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."
Obligatory.
The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets
This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
download Firefox and you'll see the big fucking red line /spelling nazi
THAAD is RAADical!!
Sorry, very poor taste in pun choices there.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
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!"
Is that better than THAC0?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
It uses kinetic energy to destroy a target (1/2 * m * v**2), no explosives onboard.
At first, I was thinking "Great, now all we can defend ourselves against all of those ICBMs that Al-Queda has laying around". But then I realized that there are countries that don't have the luxury of having a few thousand miles of ocean between them and their enemies. I think this technology would be great if deployed to South Korea, Japan, Tiawan, or Isreal. Nothing says "Screw you, Kim" like a system to completely nullify the technology that he's spent years and an equivalent of about his entire country's GDP to develop. Or a note from the IDF to hezbollah: "Can you please stop shooting missiles at us? I'm getting tired of re-loading the launcher".
Is that the American word for "missile" or something ?
Hezbollah has announced they have developed an anti-anti-missile missile. "Take that, you zionist pigs!" said one spokesman. Currently Lockheed Martin is developing an anti-anti-anti-missile-missile missile to counter this new threat.
From TFA:
'Lockheed Martin's program manager and vice president for the THAAD program... "On the expansive range at PMRF, the THAAD missile can fly greater distances, increasing our testing options and creating a realistic tactical environment"'
The article seems to indicate that this testing is not to allow for use, but to allow for further testing. This wasn't the "prove it works" test, but rather the "we could possibly get it to work" test.
I'm personally against the political use of such systems - it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons - politicians are already eager enough to justify use of weapons when in "this new terrorist era" or whatnot. But if it DOES work, and it does save lives, then it's development is still a net good - I'd just still be against deployment until we have direct evidence it would be necessary to save humanity. I'd much rather put 10000 times the effort into not needing such a tool, rather than spend all our efforts on a new arms race.
Ryan Fenton
It used to be Theater High Altitude Area Defense.
When President Camacho is elected, it will be changed to "Totally Huge Awesome Area Defense".
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
whether or not the system can defend against the recently developed random-trajectory missile developed by Russia.
I thought that the President had basically annulled that treaty, by saying that it was with a country that no longer exists, and thus is not in force anymore (or something like that).
If you look on the top of the page you linked to, it says "The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date."
A quick Google search reveals that the U.S. dumped the 1972 ABM treaty in December of 2001.
There are a lot of things that I take issue with Bush for, but this frankly isn't one of them; I've always been of a mind that it's lunacy to prevent nations from defending themselves. If the world is getting dangerous because of ICBMs, maybe that should be the focus of restrictions, not systems that protect from them. But then again, I've never been down with the whole "MAD" concept in general.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Originally the System was "My name is Earl"..but NBC filed suit... Next was the "iThaad" but Apple had that... (And I think Cisco had that first...depending on what lawyer you talk to).. So now we are stuck with Thaad. They were going to paint it Brown and call it "Thune"... but the marketing folks at Lockheed thought a Brown "Thune" would be fiscal disaster even the pentagon wouldn't go for...
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
I suggest you review the entire program before you ask further irrelevant questions about the THAAD test. THAAD is just one part of the entire program. Specifically, look at Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
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.
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?
Your assuming they don't hit them ALL. But you are right in the aspect that it's sort of a crap shoot when it comes to this kind of tech. I expect you have a better answer to stopping these kinds of missile attacks correct? (An invisible force field??) I mean seriously they could spend a shitload of money ***TRYING*** to come up with a solution to a REAL potential problem, OR save a shitload of money and just wait and see if the missles actually hit their targets if and when it happens. It's like wearing a condom as opposed to not wearing one, your odds are just better. Sex is not free (risks / costs), just like freedom.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
This is far superior to the "miss-to-kill" technology they were employing in previous models
Joke all you want, but that's what we've actually been doing. Didn't anybody ever tell you that close counts with hand grenades?
And nuclear weapons.
Which, unfortunately, was exactly the "big boom" "kinda close" that had been contemplated in some previous ABM designs.
After all, if it has blossomed, MIRV style, into a cloud of decoys and multiple real nuclear bombs on independent trajectories, spread out by quite a bit by the time your missile gets there, you need a BIG boom to disable all of them that matter. And without an atmosphere to carry a shockwave it helps if you can irradiate with heat, gammas, and neutrons, and can vaporize the whole antimissile and hit the targets with the vapor.
Problem with that is you're setting off your OWN nukes above your OWN targets - and high enough above the atmosphere to do a major electromagnetic pulse when the gamma burst makes a sheet of electrons the size of a continent jump upward by a few miles. (With defenses like that who needs an enemy missile with a real warhead? Other than to provoke the defense.)
So, yes, "hit to kill" is a BIG improvement over the "miss-to-kill technology they were using in previous models". (Assuming you have at least as many anti-missiles as they sent warheads and convincing decoys.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Obviously, someone managed to shoot an i out with the thing.
Get off my launchpad!
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
Choosing just one option would be suicidal.
We can use hit-to-kill like THAAD. We can use ground lasers, orbiting lasers, and airborne lasers. We can use sabotage of the enemy equiment, physically or by screwing up the software. We can use diplomacy. We can use the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We can have a sneaky sniper on enemy territory shoot an ICBM right at launch -- a hole in the boost rocket will do the job. We can use an X-ray laser. We can use economics as both carrot and stick. We can export out culture to reduce misunderstanding and general hatred in the long term. We can use radar-controlled heavy machine guns to stop incoming devices.
As a final protection, there is always the cave 10 feet underground stocked with calcium and iodine supplements.
Nothing is 100% perfect. Every little bit helps.