Slashdot Mirror
US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success
An anonymous reader writes to mention that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and Lockheed Martin recently reported success in the test flight of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system. "THAAD is designed to defend U.S. troops, allied forces, population centers and critical infrastructure against short- to intermediate range ballistic missiles. THAAD comprises a fire control and communications system, interceptors, launchers and a radar. The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets, and is the only weapon system that engages threat ballistic missiles at both endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes."
Now the question is whether this will just be a defense against missile threats from rogue states, or the start of another arms race. How long before we start to see missiles with the kind of sophisticated countermeasures against interception that military aircraft have against missile threats?
...how many tracking devices was the "target" running so that the projectile could find it and hit it? I really don't think enemy missiles will do the equivalent of waving a banner and screaming "Hey defense system! I'm right here!"
They strapped a thirty ton magnet to the missile with bright flashing light and had it fly 40 mph? Naaaah. I'm sure the test wasn't rigged. The military would NEVER do that.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Try telling that to the Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, being only partially done with something is enough for him to declare success,... ;-)
The threat from North Korea TO South Korea, yes.
The threat to Japan, Hawaii, or maybe even Alaska or Seattle is another matter. Why do you think Kim has been trying to shoot those missiles out into the Pacific? Not much success so far, but he may get it to work eventually.
it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons
MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
On top of that, there's a huge psychological effect that a nuclear bomb carrys that conventional attacks don't. Every schoolchild knows about the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Few know about the fire bombings on Dresden, even though more people were killed that night than in both Atomic bombings combined.
...and not everyone would consider terrorists to be any more of a threat today than they have ever been, over the history of humanity. Terrorists are the same as any crazy person in any nation, just with a new label. Any crazy person could get ahold of a nuclear weapon - that's always a threat. Should we start another arms race on the thought that a random crazy person (terrorist) could get ahold of one? I say that we should make it a priority to STOP such escalation, rather than pile ever-larger paranoia upon ever-smaller targets.
Yes, terrorists are dangerous - but so is everyone else. There will always be crazy people who want to kill others for horrible reasons. We don't have to increase the damage potential against terrorists at every threat - that will NOT fix the 'problem' of terrorism. It only further increases the insanity, and makes us more like the demons we would destroy, making us less safe for all our efforts. And sooner or later, everyone else will see us as the terrorists for our increasing use of so called 'defensive' tactics.
Ryan Fenton
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
This sort of reasoning always bugs me with missile defense. The "it's a waste of money if it doesnt stop every possible thing in the world right now, oh and slice and dice and juelienne." Its about building a capability over time, you start with one capability and then add more. You integrate additional systems, like the PAC3, Aegis, X-Band radar in the Adac etc. And you gain a capability over time. For instance we already shoot down theater missiles very well, its called a PAC3. We right now have the POTENTIAL to shoot down an ICBMs from NKorea with inteceptors in California and Alaska, I'll take the POTENTIAL over nothing. Aegis ships have a theater intercept capability and their tracking data can be uploaded and used by other systems. Its about defense in depth. Right now ICBM missile defense has a limited capability, that we are continuously expanding and increasing. And there are additional systems, upgraded inteceptors, the airborne laser, all these individual components will build into a bigger more robust system. Is it expensive, yes, take a lot of time, yes, a lot of R and D, yes. But we now have a POTENTIAL of shooting down a crazy rogue nations ICBMs, decreasing their blackmailing options, I'll take that any day of the week.
MAD became obsolete the moment an opponent showed up that didn't care whether they lived or died so long as you didn't survive. It was useful against the USSR and China, but not against anyone that we would not qualify as 'sane'.
These people who blow up themselves up in markets and crash airplanes are mostly sexually frustrated, indoctrinated young hotheads. The older ones writing the checks and ranting and raving in these madrassas can damn well be threatened. Anyone who has enough loot to develop or buy nukes doesn't want to die either. Those who would sell nukes are also accessible to threats. I think we are being faked out by the militant muslim world to some extent. If they can get us thinking of them as maddog bomb throwing lunatics who could do anything then they've more than half won already. Look how much milage they got out of that stupid cartoon. Incidentally, Old Yeller tells us what the correct answer is when faced with a mad dog.All that said, I'm not some jingoistic idiot. We were incorrect to invade Iraq but we were correct to attack the Taliban. Notice the lengths Osama goes to stay alive or at least indeterminately dead? That hosebag doesn't want to die. I have no doubt that the Ayatollah of Iran has plenty of kamikazes just itching to man the planes but the leadership of that country doesn't want to die either.
Clearly there's a reason[maybe 'cause I'm a big dumb Canuck] why no one else seems to worry about it, so why don't one of you supersmart slashdotters explain this to me...
How expensive is a civilian-type ship, capable of crossing the pacific ocean? Something big enough that it could carry a medium-sized nuke. I'm not talking something able to take out LA or San Francisco in one hit, but big enough to do some serious dirty damage to those capitalist pigs? I'd think that LA would be a good target for this sort of thing. Right next to the Big Pond, and it's pretty full of freaks(*insincere apologies to those of you from there*).
Is it really the case that one couldn't drive a ship from NK to the states, maybe with fabricated ID saying you're Japanese/South Korean/Whatever? I just
Sure, it's a slower delivery mechanism, but why aren't we worried about this too? Just too annoying/expensive to bother with? Not as showy a show of power and technological awesomeness?
Reminds me of how a previous leader basically annulled the Treaty of Versailles, before going on a global war against the infidels, and those who threatened his nation. His name escapes me. He too saw the limitations placed on his country's defenses as lunacy. Déjà vu.
If you define the mission retroactively to include only what it accomplished.
How about the mission defined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, defend the security interests of the US from the threat in Iraq? That mission has been turned on its head by Bush, no WMD converted into 3000 dead US soldiers and the hottest threat center in the world, probably part of Greater Iran.
We have the most effective military in the world, pointed at our own head.
--
make install -not war
--Israel is the most free nation in the Middle East, not Iran
not if you are from palestine
Of course the united states would never go for this as nuclear weapons are big business. so basically we're screwed.
Yes. Only the United States is to blame. India, Israel, the UK, and France would gladly give up their nukes because the only thing they are afraid of is an American attack.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
> independent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities.
Take a coin with a 50/50 chance of turning up heads. Each flip is independent of all the others. Now, what is the chance that for 100 flips EVERY flip will come up tails with 0 flips coming up heads?
(0.5) ^ 100 = 7.8 * 10^-31 (0 for any chance this side of hell of not getting a heads)
If the chance of a hit is only 5% (meaning a miss is 95%):
(0.95) ^ 100 = 0.0059205292203339975 (0.59% chance of a miss, or about a 99.4% chance of a hit)
Killing the missile only requires 1 hit. The parent may be optimistic in some ways, but he is completely right with his figures, and you need to go back to probability 101.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
That's why we've installed Patriot batteries in Japan and Israel. (I would not be surprised if they are also in ROK, but they have more to worry from massed artillery 20KM from Seoul.)
This world is so economically interconnected that an attack on Japan, ROK or Taiwan (and even Israel) would in essence be a attack on America and the EU that would hurt them more than you can probably imagine.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, but there is something wrong when you try to spread your incorrect view. I suggest taking a stats class, or sitting down with a book, and learning.
That isn't actually how it started. The really 'big' shooting started after this leader you speak of reached a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia in which the two parties essentially agreed to divide Poland between them. Then this leader invaded Poland, which drew the Allies into war in defense of Poland.
(Later, Russia became one of the 'good guys' kinda-sorta. But they kept Poland in the end. And they got away with a lot more. Since they were among the 'winners,' camera crews didn't roll into their territory to film the crimes-against-humanity which they were committing, which were on the order of ten times worse than those the 'loser' had committed)
Katyn, dude. (homework assignment)
Pretty convenient for you to ignore the Iraqi Civil War we precipitated which will turn Iraq into Iranian territory, a new terrorist hothouse, or most likely both. That's a worse threat to our "allies" (Saudi Arabia? Only to Cheney) than Iraq was. Including when Saddam was tracking our aircraft with radar over his country, as we tried to provoke him into war while he slid into total impotence from our various forces against him. Including the provocation Bush worked by illegally diverting Afghanistan money and forces before Congress even debated an Iraq AUMF.
