US tests defense system after North Korea missile launch
Source: CNN
(CNN)The United States said it conducted a successful missile defense test in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday amid growing tensions with North Korea.
US Forces tested the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Alaska by launching a ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean, according to the US military.
The medium-range ballistic missile was detected, tracked and intercepted, it said.
The tests appears to be a show of force two days after North Korea conducted an intercontinental ballistic missile test.
<more>
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/30/politics/us-military-tests-thaad-system/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
We've known that for literally decades, even back to the 1960's when the first ABM systems were proposed.
When it costs more to shoot a missile down than it takes to build and launch the missile in the first place, Econ 101 tells you that the inevitable response to an ABM system is for the opponent to build more missiles. In other words, it accomplishes precisely the opposite of its utterly naive intentions.
Scientists have been saying this for as long as war hawks have been spewing this crazy justification for a technology which in principal cannot work to justify its stated goals.
Most of these tests have been cheats. They tell the interceptor where the missile is, because the test is not blinded. They know when the target is launched; they know where the target is going. So of course the test can be successful.
Regardless of the cheats, few of these tests are successful. It is really, really difficult to intercept an ICBM. Many think it may be near impossible. Certainly, its costs outweigh its benefits. This especially when the opponent can so inexpensively overwhelm your ABMs by merely building and launching more much cheaper missiles.
ECON 101 is your bitch.
I can't really debate this from your perspective, given we have different views on some of the base issues, but at least it was a civilized debate. I can always appreciate those. 
At least we both seem to be in agreement that NK nuking someone would likely see a terrible retaliation, and that may well hold back Dear Leader's trigger finger.
My position is based on the science. That's my domain, or at least it was in my productive past. The scientists have almost universally been against ABM systems since day one. That is why Richard Nixon signed the ABM treaty which led directly to the START treaties.
That was a win/win for the world, the elimination of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, all under international observation.
Restarting the ABM advocacy is a very grim thing indeed, for the reasons I, and others at the links I've provided, have already stated.
Scientists are nearly universally against it, which is sufficient for me, especially since I can still do some of the calculations. (I may be old now, but I am not yet dead. 
)
Best regards.
ABMs are destabilizing. They invite an opponent to launch more weapons and/or decoys. They make it more likely that we will be hit by a nuke. We've known that for freaking decades. That is why the scientific community have been nearly universally against their deployment during that entire time.
You and I are just going to have to agree to respectfully disagree on this topic as I have no choice but to stand with the scientists here.
My best regards to you.
As the "duck & cover" drills the nuns had us do in grade school.... I'm having very unpleasant flashbacks.