Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Missile Defense Test Intercepts ICBM Target, Says Pentagon (cnbc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the seeing-an-ICBM dept.

schwit1 quotes CNBC: In the first test of its kind, the Pentagon on Monday carried out a "salvo" intercept of an unarmed missile soaring over the Pacific, using two interceptor missiles launched from underground silos in southern California.

Both interceptors zeroed in on the target -- a re-entry vehicle that had been launched 4,000 miles away atop an intercontinental-range missile, the Pentagon said. The first interceptor hit and destroyed the re-entry vehicle, which in an actual attack would contain a warhead. The second interceptor hit a secondary object, as expected, according to a statement by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.

109 comments

  1. This is the real game changer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When we are pretty sure we can live without worrying about large scale salvos of missiles between countries, I think the world will end up being a more peaceful place (in aggregate, not for all areas of course humans being what they are).

    Between that and hardening agains EMP (which will happen naturally anyway at some point from solar flares) we are actually doing things that will matter on a country-wide scale.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:This is the real game changer by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      EMP hardening was called 'EMI interference reduction'. The USA passed it's law in 1982.

      Just as an example: Recent testing shows most cars will stop when hit by an EMP. But will start right up again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:This is the real game changer by Jzanu · · Score: 4, Informative

      In terms of actual military technology this is nothing new. The announcement makes it sound like they independently tracked a missle launched from an unknown base, found it in the air and launched an intercept that succeeded. Instead, this test is just another in the "yep, when we know exactly where things start from, exactly how fast they are going, and position our counter at exactly the right distance away, we can hit the dummy". The US is adopting the old Soviet style of exaggerating military achievements and filling gaps with braggadocio.

    3. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering past tests have missed it is newsworthy. Once you can reliably hit this known target you make it more difficult with delayed response and different intercept angles.

    4. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says they didnâ(TM)t use the tracking system as intended? How else would the interceptors lock on?

    5. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you know the target in advance, like this test did, it's not such a big deal.

    6. Re:This is the real game changer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Good. Missile defences that others think might work are much better for stability than ones that host countries know will work. The defender knows they're vulnerable, so they don't do anything stupid. Potential attackers can't be sure an attack would succeed, so they don't do anything stupid either.

    7. Re:This is the real game changer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Except that even knowing all that previous attempts have failed, so in fact is is a bigger deal than you are trying to convince others of.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear weapons have been the only thing keeping the peace between the worlds most powerful countries. There isn't a missile defense system in the world that can stop every missile coming their way especially with nuclear capable submarines able to launch low altitude cruise missiles with nuclear warheads from off the coasts of Russia. China, or the US. The danger in nuclear weapons have never been in the first strike but in the guaranteed and automatic retaliation strikes.

      But there is one possible scenario when someone does field a missile defense system capable of destroying every missile fired at them that causes the other side to use their missiles before such a system make their nuclear deterrent worthless.

    9. Re:This is the real game changer by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Except they did work in 2013 and Japan also did it in 2010 with that technology like the US did even earlier in 2008 . You see, it is and has been easy to produce this result for more than a decade and actually for a much longer time with other weapons. Short, Medium, Intercontinental. All have been hit. But all used tracking to know exactly where they were in flight, and were launched from known locations, and targeted in advance from known positions.

    10. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamn you'e a moron. The future of war will be spreading viruses. Why launch a nuke when you synthesize a virus that only affects the Chinese, or one that affects everyone but Chinese people?

      This missile shit is for public displays and to keep justification for funding.

    11. Re:This is the real game changer by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Arguably, that was a solved problem between rational nation states. Mutually Assured Destruction kept us safe for 40 years during the Cold War. Either side could rain a salvo of missiles on the other, but neither did because they feared likewise retaliation.

      A missile defense technology is really only effective against a rogue attacker who is crazy enough not to care about retaliation. e.g. North Korea flinging a missile at the U.S. west coast. And the bigger issue moving forward will be a small terrorist organization or a nation state sneaking in a nuke via a suitcase or car, and detonating it. Uncertainty over who exactly perpetrated the attack prevents retaliation, making it the perfect means for a weaker power to attack a stronger one. Missile defense doesn't protect you from that.

    12. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real hostile ICBMs will come from novel locations and contain Mutiple Independent Reentry Vehicles, as many as 8 of which could contain thermonuclear payloads. Not so easy to swat out of the sky.

    13. Re:This is the real game changer by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Yes but we need to remember the reality of this 'defense' its no missile shield. China and even Russia ( they are still capable at this point but who knows for how much longer ) isn't going to send a single missile if they decide to deploy ICBMS against us.

      They will fire a volley each with some number of war heads. Now yes there are treaties that we assume they have actually followed that limit the number of warheads but they could still fire or deploy from a single missile some number of dummy warheads (which from a defenders standpoint is a bad because you don't know which ones to even try shooting).

      We a long long way from intercept technology that would be useful against our military peers. Any attack by them would simply overwhelm a defense system. Now its possibly we could use this to protect ourselves from an Iran or DPRK with a limited ability to field ICBMS and warheads; but realistically the risk our defense fails remains to high to let things escalate to the point of them firing on us. So I am really skeptical this is anything other than pork spending.

       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re:This is the real game changer by gtall · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, they simply announced what they'd done.

    15. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No one's firing a volley of ICBMs at you you paranoid idiots. For starters China owns half your shit. How are you going to pay them back the trillions of dollars you owe then if you're blown up? You know all that bullshit propaganda you're drenched in every day about how Russian and Chinese hackers are trying to destroy your way of life? That's care of the military industrial complex. They're desperately trying to reinflate the cold war boogeymen to keep you scared so they can keep stealing your tax dollars, and fuck me they're doing a good job.

    16. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nanites

    17. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future of war is widespread asymmetrical warfare, with wholesale firebomb and chemical attacks on civilian infrastructure and roadside decapitations.

    18. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your naiveté is touching.

    19. Re: This is the real game changer by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb: any tech like this worth talking about will not be talked about

    20. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well bigger is a relative term like 3 is bigger than 2 but if the goal is 145768943 then itâ(TM)s not worth mentioning

      You of course knew full well what the guy meant. It is meaningless until it can detect, track and hit a missile launched at unknown time, location and target

      You do know how ICBMs work I assume?

    21. Re:This is the real game changer by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      No, missile defenses don't work on a strategic level opponent. If China/Russia wanted to nuke us, and wasn't sure how capable the missile defense was, they'd merely lob over 5X more missiles than they originally intended, and have them MIRVed (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles). In other words, they would merely overwhelm the missile defense system. Also realize its much, much cheaper to build more missiles than a missile defense can effectively respond to. Finally, no nation has MIRVs with glide controls to randomize their entry trajectories. That would be a relatively trivial improvement that would make current missile defense systems near useless; they would have to hit the incoming missile before they were at a trajectory point to release their MIRVed warheads.

      No, if anything, those missile defenses makes the situation more destabilizing. Opposing parties will proliferate their nuclear weapons, and the nations with an effective missile defense will have greater motivation to launch a pre-emptive first strike, to limit the number of missiles coming their way. Which means the missiles will operate on a hair trigger to avoid losing the entire missile force in a first strike, which means the greater likelihood of a miscalculation triggering an unintended nuclear attack.

      No, current missile defense systems are more about deterring poverty stricken 3rd world nations like North Korea or Pakistan from considering a nuclear strike at US allies; they're too poor to build enough ICBMs to overwhelm a US missile defense system. And if the US had money to piss away, like on lunar lander missions, it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Alas, we want to provide health care for all our citizens, and pay out social security, even though we won't have enough workers to pay the checks.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    22. Re:This is the real game changer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's what I said. The best missile defence is one that doesn't work. If the US thinks their missile defence works, they might do something stupid. If they know it doesn't, less chance of stupid. If the Russians or Chinese or whoever don't think it works, MAD is maintained as usual. If they think it does work, for whatever reason, they're less likely to launch, not more.

    23. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what the parameters of this test were. You have no idea what was accomplished during this evolution that has never been done before.

    24. Re:This is the real game changer by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      You do know it's called a test for a reason, right?

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    25. Re:This is the real game changer by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^(this)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    26. Re: This is the real game changer by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Which is why for the longest time we focused on hitting ICBMs while they were still on their way up or at the top of their arc. This test is specifically to prove out having the capability to also hit the ones remaining at the end.

      Even if you can kill 99% of what is launched at you before the MIRVs separate, it's still really nice to save a few more nuclear detonations by taking out what remains on it's way down at you. Otherwise, by the time you know which ones you missed, it's too late to do anything about them except hide your head under your desk.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    27. Re:This is the real game changer by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nope, this is a new level of stupid from the US military. Missiles are changing, they will no longer fly a ballistic trajectory because the US dropped a certain missiles treaty, so now the solution to targeting each others capital cities, is long range stealth cruise missiles, which fly close to the ground as speed and can no be currently effectively detected until it is too late, they will destroy the anti-missile system and the target is was meant to protect.

      Even with ballistic missiles, only one change needs to be made to the design, one it reaches a safe distance from the launch country, it is set to detonate should it be impacted and that EMP will take out and disrupt all anti-missiles technology. Let alone long range nuclear torpedoes.

      Then have effectively demonstrated how to take out what they turned into yesterdays technology. They new rational is extended retaliation over weeks and the grinding dismantling of the nuclear conflict initiating nation and those people in those submarines WILL DO IT because you KILLED THEIR FAMILIES. They will just do it slowly over weeks, city after city destroyed, really nasty stuff, just when you think it is safe, whoof, your city disappears in a nuclear holocaust.

      The US has guaranteed the spread of nuclear weapons across the planet and it will be targeted by most of them. Enduring response being the new nuclear terminology, it will only stop when all those who participated in initiating the nuclear conflict are hung publicly by the survivors, all of them, military, political and corporate, don't do it and cities will continue to go up in flames.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:This is the real game changer by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Riiight. if you think the big threat is USA VS USSR or China? Might want to wake up and smell the crazy coming from the ME. You know the place where they are chopping hands off thieves and throwing gays from rooftops and living like its 999?

      The next big threat the USA is gonna have to face ain't nukes flying from some other superpower, its religious whack-a-doodles cooking up some sort of NBC bomb and transporting it in a Ryder truck and setting it off. After all Russia and China (and even crazy ass NK) knows if they let one fly an assload of death is gonna be raining down on their heads and they will be just as fucked as the country they launch theirs at, after all that is the entire MAD strategy and its worked for like 60+ years.

      No the threat is from those that don't give a shit if you kill them because you are just making them a martyr and getting them brownie points in the afterlife and helping encourage their people to jump in and fight or their God. And as long as the USA has a border that is so badly busted that bad guys can bring hundreds of thousands of kilos of dope, human slaves for sex trafficking, weapons and God knows what else into this country that is gonna be a hell of a weak spot that those that believe our beliefs defile their god sooner or later WILL take advantage of. And your fancy Star Wars defenses, your ability to rain death on their home countries, all the nukes in the world ain't gonna mean shit because they believe it is the will of their god that you die. And THAT is gonna be the real threat in the coming decades, how to deprogram religious nutters so they are no longer a threat without having to "pull a Stalin" and just outright ban their beliefs.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re: This is the real game changer by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      Yep, missile defense is all about layers. Ideally you have something in place to kill in boost phase, but past that kill it in ballistic arc. Then comes the last line stuff. The fun part is now missiles are including active and passive defense. Lower the warhead count and include anti anti missile drones...

      The fun/scary part will be to see what the air/space force does with something like spacex's superheavy. That thing could send up quite a lot of warheads at once. And being reusable and cheap, I foresee the time soon where the missiles (not nesc nuclear) are stored in orbit for even quicker delivery. And past that you could have unmanned fighters and similar waiting in orbit for near instant deployment wherever.

    30. Re:This is the real game changer by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Either side could rain a salvo of missiles on the other, but neither did because they feared likewise retaliation.

      Also, most people in both countries didn't actually want to be killers of millions and millions of people.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re: This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also it needs to neutralize multiple reentry vehicles and dummy ICBMs launched from anywhere, including subs.

      Theses are mostly dickswinging propaganda moves.

    32. Re:This is the real game changer by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Arguably, that was a solved problem between rational nation states. Mutually Assured Destruction kept us safe for 40 years during the Cold War. Either side could rain a salvo of missiles on the other, but neither did because they feared likewise retaliation.

      We now have a different, more effective form of MAD. Instead of relying on the arguable love of a nuclear power's leader for his country, we now can rely on the love of that same leader for money. Putin, Xi Jinping, et al. are the richest people on the earth. By starting a nuclear war, they risk their money, since a decimation of the world's economy will rob them of their wealth. The intertwining of the global economy across countries makes the world safer by making the world's leaders dependent on the health of that economy in order to prop up their wealth.

    33. Re: This is the real game changer by fwad · · Score: 1

      > How are you going to pay them back the trillions of dollars you owe then if you're blown up?

      So the cost of taking out the world leading military power / bully is a few trillion of there dollars? Could sound rather cheap....

      Mind you .. more fund would just be to dump your US dollar reserves on the open market and watch there country implode on it's own as there economy pulls itself to pieces

      --
      -- Kernel Panic: Error reading /dev/caffeine
    34. Re:This is the real game changer by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You don't know the target in advance. You know where the target is going to start from and where it's going to end up, and you probably know when it's going to start. You don't know what the atmospheric conditions at the time are going to be and how they're going to affect speed and trajectory.

      At the speeds that these things travel, there's no such thing as a near miss. If your interceptor explodes a couple of metres away, then by the time the explosion reaches the target's position at the time of the explosion, the target will be long gone. You'll sometimes hear this kind of interceptor (including air-to-air missiles) referred to as 'hitiles' (which is a horrible word and, thankfully, seems to be going out of fashion) for this reason.

      Once you can actually hit a fast-moving target, you've solved one of the two difficult problems in ICBM interception. The second one, calculating the trajectory for the interceptor fast enough, boils down to available computational resources and those are relatively easy to improve.

      Of course, this is assuming that the target isn't actively trying to evade the interceptor, and that's why they call it an arms race...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re: This is the real game changer by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      "Which is why for the longest time we focused on hitting ICBMs while they were still on their way up or at the top of their arc. This test is specifically to prove out having the capability to also hit the ones remaining at the end."

      Huh?

      This history of *serious* missile defense in the US dates to the mid-1950s, so that's about 70 years of effort. During that time we only seriously considered boost-phase attacks during a single decade starting in the mid-1980s. One can consider the actual programs:

      Wizard - terminal phase
      Nike Zeus - terminal phase
      Nike-X - terminal phase
      Sentinel - terminal phase
      Safeguard - terminal phase
      LoADS/Sentry - terminal (20,000 feet)
      Swarmjet - EXTREMELY terminal (5,000 feet!)
      SDI - boost phase
      THAAD - terminal/midcourse on theatre-range systems
      YAL-1 - boost phase, basically doesn't work
      PLV et al - terminal/midcourse on ICBMs

      Doing boost-phase is hard and expensive even against low-quality single-missile threats. Terminal has its problems but is technically much easier.

    36. Re:This is the real game changer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's pretty doubtful that NK would be a rogue attacker. Kim Jong Un wants to survive just like anyone else. There has been nothing presented, that would make a person think the opposite. The issue about other countries getting nukes is that the major powers want to still maintain some semblance of control over those other countries. But there are several realist scholars like Waltz that wouldn't mind whether all countries got their hands on nukes.

    37. Re:This is the real game changer by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      An excellent read on the state of Missile defense.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    38. Re:This is the real game changer by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Just gonna' leave this here...

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    39. Re:This is the real game changer by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Would you like me to provide the links showing how the same talking heads said a big threat was Iraq with its WMDs? How about video showing a random dude shopping in Venezuela in a store as well stocked as your local Wally World while the US press talks about how they are eating rats and dogs? A country that has a huge military industrial complex and corporatocracy that gasp! shock! constantly tries to start new wars with non threats like magical invisible WMDs or starving people in Venezuela while leaving out their biggest problem is hyperinflation because the USA is crushing them with sanctions? Yeah if you buy the North Korea bullshit I have some swampland you might be interested in.

      BTW if you want to see how far back this scam goes? Look up "Kuwait incubator baby conspiracy" where Shrub Sr used the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter as a "random hospital worker" (yeah like her ass had worked on anything but her nails in her life) to bawl before congress about how Iraqi soldiers went into the hospital she was working at and threw babies out of the incubators. Before that point the American public was against a war but after every MSM outlet pushed the fake baby incubator story? Support for war went up to 85%. So next time you see some story about how some piss ant country that wouldn't last 5 seconds against the USA is a "big threat" you might want to follow the money.

      But just in case you need a hint....psst...Venezuela has a larger oil field than Saudi Arabia and North Korea is sitting on billions worth of minerals, just like Afghanistan. Hmmm...funny we only charge into countries that have resources our big corps can make a shitload of dosh off of, while those resource poor countries like the Congo and Sudan can be just as horrible and nobody gives a fuck. Huh must be a big coincidence.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't this have the effect of restarting the arms race as each power attempts to ensure they have enough ordnance to overwhelm the anti-missile capabilities of their potential target? Or will the U.S. only build enough to deal with a handful of missiles from a small rogue state?

    1. Re:Arms race by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody can afford to build enough to stop a massive attack.

      This technology is more usefully thought of in the realm of games theory. It introduces uncertainty that completely changes the game.

      As to the arms race? It's already on with China, Russia is still basically broke. They're not going to spend their vodka money on weapons.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Arms race by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      One can add to these two "objections" to the Iron Dome system a third, minor quibble: It is costly in terms of dollars as well. Each Iron Dome battery costs about $100 million; Israel currently has nine batteries.

      And each Iron Dome Tamir missile that Israel fires — and usually two are sent up to intercept each descending rocket — costs at least $50,000.

      Each rocket Hamas fires costs $500 to $1,000 to produce. Hamas had 9,000 rockets at its disposal at the start of the recent conflict. Hezbollah reportedly has 100,000 rockets, including long-range Scuds. Do the math. How Israel might cope economically, not to mention militarily, with such a rocket deluge in a future clash is a very real problem.

      - Los Angeles Times

      We don't need terrorists to bring down our planes. They can just bankrupt us.

    3. Re:Arms race by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Hence they don't shoot down the ones that are off target and smeg the launch sites hard.

      At some point they will just call 'Gaza' the launch site and smeg it hard. And nobody sane will blame them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel won't be bankrupt. More likely, wherever the Hezbollah were shooting from, those areas will be leveled after a few hundred rockets.

      Also, Iron Dome is developed in-house whereas Hezbollah probably bought their rockets from Russia.

    5. Re:Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This same dumb cunt thinks there's "$50 worth of steel" in modern automobiles, lol. Retarded faggot claims to be a "big weed dealer" otherwise, lol. https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12962106&cid=57704784

    6. Re:Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists already did bankrupt us, both economically and morally.
      And it was your fault you let them.
      Nice one, dumbass.

    7. Re:Arms race by Octorian · · Score: 1

      At some point they will just call 'Gaza' the launch site and smeg it hard. And nobody sane will blame them.

      Considering that their surgical strikes seem to receive the same international condemnation as carpet-bombing would, I really do wonder what would happen if they did that. (However, I don't actually expect them to do that.)

    8. Re:Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hizballah gets their weapons from Iran. However, if you're talking about Gaza, you're talking about Hamas - which is a whore to anyone that will fund them to attack the Israelis. Iran, Russia, Turkey, Egypt... anyone will do.

    9. Re:Arms race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes sane people will blame them. the nazis did that to the jews and here we have yet another advocate for genocide.

    10. Re:Arms race by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your claim is the jews were shooting unguided rockets at the Germans and were righteously killed? Nazi!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. "passed its law" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The USA passed it's law in 1982.

    Awesome! So what effects did that "law" have? What was that called again? I guess since it was passed way back in 1982 the electrical grid must be totally OK with a an EMP attack!

    Or wait, maybe we can actually improve on something to make it more robust? GASP!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"passed its law" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Sure, you can always improve shielding, but 'good enough' is good enough.

      FYI you shield electric transmission by burying it. Like we've been doing with local service for decades now.

      Shielding high voltage transmission is a difficult problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:"passed its law" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      FYI you shield electric transmission by burying it.

      EMP works through electromagnetic induction. How do you propose to shield buried cables magnetically? They'll still get affected.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:"passed its law" by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, if you bury them deep enough...

    4. Re:"passed its law" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Q: What is the resistance between two points of a large solid sphere made of high resistance material?

      You should have worked that question in highschool calc. Explained how 'ground' works. A: 0 Ohms.

      You could have further done a little research on the engineering of buried cables. Hint: Conduit and/or grounded layers to control capacitance.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:"passed its law" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And that has to do with electromagnetic induction in large-area current loops from varying large-scale magnetic fields...uh, what exactly?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:"passed its law" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The conductivity of the material doesn't effect eddy currents in your conceptual universe?

      You need to retake fields, or take it for the first time. If you've never taken it, you should shut up now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Why not cool down by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Won't this have the effect of restarting the arms race as each power attempts to ensure they have enough ordnance to overwhelm the anti-missile capabilities

    If a country like North Korea cannot possibly build enough missiles to overwhelm anti-missile capabilities of America or any NATO country, then why would they waste money on building a lot of missiles to begin with?

    Over all the effect is less missiles, not more, when really good defenses exist.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why not cool down by Jzanu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      North Korea is positioned like South Africa was - a pariah state with no defensive allies and open to attack from much larger powers. For exactly the same reasons both developed nuclear weapons, and we have historical evidence of SA getting rid of them for budgetary reasons once the political and international relations situation changed in a way that gave them better security without the weapons.

    2. Re:Why not cool down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow. Please do not confuse the SA regime to the NK one. Totally different motives and demographics.

      Allies, NK has one very large ally. And it is aggressive.

    3. Re:Why not cool down by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Nope. China would eat NK for breakfast if ole pork belly doesn't play nice. It is only China's influence that controls Kim, and its not out of partnership but his fear.

    4. Re:Why not cool down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China wants to keep Korea separated. N.K serves as a buffer zone for them. If two Koreas are democratically united, US Army base would be right at the border of their country.

    5. Re:Why not cool down by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      North Korea isn't building nukes to hit the US. They're building nukes to hit American expeditionary forces attacking North Korea. Maybe with a few left over to lob at Japan and South Korea.

      Stop buying the media hype. The North Korean leadership isn't crazy. Ever since Russia built one, nukes are for self defence through deterrence. North Korea has demonstrated the ability to build them, removing invasion from the options the US can consider.

    6. Re:Why not cool down by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      North Korea isn't building nukes to hit the US

      They say they are building them to hit the US. See for example this article. There are plenty similar over the years.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Why not cool down by Dustie · · Score: 1

      >Allies, NK has one very large ally. And it is aggressive.

      The only big aggressive nation in existence today is the US. How often does China probe US airspace, hm? How many warships do they have sailing around pushing the limit on US territorial waters? How many "training exercises" do they have around the US? Do they have troops and weapons in Canada or Mexico trying to get control of them to put weapons on US borders? Every nation on earth added together isn't anywhere near the aggression shown by the US and that is without even looking at all the wars "against terrorism" etc.

      Also, China is *not* an ally of NK. That is FOX NEWS level bullshit. The only reason China even care is because NK is on their border and because the US wants to be there too. You don't really believe the US is present in Korea for Koreans sake do you? That would be quite naive.

    8. Re:Why not cool down by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Of course they say that. It builds up their reputation in the press. See the beginning of my second paragraph: "stop buying the media hype."

      If you've only got a few bombs and you actually want to nuke the US, missiles are probably the worst way to do it.

    9. Re: Why not cool down by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, it seems like they actually want the ability to hit the US.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Build Missile Defense on Southern Border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we need missiles on the east coast?

    The east coast will be defended when Poland completes Camp Trump.

  6. Yes, at extra slow speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well below Russian re-entry ballistic warheads's speed, which will be at least 5x to 10x higher.

    1. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Russia's nukes are obsolete. They test freight-car sized prototype weapons trumped up to sound like they are space age super-weapons. They field rusting Soviet era hulks without guidance systems and without men or facilities to fuel, launch, or even maintain them. Russia is a failed state run by a corrupt criminal with delusions of genocide, while all the people would be infinitely better off if Vladimir Putin could just catch a few bullets between the eyes.

    2. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Megol · · Score: 1

      Don't be delusional.

    3. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I have no respect for Vova he is a lazy and weak pussy who destroyed Russia's economy, its military,and all of its nascent democratic institutions so that he could profit personally by stealing everything not nailed down. Then he brought out the nail remover to steal the rest. Putin hates Russia most of all.

    4. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      delusions of genocide

      Did you maybe mean grandeur? I am not aware of any genocidal ambition on the part of Putin. Its not hard to believe he might hold some idea of racial superiority but I don't see him engaging in ethnic cleansing etc.

      Russia is not a failed state. Russia is a failing state; there is a difference. Broadly speaking Russia still has a working bureaucracy and government can and does enforce its laws. That said they have an economy that is increasingly becoming an petroleum/chemical mono culture in a world where we may expect decreasing demand. They have some pretty stiff competition too in that space. Additionally getting the other sectors of their economy into any kind of efficient operation is going to be difficult because they have rapidly ageing population, low birthrate, and generally poor health. They will be a failed state soon unless trends change no doubt but they really don't compare to the lawlessness you see in places like Yemen, Northern Africa, and much of South America.

           

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by sfcat · · Score: 2

      delusions of genocide

      Did you maybe mean grandeur? I am not aware of any genocidal ambition on the part of Putin. Its not hard to believe he might hold some idea of racial superiority but I don't see him engaging in ethnic cleansing etc.

      Let me introduce you to the Georgia-Russia War. A quick and nasty little bit of Russian military intervention. They are currently preparing the war crimes trials from this very short 5-day war. That's a bit quick for war crimes unless you really wanted to get rid of parts of the civilian population as a general principle. Then there is Russian takeover of Crimea and their intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure many of the citizens of those places would agree with you. Ethnic tensions and playing on them is a major part of politics in that area of the world and Russia is no different.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    6. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every single time they fly a rocket to ISS they are testing their ICBMs, all Russian ICBM rockets are R-7 rocket based. Exactly the same rocket base used in Soyuz space craft. If they can dock on ISS ,they can deliver a nuke on your roof, probably with even better accuracy.

      Decades? They build the engines and rockets bodies and launch them twice a month in the Soyuz format or launching satelites with 0.03% failure rate over 45 years. Do you really think they do not have any spare engines or bodies from R-7 rockets to use in ICBMs. Only the payload is different. Sometimes is a Soyuz, sometimes a satelite, but it could be a MIRV deployment transport module with 12 nukes warheads in it.

    7. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, "genocide" has been watered down to mean a few hundred casualties. Awesome, another word rendered useless.

    8. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Every single time they fly a rocket to ISS they are testing their ICBMs, all Russian ICBM rockets are R-7 rocket based. Exactly the same rocket base used in Soyuz space craft. If they can dock on ISS ,they can deliver a nuke on your roof, probably with even better accuracy.

      Um, the R-7 design really isn't that practical as an ICBM. It uses LOX, which means it has to be fueled up right before launch. Sure, it may have originally been designed as one, but everyone quickly realized that hypergolic storable propellants were far better suited to that job.

    9. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      genocide is about targeting a people for extinction not scale

    10. Re: Yes, at extra slow speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, not at all. ICBMs are solid motors, or sometimes hypergolic motors.

    11. Re:Yes, at extra slow speed. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people. I suppose the Russians might have *intended* to invade and destroy a people but got bored after the first couple hundred.

  7. When was the last test? by Gabest · · Score: 1

    Can those missiles fly at all after decades? Who would be so brave to launch one not knowing where it lands. Amusingly, only North Korea has a recent experience with it.

    1. Re:When was the last test? by Strider- · · Score: 2

      The US regularly conducts missile tests, both from land based solos and submarines. There is typically one or two launches a year to verify operational readiness. The missiles used are pulled from active service, have their warheads replaced with dummies, and fired at Kwajalein.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:When was the last test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single time they fly a rocket to ISS they are testing their ICBMs, all Russian ICBM rockets are R-7 rocket based. Exactly the same rocket base used in Soyuz space craft. If they can dock on ISS ,they can deliver a nuke on your roof, probably with even better accuracy.

      Decades? They build the engines and rockets bodies and launch them twice a month in the Soyuz format or launching satelites with 0.03% failure rate over 45 years. Do you really think they do not have any spare engines or bodies from R-7 rockets to use in ICBMs. Only the payload is different. Sometimes is a Soyuz, sometimes a satelite, but it could be a MIRV deployment transport module.

  8. Cat and mouse game. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    While it's good that they can intercept ICBMs, I suspect the only thing this will accomplish is spurring the development of anti-interception ICBMs. Naturally, development on anti-anti-interception ICMBs. The perpetual development of intercept and anti-intercept technology will continue back and forth ad nauseam.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Cat and mouse game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia already claimed quite a while back to have put uninterceptible hypersonic ICBMs into production, so if anything this news is too little, too late?

    2. Re:Cat and mouse game. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Well, if the Russians claim they are uninterceptible, then then they must be. The Russians always tell the truth.

    3. Re:Cat and mouse game. by sfcat · · Score: 1

      While it's good that they can intercept ICBMs, I suspect the only thing this will accomplish is spurring the development of anti-interception ICBMs. Naturally, development on anti-anti-interception ICMBs. The perpetual development of intercept and anti-intercept technology will continue back and forth ad nauseam.

      Too late...Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    4. Re:Cat and mouse game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We don't have any defense that could deny Russia the ability to deploy these weapons against us"

      - General Hayes, speaking to the US senate.

    5. Re: Cat and mouse game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the Americans claim they are uninterceptible, then then they must be. The Americans always tell the truth.

  9. Good enough is good until it is not by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Shielding to protect against accidental inference with other electronics is quite a lot different than shielding to protect against something on the scale of an actual EMP attack, or Carrington event.

    Sure, you can always improve shielding, but 'good enough' is good enough.

    Not necessarily for an EMP attack.

    FYI you shield electric transmission by burying it.

    Yes you do! So you are saying there are no overhead power lines left, fantastic.

    Oh wait, there are? So we could still improve that factor? Huh!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Yeah, now try intercepting 4000 of them, at the sa by melted · · Score: 1

    Yeah, now try intercepting a salvo of 4000 of them, at the same time, each with multiple separate warheads. Heck, try to intercept even a few dozen. This is a very asymmetric problem that's very unlikely to be solved to any kind of satisfactory degree.

  11. duh-uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well duh we 'merkins r dumb. we elected trump.

    1. Re:duh-uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tru dat

  12. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT KENDALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " They see people almost being denied a supreme court seat because they once had a beer while in school." - No, he perjured himself under oath. It's not the beer, you lying faggot. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT.

    YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. That he basically ATTEMPTED TO RAPE A CLASSMATE also didn't really rise to the occasion of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS without investigation.

    But with TRAITOR SUPPORTING DISHONEST FAGGOTS LIKE YOURSELF in charge? He sailed right through anyway, to lie another day.

    Dry your eyes, traitor. Your little perjurer didn't get caught - yet!

      https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13577626&cid=58274188

  13. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT KENDALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " They see people almost being denied a supreme court seat because they once had a beer while in school." - No, he perjured himself under oath. It's not the beer, you lying faggot. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT.

    YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. That he basically ATTEMPTED TO RAPE A CLASSMATE also didn't really rise to the occasion of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS without investigation.

    But with TRAITOR SUPPORTING DISHONEST FAGGOTS LIKE YOURSELF in charge? He sailed right through anyway, to lie another day.

    Dry your eyes, traitor. Your little perjurer didn't get caught - yet!

            https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13577626&cid=58274188

  14. So new missile tech will have sensors and lateral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thrusters?

  15. Re:Yeah, now try intercepting 4000 of them, at the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost as if the idea isn't to make a perfect defense against another super power, but to make a defense against rogue powers and accidental defenses.

    Negotiating with Russia and China is easy - the US has a long history of working out deals with them, even when we were inches from mutual destruction.
    Negotiating with South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Much more difficult, considering these countries aren't run by rational people. Seriously, some of those governments make Trump look like a calm and sane leader.

  16. Re:Yeah, now try intercepting 4000 of them, at the by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    There won't be a salvo of 4000. Outer edge of plausibility might be 100 or so, from only the large players (who aren't going to be doing it). Intercepting 25% will save *millions of American lives*, 50% tens of millions. Is that what you are objecting to?

  17. More twaddle by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "In the first test of its kind, the Pentagon on Monday carried out a "salvo" intercept of an unarmed missile soaring over the Pacific, using two interceptor missiles launched from underground silos in southern California."

    Really? = http://www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/sprint-salvo-launch-2/

    Really really? - http://erasgone.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-remote-army-post-in-pacific-helped.html

  18. Re:Yeah, now try intercepting 4000 of them, at the by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > might be 100 or so, from

    Assuming this scenario for a moment....

    That's enough warheads to drop 3 on the 30 largest cities in the US.

    The system has no capability to shoot down this many. This is doubly true because anyone able to launch that many will also launch hundreds of high-quality decoys that the system is unable to distinguish (as opposed to low quality ones from other nations)

    Because of the overkill on those targets, shooting down even the majority of them will have almost zero effect on the outcome. Dropping three warheads on Manhatten has basically the same effect as dropping two.

    This is the sad mathematics of missile defence. But this was all widely studied in the 60s, google Prim-Read theory in Books.

  19. Keep this in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fine ---- but what happened to the Patriot Missile project?

    Just keep this in perspective. Bad actors, like Russia and/or China won't just send one or two missiles toward American and NATO targets, they'll send hundreds of missiles simultaneously. Now, try to knock out each and every one before they land and can do harm.

    Meanwhile, rogue states, like India, are in the process of creating space wars.