Or are you going to pretend that we're doing a great job in Iraq, so we should do it again in Iran?
--
make install -not war
Let's talk when it happens. I think, it never will, but speculating (which is what you are doing) is pointless here...
The mission of our military, whom Bush was congratulating in his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, was indeed accomplished. Enemy's army was disbanded, our bases covering the whole country, enemy leadership killed, captured, or in hiding... At this point the victors of the Antiquity would've killed all males older than 14 and sold all others into slavery. Victors of Middle Ages would've converted everyone to their religion at weapon-point. We — the modern-day victors — began building a new, better government. That's still in progress (I believe, we'll succeed, you don't), but — I repeat — the original military mission of defeating the enemy's armed forces was accomplished...
I shall not comment on whether we "should do it again in Iran", for that's a different topic. But I do think, we can should we decide to — and the defenses described in TFA may help...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
ICBM, or even Balistic or even simple missile is one thing. A city buster transported by conventional means (hidden in a truck, in a wood crate, in a car, or in a plane or whatever does not look like a threat) is another. THAAD might be interresting for theater of operation, or even zone like israel where hezbollah terrorist use katuschia rocket daily (used to?), but a determined nation with nuclear capability, can certainly in an insane moment flatten any city in the world with a bit of time and a conventional method. HECK, the wood-crate with lead lining method has another big advantage : you can't easily trace back from where it came, on the contrary to a balistic missile. If you all US-ian quake in fear at NK nuke capability then instead of such anti balistic system, I would recommend searching through all goods coming in your seaport.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
When it happens? It's a civil war right now, has been for at least months (years, for some of the factions). Even the liars running your war call it that now. You're in a negligibly small group of people living in a fantasy about Iraq that became unsupportable at least 3 to 6 months ago.
The military mission was to secure Iraq. Mop up the "isolated pockets of resistance", end the war. That's what Bush sold the people, the Congress, and the soldiers - except maybe Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the neocon crew had a different mission we've still not really learned, or seen accomplished (except maybe anarchy). The mission (that Bush has always denied he claimed was "Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier, except when strutting in a flightsuit actually claiming credit for it) was to stop Iraq's threat to the US, which has been totally screwed up into a much greater threat than the one under control before the war.
"Victors of Antiquity"? The Middle Ages? You're one of those "not as bad as Saddam" people. Well, most Iraqis want us out, because we've now made it worse by instigating their civil war that they want to themselves.
You can repeat your revised "mission" definition as much as you want. I know that kind of self-hypnosis has gotten you this far, but the rest of us are awake. Enough to notice that it's too late for you to claim that you 'shall not comment on whether we "should do it again in Iran"', after you just said "Iran now has 100+K American troops next to it, which is good if we want to contain it". At least you're up front about defying everyone in America with this escalation that's really designed to intimidate Iran into attacking, just like I saw Stephen Hadley say to Tim Russert a week ago. And of course you're also buying the bullshit that Star Wars will protect us from Iran. Especially invading while Iraq would need even more troops to maintain it as more than a second (or third) front in a war against Iran. With a military so depleted, so unable to recruit, that we're the least prepared for a defense against the rest of the real threats that we've been since 1812.
You have learned nothing from the worst strategic catastrophe, rendered by the worst presidency (both foreign and domestic, and especially military) in American history. People like you have turned America's might into "might have been", and handed Iran it's greatest victories since stopping Saddam (with arms from the Iran/Contra operation you probably somehow think was a good idea).
Dick Cheney, is that you?
--
make install -not war
Actually you were sort of right, though perhaps not for the reason you intended. While the 100^0.95 calculation assumes that the missile interception attempts are independent events, they will not be for any practical situation. Any factors that thwart your first interception - bad weather, solar noise disrupting your radar, a particularly tricky target trajectory, whatever - can persist to complicate the 99 other interception attempts. So depending on the way the "5% hit rate" is calculated, lots of interceptors still might not work to bring down a sufficiently difficult target.