Study: US Missile Defense Plans Based On ‘Technical Myths’

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

US missile defense plans are based on "technical myths" and interceptors have mostly failed to knock out incoming warheads in military tests, a new study argues.

Two American scientists reviewed 10 tests of the SM-3 "kill vehicle," designed to take out ballistic missiles, and concluded that the interceptor succeeded in directly hitting mock warheads in only one or two cases.

"This means that, in real combat, the warhead would have not been destroyed but would have continued toward the target and detonated in eight or nine of the 10 SM-3 experimental tests," wrote George Lewis of Cornell University and Theodore Postol of MIT in the latest issue of "Arms Control Today."

The Pentagon had described the tests between 2002 to 2009 as successful.

The US administration's claims about the missile defense system are "nothing more than a fiction" and "the policy strategy that follows from these technical myths could well lead to a foreign policy disaster," wrote the scientists in an article titled "A Flawed and Dangerous US Missile Defense Plan."

But the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on Tuesday rejected the findings of the study, calling them "flawed, inaccurate and misleading."

Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0518/study-missile-defense-plans-based-technical-myths/

[truthisfreedom]

1. "Our study says your study is flawed and inaccurate!" "No, your study is flawed and inaccurate!"

"I'm rubber and you're glue and everything you say bounces off me and sticks on you!"

[old mark]

2. OK - let's say they were "successful" up to 20% of the time....this is a "significant" percentage...

OK, then let's say they were "significantly successful" and get a few hundred mil to work out the bugs....


mark

[harmonicon]

6. These figures are during controlled tests that they know are coming.

So, even if they go these up to 20% it would be meaningless. Once they get it up to 100% (and I pray that the program is scrapped before that much money is wasted on tests) then they could start testing in more practical ways - that is, in a fashion that would actually simulate conditions that these things would have to face. We have no idea what the percentage would be then. Whatever it was, I figure you could knock a few points off for real-life scenarios. This whole plan is utter foolishness - it's like the patriot missile (0% effective) all over again but at a much, much higher cost.

[old mark]

18. THe US Navy did this in the 1930's - they had battle exercises and were scored

on how well they did in combat situations. Then they gradually made the situations known in advance so the scores would increase and the officers get promoted. Then they made the situations easier and more planned so it became more of a maneuver exercise so the officers would get promoted...the idea of real training and preparedness was ignored in favor of playing the game.

Like Reagan's "Star Wars" program, (and "Railroad Bill") it never worked and it never will...


mark

[pattmarty]

3. Looks like Obama is also for this 30 year old JOKE too.

[hollowdweller]

10. 30 year old money pit

We reformed welfare but and keep talking about cutting entitlements but this is one gov't program that is a waste of money and a total fraud.

[pattmarty]

12. Yep.

[louis-t]

4. They had 30% success rate under Clinton.

Missile defense hasn't worked in 30 years and won't work in the next 30.

[quaker bill]

5. There is a reason 50 Nobel laureates

with the Union of Concerned Scientists co-signed a statement against this plan. It is the same reason that University Physics departments refused grants to work on it. Specifically because it is a technical myth that such a thing can be successfully built. There are a number of technical reasons that this is a near impossible task. It is actually a credit to the scientists working on this that they managed to hit any at all.

My understanding is that accuracy improved once they outfitted the targets with homing beacons. Unfortunately, it is likely that an enemy will not be so kind.

Even if this can ever be built, it will clearly be massively expensive and easily defeated with a larger collection relatively simple and cheap dumb ballistic missles of the early cold war sort. It is and will remain roughly 10 times more expensive to shoot a missle down than it is to launch one.

[defendandprotect]

15. It's a bottomless pit we've been pouring money into for decades....

militarization of the skies --

PNAC loves it!!

[daleo]

7. Giga-bucks were spent

Thus, the project achieved its goals.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. Gotta keep them taxpayers scared so they feed the Military Industrial Complex billions of dollars.

.
.
.

AND

if there is no war going on

CREATE ONE

Afghanistan and Iraq filled the bill;

and they even sucked us Canadians into their abyss.

[No Elephants]

17. I'm sure Canadians will take responsiblity for their own choices, as every adult should..

[fascisthunter]

8. another excuse to squeeze the American Tax Payers More

[unkachuck]

11. if you want to....

....cut the budget and reduce the deficit, start here....

'...missile defense system are "nothing more than a fiction"...'

[G_j]

13. foreign policy disaster?

haven't had one of those in a while!


:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

14. Theodore Postol of MIT has long been on this subject ... courageous!!

[Nihil]

16. K & R ...

... not that their report is "news" but that its visibility is improving.

:thumbsup: