb in a lead lined 80,000 pound uninspected shipping container? Would radiation detectors distinguish it from background radiation?

We're wasting $250 billion on defense contractor welfare payments while our borders are left unprotected. Just like we were wasting time with NMD while al Qaeda planned and executed the most successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our history. Bush is selling NMD because the defense industry can make billions of dollars off of NMD. They don't guard the borders because it's labor intensive and the highest expenditure is payroll. And in this administration profits are more important than people.

 

[Genx87]

We're wasting $250 billion on defense contractor welfare payments while our borders are left unprotected. Just like we were wasting time with NMD while al Qaeda planned and executed the most successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our history. Bush is selling NMD because the defense industry can make billions of dollars off of NMD. They don't guard the borders because it's labor intensive and the highest expenditure is payroll. And in this administration profits are more important than people.

It is this simplistic 1 ave approach that got us into the situation we are in now. 10 years from now if we dump this and a rogue nation hits a few of our cities. You will be back here pissing and moaning the govt didnt do enough to stop this. Provided of course you arent one of the millions who perish in a nuclear inferno.

4 years ago we were on cold war mode ready to fight a global war on terror. Now you want to go to a global war on terror and forget a traditional mode. We need to work on projects like these because there will be a real threat over the next 50 years as smaller nations like Iran, N. Korea and a large nation like China gain the capability to hit the US mainland with devices using intercontinental balistic missiles.

After the fact is the wrong time to devlope such a system. Just like 3 years after the WTC attacks is the wrong time to be rebuilding our intelligence infrastructure. It should have been done 15 years ago with the death of the coldwar.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Genx87

seeing as how 95% of cargo goes uninspected and they could bring it in a suitcase

Do you have any idea on what the critical mass is of a nuclear weapon? This wont change and it is something that somebody cant carry around in a suitcase.

However, the $250 billion figure is clearly a subsidy for Raytheon/Lockheed

And the millions we are spending on upgrading humvees is also using your logic.

a nuke has a reasonable radius of detonation to the point where we could probably nuke an incoming nuke, using a 3x3 grid of nukes, or a 3x1 line of nukes. plus it instantly gives us the chance for nuclear retaliation via mutual destruction

Probably?!?!? So let me get this straight from a liberals perspective.

You think detonating 9 nuclear weapons to take out one is a better idea than the current one? ROTFLMAO!

Lets just make sure your house is downwind from the fallout and we can call it even.

Is that why one of the news stations (ABC I think) smuggled two samples of uranium into the country, one via the east coast and one via the west coast, with no detection?

Depleted uranium? I am pretty sure nuclear weapons require enriched uranium and a lot more than 7 kilos of it.

You need about 10 kg of U235 or Pu239 to make a bomb (probably less, 7 kg is probably not a bad guess), this means you need to handle a sphere of about 10 cm in diameter.

I got this number from "Introductary Nuclear Physics" by Krane, .

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

We're wasting $250 billion on defense contractor welfare payments while our borders are left unprotected. Just like we were wasting time with NMD while al Qaeda planned and executed the most successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our history. Bush is selling NMD because the defense industry can make billions of dollars off of NMD. They don't guard the borders because it's labor intensive and the highest expenditure is payroll. And in this administration profits are more important than people.

It is this simplistic 1 ave approach that got us into the situation we are in now. 10 years from now if we dump this and a rogue nation hits a few of our cities. You will be back here pissing and moaning the govt didnt do enough to stop this. Provided of course you arent one of the millions who perish in a nuclear inferno.

4 years ago we were on cold war mode ready to fight a global war on terror. Now you want to go to a global war on terror and forget a traditional mode. We need to work on projects like these because there will be a real threat over the next 50 years as smaller nations like Iran, N. Korea and a large nation like China gain the capability to hit the US mainland with devices using intercontinental balistic missiles.

After the fact is the wrong time to devlope such a system. Just like 3 years after the WTC attacks is the wrong time to be rebuilding our intelligence infrastructure. It should have been done 15 years ago with the death of the coldwar.

Excuses, excuses. The time to improve border security is now and address the threat of global nuclear terrorism is now. This isn't the time to throw away billions of a missile defense system that is never going to work at sufficient levels to defend against incoming missiles while we ignore the much more immediate threat of nuclear terrorism.

Union of Concerned Scientists, Global Security, Missile Defense

P.S. I find your characterization -- quote, "pissing and moaning" -- innacurate and offensive.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Do you have any idea on what the critical mass is of a nuclear weapon? This wont change and it is something that somebody cant carry around in a suitcase.

if you can fit half a dozen missiles in a single shipping container, you can fit a single nuke or single dirty bomb.

so in you opinion anybody who doesn't agree with the administration is automatically a liberal? less than 12 months ago i was a republican until i saw the truth. what i am against is wasteful spending.

You think detonating 9 nuclear weapons to take out one is a better idea than the current one? ROTFLMAO!

that is why i said, republicans don't care about the ocean anyway. there are no houses there, hence they went about testing atomic bombs on atoll island and such for decades. its really the dolphins and 3 eyed fish that pay the price.

but what is more probably and cost effective? to hit a missile with another missile both travelling 5,000-10,000MPH. or to nuke a missile where the nuke only has to be within a mile or quarter mile radius. by far 1000x easier.

Lets just make sure your house is downwind from the fallout and we can call it even.

i don't have a house floating in the middle of the ocean.

the supposed scenario entails that a single incoming missile is a nuke, therefore if it hits, we have nuclear fallout over our heads vs having nuclear fallout in the middle of the ocean, much like an atomic test.

to top it off, russians say they already have a missile that can defeat NMD, (most likely by zig zagging). hence the only way to destroy that is to nuke it. NK can figure out how to make their missiles zip zag if they can figure out how to make nukes

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

A couple missed. The last 4 or 5 tests worked.

Do you have any links for these successful tests??

link from the recent test

The first test of a national missile defense system in two years failed Wednesday when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground.

So the last test was sometime in 2002. Where are these 4 or 5 tests in 2001 and 2002 that were:
a) more complex than the test in 2001 where everything had a homing beacon
b) successful - by any objective standard.
Note the pentagon claims this most recent test was a not a "setback of any kind," despite the fact that nothing worked.