Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Remember the anti-missile missile? Forget it"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:18 PM
Original message
"Remember the anti-missile missile? Forget it"
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3244&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=6&from_page=index.cfm

by Victoria Sampson, Center for Defense Information

On Dec. 17, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) put its 10th interceptor rocket in the ground at Ft. Greely, Alaska. This is part of the overarching ballistic missile defense system that the Pentagon and the Bush administration has been promising us would protect the United States against a rogue ICBM attack. Unfortunately for U.S. national security, and for those who care about where our tax dollars go, it does nothing of the sort.
. . .

The interceptors fielded in Alaska and California are part of a weapons system that suffered two flight test failures within three months. In December 2004 and February 2005, the interceptor rockets not only failed to intercept their test targets -- they could not even leave the launch pad. The United States has been launching rockets for decades now; while missile defense requires an accuracy that has been likened to "hitting a bullet with a bullet," rocket launches should be well within our capabilities.

Following these recent setbacks, MDA officials took a hard look at their testing program and scaled things down. On Dec. 13, 2005, a test of the interceptor rocket was held, and finally it managed to get off the ground. No target was used; nor will a live target be incorporated in the tests for some time.

Yet somehow, the Pentagon argues with a straight face that this system can provide a "limited" defense for the United States against missile attack. It is theoretically possible that it may do so in the future, but missile defense, as it stands today, tomorrow, and really, for the next few years, does nothing more than divert funding and resources from programs that actually do work.

Still, it continues to grow. Unsatisfied to focus on simply getting the technologies that we have now to actually work, the Pentagon has set its sights on expanding the program abroad. In the coming year, it is set to make a decision as to which lucky European country gets to host a third interceptor site. The United States will soon be exporting its special brand of "defense" to our purported allies, which is to say, a system that costs billions of dollars and yet doesn't work. Lucky them -- and lucky us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. There are freeper bastards who defend this crap with all their might
To say that this "program" is a complete and utter scam on the US taxpayers would be a gross understatement of the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. You don't understand, this is a "faith-based" missile defence system.
God will make it work when the time comes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. That sure made me laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's always been a failure
but why should that stop a bunch of repukes from getting rich off it? We could probably save a fortune by just giving them the money they skim off the top anyway and forgetting about all the raw materials we need to buy to keep up the sham idea that it works in some way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnowGoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, the system works all right.
The mistake is in thinking its purpose is to shoot down enemy missiles.

Its real purpose involves, as Douglas Adams put it, "the movement of small, green pieces of paper."

And it's working great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a screwed up idea.
China, Korea and Russia have moved away from stationary, large MIRV-based ballistic missiles (those that actually come close to the edge of the atmosphere). This system can only deal with that 1st generation technology. If it ever worked. It has to launch high and fast, AFTER nonexistant satellites detect the boost phase, note the arc and anticipate the target. The warhead then has to be tracked by nonexistant mid range radar, and finally ID's tracked, targetted and shot from Alaska. In other words, we have to pray that China and Russia AND Korea direct their missiles close to the arctic, just so our defense system can find them in range and in time. Any further south, and we are SOL.

What those three countries have done is to allow us to waste many billions on a maginot line that works even worse than the original.

Today's threat comes from
1) supersonic cruise missiles which we have no way of detecting, much less defending. Moreover this piece of junk we are still building in Alaska can only shoot up and very high. It cannot detect or aim down to a low flying cruise missile, especially one travelling at Mach 2.

2) Ship launched, low trajectory missiles from one use only fishing boats or towed platforms. China, Russia and the EU are all gaining experience in sea launching. NASA is not, nor is the DOD. Instead, we have a couple of private US companies that are far ahead of our military planners.

3) Containerized weapons, with hidden bombs, to be detonated by remote control, or timers. (we only check 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10th of 1/10th of all millions of containers arriving each week, and a small fraction of those by eye.

4) Sub launched missiles, with an extra quiet diesel based sub, holding no more than one to two missiles per sub.

As stated before, NONE of these viable techniques can be stopped by today's ABM systems being built in Alaska. It is akin to using a worker trained in gas lamp lighter technology to program the operating system for a nuclear powerplant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. When SDI was first trotted out
I turned to my SO and said:

When a nuke is detonated on American soil by a hostile, the delivery system will be UPS.

It is still just as true, though these days it will probably be in a cargo container being hauled down the interstate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. ABM is a vast black budget slush fund for covert operations.
These things were never really intended to provide a shield against anything more than, perhaps, a single rocket shot from some Third World country.

What black budget operations are really effective for is for creating huge pools of money that can be used for various other purposes, such as secret interventions and buying up proprietary front companies. They buy a lot of nice vacation homes, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalArkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. I personally think the system like the movie Spies like Us
had might be better than the bushdoggle they are trying to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burried News Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe we should figure out how to stop a commercial airliner
from hitting the Pentagon, first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That's simple
Put the entire bu$h administration in prison and keep them there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Here's all you need to get indictments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. Cue the Credits. Star Wars Is OVER!
Not that it ever got started. Faith-based technology at its finest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. I sure wish it worked
but I think it has been a money pit. On the other hand, I don't know a damned thing about it. Just gut feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC