US Interceptor Missile Successfully Intercepts Test ICBM, Says Pentagon (go.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Pentagon has confirmed that the U.S. interceptor missile it launched has successfully intercepted the test ICBM fired from the Marshall Islands. From an ABC News report detailing the intercept test: "The ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California shortly after 3:30 p.m. EST Tuesday. The U.S. will launch an ICBM-class target from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away. If successful, the kill vehicle, or intercept, will collide with the ICBM test target midcourse over the Pacific Ocean later today. The ground-based interceptor system is mainly designed to counter a North Korean missile threat, but a U.S. official said Tuesday's test has been planned for years and is coincidental to North Korea's increased missile testing this year. This will be the 18th test of the ground-based interceptor. The last one, in June 2014, was the first success since 2008. The system is nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of target missiles. An ICBM target has never been tested before."

Comments

Hmm

[TFlan91]

"The last one, in June 2014, was the first success since 2008. The system is nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of target missiles"

That really isn't that reassuring...

If I told my boss that the system I designed to stop us from going belly-up has ~50% success rate, I'm pretty sure he would fire me, or at the very least, order more tests until the success rate is just a bit more acceptable...

Re: Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

By this article, at least half would be successful

Re:Hmm

[swb]

Without the system, you're 100% sure to go belly-up.

Re:Hmm

[PeeAitchPee]

In practice (at least theoretically) multiple interceptors could be deployed versus a single target, greatly increasing the success rate (as only a single interceptor needs to find its mark to make a successful intercept). I'll take this strategy versus a 100% chance of a bad outcome with no such defense deployed, thanks.

Re:Hmm

[HornWumpus]

Games theory. The point is to put uncertainty into North Korea's plan.

Now his certainty is lower, he will need to spend more resources on numbers.

If and when he gets an actual ICBM working, it will be liquid fueled. Fuel/Oxidizer that can be stored is a bitch, fuel that can be stored in the rocket is even worse. He won't have solid boosters for some time. A bunch of silos full of liquid fueled rockets in North Korea? cue 'Exploding Blue Danube...' At the very least it will cost a fortune, in blood and money.

Re: Hmm

[ranton]

For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

By this article, at least half would be successful

This article doesn't give anything close to enough information to know how accurate this system is in 2017. This is the only test to shoot down an ICBM, and we haven't tested against shorter ranged missiles since 2008 (according to TFA). They were certainly not very reliable from 1999-2008, but they may be far more accurate now. Obviously only one test is not enough data points to determine an overall success rate.

And just as NK could launch multiple nukes, the US could launch multiple interceptor missiles. If our missile are only 50% successful, but we launch 10x as many missiles as they do, the US could arguably be 99.9% successful in knocking them down. Although the success of each individual interceptor is unlikely to be completely independent of each other missile, so the actual success rate of interception would be lower. Still probably very high though if we can launch an order of magnitude more missiles than NK can, which is probably reasonable to assume.

Re:Hmm

[AmiMoJo]

According to Game Theory, if the US ever manages to develop a reliable ICBM shield it needs to be nuked before the shield can be deployed. In fact, probably better nuke it right now, just in case it really is >90% effective and the hit/miss ratio is just a lie. After all, the moment one side gets the upper hand the attack, MAD breaks down and that side attacks, right?

Or maybe Game Theory is bullshit.

Re: Hmm

[lgw]

For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

By this article, at least half would be successful

NK's missiles seem to go in vaguely the direction of their target about 20% of the time. We just need to get better faster than they do.

But, really, 50% is worth having. If you were likely to be shot next week, and you had a bulletproof vest that had a 50% chance of working, would you turn your nose up at it? Or would you wear it and shop for another layer?

Re:Hmm

[HornWumpus]

Wrong, your understanding of game theory is weak. (aside: We could have nuked the USSR in '46 but didn't. We were building a nuke/month at that point.)

How would anyone ever have 100% confidence, in a any system not tested in practice?

Not even an issue until the interceptor count gets into the same order of magnitude as the number of offensive missiles.

More fundamental: Historically nations go to war when it's more profitable than not. With modern weapons, that condition rarely happens, to say nothing of interdependent trade.

Re: Hmm

[lgw]

Not true, comically enough. They're less that 50% for "ocean". Many blow up on the pad, and at least one headed straight for China and had to be self-destructed (talk about awkward).

Re: Hmm

[david_thornley]

Don't be surprised if Kim jacks off to crush videos.

With all those beautiful and skillful young North Korean women who'd do anything out of selfless love for the Supreme Leader? Besides, his semen is sure to have wonderful medical effects. Ask any North Korean when someone else might be listening.

Re:Bit confused here...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's only concerning if the country in question is run by a petulant man child.

Um...