Slashdot Mirror
Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch
jangobongo writes "The US missile defense system suffered a serious setback today, just 2 weeks before it was scheduled to be activated. A target ICBM was launched from Alaska, but crashed harmlessly into the ocean as the interceptor missile based on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean shut itself down due to an unknown "anomaly". The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."
I read this article, and all I can think is, "Gosh, that target ICBM must be expensive."
Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program leading up to this test. Just let me worry about this ICBM lying on the bottom of the ocean.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I try and be non partisan here but I have a few questions: How much money is this system costing? How are we supposed to justify the cost in addition to the $100 Billion (approx 25 Billion more than Bush said we would need before the election) we are going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan next year? How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history: There has never before been a time in the history of the United States where during a time of war, we have had a tax cut. If our soldiers (Semper Fi) are paying the ultimate sacrifice (1,344 US Military and a significant number of British, Spanish and Iraqi troops in addition to unpublished numbers of private contractors), then we should at home be expected to sacrifice as well.
The performance of this program really does make one wonder what we are getting for our tax dollars and investment given all the dramatic failures this program has endured.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."
And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Ignoring for the moment the cost and the dubious necessity for such a system, what worries me more is:
'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly'
What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs...possibly in the NYC sanitation department.
The system 'shut itself down'...ergo, a failure condition (anomaly) must have existed. I fail to understand how the 'system' knew about a problem that was bad enough to shut itself down, yet somehow the folks running said system aren't able to discern exactly what that was? Hell, even Windows has 'event viewer' and kernel dumps.
This cash cow needs to have her neck severed.
Some have said: A shameful waste of American money. An inducement to start a new nuclear arms race. Another dangerous precedent for continued American unilateralism.
Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.
Meanwhile, tons of radioactive materials are left unsecured in the former USSR.
And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S. from invading their countries.
Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare? And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
English is easier said than done.
Prepare for the chants of "but it will after more development!"
Doesn't matter. It isn't needed. It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.
At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests. Financial war can be messy but at least you don't get this.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I think you're totally wrong. Iran knows full well that Israel has at least 200 nukes, all within range of Iran. Also, a nuclear strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation from the US. Iranians are not suicidal. Fact is, there is no 'rogue state' missile threat. That's a paranoid delusion created by the neocons.
Americans and Europeans are ignorant of their own history if they think they have treated the rest of the world respectfully and justly. American foreign policy for decades has been to exploit weaker countries, manipulate international politics to their advantage. This is documented; it was explicitly outlined by presidents.
England has spent most of its history conquering people, overthrowing cultures and screwing around in places they don't belong.
All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?
Despite what all the official propoganda says, this system is primarily an offensive weapon.
As others have pointed out - no two-bit dictator with a nuke is going to launch it at the US (or any of our allies that might be geographically closer) because they know it is a sure ticket to "liberation."
But, what the US military, and anyone who bothers to think about it for 30 seconds, does know is that if the US premptively liberates a country from its two-bit dictator, then any nuke that guy has at his disposal will be launched just as soon as he can hit that red button.
Ballistic missile defense is designed to neutralize that retaliatory threat and thus make it "safe" for the US to liberate a country like Iran or North Korea. That's the reason all the talk about how "it will never work" because of decoys and whatnot doesn't make an impact on development - they don't (plan to) need to deal with a well-funded and well-planned attack, only the last-minute, "if I'm going down, I'm going to take as many of them with me" kind of attack.
Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the US feels to throw its weight around, the better off the planet is in the long run.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is evidence of the Bush's administration new policy of testing and deplying at the same time. The idea is that when the government used to test before deployment, Boeing would actually have to create a working system in order to get the bulk of their money. But they would much prefer it if they start getting their money before their system even works.
There were several tests of the missile defense system some of them succesful some not, but there were certainly not enough tests to ensure that the system would be operational. Yet the DoD decided to go ahead with building the system before testing was complete.
Now we know there is some kind of problem but we can't make major design changes because the whole thing is already being build. Lets just hope it is a software glitch.
Now everyone knows that a system as complex as that cannot work on the first time, but that is why you do tersting before you actually start depoying. This way you can iron out the bugs before you spend several billion dollars on a bunch of hardware that might turn out to be useless.
it is always much much easier to throw a ballistic missile in the air than to intercept it. Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided.
... all you have to do is over load a particular sector.
and you dont have to triple strategic force
really all you have to do is cram more junk in a multiple warhead missile. Still relatively cheap compared to the effort required to detect all the junk and determine which piece of junk is a nuke and which is merely junk.
Americans and Europeans have just done what humans have done to each other throughout history, they were just better at it.
Before the Europeans took control of other countries were they all peaceful and loving? No, they were killing each other. The Spanish destroyed the Aztecs with the help other local tribes that the Aztecs had conquered. The world's largest empire was created and ruled by the Mongols. Just look at the history of Africa or Asia and you will find plenty of wars before the nasty white Europeans showed up.
Just look at Africa now and you will find plenty of fighting, often driven by tribal or religious differences.
It's trendy to blame the white guys for playing "conquer the other guys" better than everyone else, but everyone else was playing too.
The idea that people just want to live in peace requires a wilful ignorance of human history. Humans naturally form groups (tribes, nations whatever). A person may not want violence, but a society tends to fear the other, and groups of humans have always turned on each other. Fear, greed, anger, prejudice, remembrance of past wrongs real or otherwise. Hostility may not come from thin air, but it comes easily enough.
Then there is the issue of respecting others. To respect someone, they have to behave in a way that earns it. Should we have respected the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the way they treated people? Just chalk it up to cultural differences and ignore it?
In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.
Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.
Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.
So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?
The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.
Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.