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."

12 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. New arms race? by caitriona81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:New arms race? by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may have been true with respect to Mutually Assured Destruction, but I think that this is aimed more at modern asymmetrical warfare. These days the US doesn't really fear massive barrages from the Soviet Union or China as much as it fears a single missile from North Korea or Iran with a nuclear warhead. Something which can inflict tens of thousands of casualties.

      Response to such an event would be difficult. To prevent it from happening again we'd have to inflict massive, disproportionate damage on the enemy, thus incurring truly epic international hatred. We wouldn't even be 100% certain of being able to identify the enemy.

      This throws the balances of MAD out of whack. I can actually believe North Korea would try such a thing and believe they could get away with it. It knows that the first thing China would do is insist that the US take no retaliation, and back it up with real MAD. Shooting down that one missile (or at least making North Korea believe we could) dramatically reduces the risk.

      (Note: I'm not an expert in international relations. There are plenty of people who would say that the US is busily making the world a more dangerous place, and has been since before our latest Iraq debacle. I'm just trying to explain the actions in terms of our own perceptions. "Truth", if there is such a thing, may well differ.)

  2. Sounds great but... by common+middle+name · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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!"

  3. Re:Whew... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Testing for more testing, not for use... by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Whew... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Conventional artillery takes a while to do it's work. Not to mention that South Korea probably has a ton of counter-battery artillery trained on every known artillery park within range of Seoul. A nuclear tipped missile, however, can flatten a city with only a few minutes notice, and it's likely that (If the North Korean military is smart) there are no stationary launch sites; When the word comes, a tractor-trailer will drive out of a mountain tunnel somewhere north near the border with China, shoot, and then retreat.

    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.

  6. Re:Testing for more testing, not for use... by frogstar_robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Not anymore. by s20451 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Mission Accomplished? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.
  9. Re:Mission Accomplished? by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Dear statistically challenged: 1-(1-0.05)^100 ~= 0.994 = 99.4%

    because each defensive rocket they fire is an indepedent event, therefore they have nothing to do with each other and you can't add up their probablities.
    Yeah, that's why you multiply them.

    The likelihood of each of those rockets successfully destroy the incoming missile is 5%, and they can all fail at the same point as each other.
    So, now you are saying they aren't independent? A sentence earlier you claimed they were.

    So, in the end, the chance to stop the incoming missile is only 5%.
    I await your assumptions and calculation that comes up with this result. Then we can discuss it.

    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.
  10. Re:Not anymore. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  11. Re:Mission Accomplished? by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but -- I repeat -- the original military mission of defeating the enemy's armed forces was accomplished...
    That's just semantics. We rolled in and defeated their military in a matter of days. Except we actually didn't since a bunch of them ran off and became part of an insurgency that has hooked up with other like-minded folks and has been wreaking havoc for the last couple of years now, and which we are no closer to defeating now than we were then. Saying we defeated their military is absolutely meaningless when our people are getting blown up daily by guys with guns and bombs. So what if their formal military is gone, they have something much more effective now, obviously.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer