Slashdot Mirror
Missile Defense Test Intercepts ICBM Target, Says Pentagon (cnbc.com)
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.
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.
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'
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'
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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
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."