Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the get-lazlo-to-help-you-build-a-laser dept.

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."

9 of 1,039 comments (clear)

  1. Is it worth it? by Thunderstruck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Is it worth it? by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "How about the money "wasted" on SCRAM jet technology?"

      SCRAM jet technology actually has uses. Missile defense systems on the other hand, for all their marketability, are trivial to beat. I can think of at least four methods to render them useless offhand, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

      But while they're useless against an enemy, they're excellent for transferring taxpayer money into desired pockets. Guess why monkeyman and his merry band of chimps like them?

      A wasted ICBM is just a christmas bonus for the contractors.

    2. Re:Is it worth it? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!
      If I carbombed civilian targets because the Russian military targets were too well fortified... yeah. I'd be a terrorist. I like to think that, instead of killing my own countrymen, I'd use sniper tactics against military officers instead.

      I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist.
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:Is it worth it? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You cannot put a price on American lives.
      Oh, really?
      how much would you be willing for your taxes (or the cost of your new car) to rise by to prevent 100 of the 42,643 annual deaths on US roads? (Figure for 2003, source.) 500 of them? 1000? 10,000? Unless your answer is "unlimited", you've just put a price on American lives.
      Or, consider that courts award compensation in wrongful death suits. That is, by its very nature, putting a price of people's lives.

      Just because you don't like to think you put a price on people's lives, doesn't mean you (or rather, your society) doesn't do it.
    4. Re:Is it worth it? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Philip Coyle, the man who used to be in charge of weapons testing, specifically pinned the blame for this failure on Bush last night. See, everyone who worked on this knew it didn't work. That's why Clinton decided against going forward with it - he wanted to wait for more testing to occur and let his predecessor decide on its fate based on the results.

      Bush, however, didn't just call for more testing, he called for implementation. Back in 2002, he promised to have the beginnings of the system - the system everyone (except him, apparently) knows doesn't work right - in place by the end of this year. As a result, testing halted while production pieces were rolled out. Now, we see that not only do the revised test systems not work, the production pieces that are already in place almost certainly don't work (actually, this is pretty much a forgone conclusion because they never DID work and now they STILL DON'T work).

      So, yes, this is directly Bush's fault because he halted development in favor of putting a known-useless system into production. If you are a Bush supporter, I fully expect a bizarre, otherwordly excuse that only a mentally retard lemur would believe to now emanate from your general direction.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  2. And so... by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  3. Re:Some perspective is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors

    Just like there is no alquaeda in Iraq, there will be no falling ICBM.

    It will come through the ports on a container ship that isn't inspected and detonate somwhere down the road.

    So you're right, it will be immune to missile interception.

    Meanwhile countless americans don't have healthcare.

    This is "morals and values" for you folks.

  4. Probably a Good Thing by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:How? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Stop thinking of the government like it's a private citizen with a credit card. That analogy leads you to conclusions that aren't just wrong, they're really, really wrong.

    You're right. Unlike a credit card, the government can just print its way out of any economic dilemma. It's a great strategy, and I'm glad we're finally using it. Just look at the what the Weimar Republic was able to achieve!