US Missile Defense Test Fails

KingRobot sends news that a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed. The test of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense interceptor apparently had a problem with the sea-based X-band radar. Both the target missile, launched from the Pacific, and the interceptor, launched from California, performed as expected. "Yesterday's test was intended to quell doubters of the entire missile-defense approach, with the target missile deploying countermeasures. Critics of the GMD programme say that tests thus far, which have not included such spoilers, have been too kind to the intercept tech. The [military] isn't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster' of warhead(s) and decoys, or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target."

Comments

Re:No surprise, really

[linuxgurugamer]

Actually, you're wrong.

In the first place, the Patriot missiles were only partially successful. Since they weren't intended for the purpose of defending large areas, that is acceptable, and they've been improved since them. But the Patriot missiles are a short range defense.

There have been previous successful tests. A simple google search turned up the following:

Reuters
Military Defense Agency
Heritage Foundation

Re:No surprise, really

[Rogerborg]

Funny you should mention that. The effectiveness of Patriots in Gulf War I is hotly contested.

Both sides rely on subjective arguments about what constitutes a "successful intercept", neither have any hard data on how many (if any) Scuds were actually downed, and the folks that were having the Scuds aimed at them said that they were getting through pretty well, so I'd have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is that Patriot was a propaganda weapon in Gulf War I.

I should note that plenty of money has been thrown at defence contractors since then, and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't work. It's just that nobody has shown that they do.

You fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should spend a little more money on literacy and math, since you fail at both.

US medical spending is over $2.5 trillion http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016
US defense spending is $685 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Free your mind ... your ass will follow.

Re:You fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's spending by the entire nation, not the budget allocation of the federal government. If you look at the recent NYTimes graphic, spending on defense in this budget almost exactly equals SS spending, and is greater than government health care spending. But think of what we get for it!

Re:You fail.

[oh_my_080980980]

Hey Jackass, did you include all the supplemental spending?

$685 billion is the base. Then through the course of year the defense gets more money from congress.

We are spending $10 Billion/month in Iraq. We have already spent over several Trillions dollars are the Iraq fiasco alone!!

Get a clue moron, defense spending is the largest part of the US expenditures. The deference is it's not an entitlement program, it just acts like one.

Re:Money

[cherokee158]

Actually, the reason the Japanese did not rapidly surrender immediately after Hiroshima is more complex. Bureaucratic inertia insured a pretty slow response. (The leaders did not even meet for two days following the attack, and debated the issue for half the day) The Emperor himself had been pushing for peace for some time following the Japanese defeat at Okinawa, but the Allied insistence on unconditional surrender, as well as political subterfuge by Stalin (who played on Japanese hopes of Soviet assistance while preparing his own attack against Japan), fed fire to an already heated debate among Japanese leaders. In an all-too-familiar story, political infighting prevented the country from taking prompt, sensible action.