US Tests New Missile Defense 278
pumpkinpuss writes "The US military yesterday shot down a missile in a test simulating a long-range ballistic missile attack by a potential adversary such as North Korea or Iran. The target missile was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, at 3:04 PM Eastern time, tracked simultaneously by several ground and ship-based radars, and intercepted by a 'kill vehicle' 3,000 kilometers away over the Pacific 25 minutes later, according to the Missile Defense Agency. Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said, 'The kill vehicle was sent to a very accurate spot in space giving us great confidence.'"
Reader gilgsn points out the testing of a different "multiple kill vehicle" by Lockheed Martin, which was able to hover over the ground and track a target. Video of the test (WMV) is also available.
I am a pacifist but i love military tech. (Score:5, Interesting)
What a beautiful machine! I really love it's completely evil and aggressive look. The way the camera shakes because of the massive amounts of unergy it uses to keep hovering. This thing will be a hit computergame enemy.
I am a pacifist but i love military tech. Is that sick?
Another video about the MKV (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDgIBES9U9M [youtube.com]
Re:Iran? Uh huh ... yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
I can understand N. Korea since they can actually reach the Aleutians... but Iran?
I think Iran and North Korea are simply the easiest threats to identify right now. What this system is designed to do is counter any country that is not deterred by the threat of massive retaliation. Whether it be Iran, North Korea, a destabilized Russia, or a fundamentalist lead Pakistan, this system should give pause to any suicidal leader who is willing to trade the annihilation of his country for the chance to wipe out at least one American city.
That being said, by the time Iran acquires the ability to launch ICBMs at the US, this program may actually work as advertised.
Re:Iran? Uh huh ... yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
So since we've got some tiny islands that N Korea could barely reach if it got really lucky, that N Korea could benefit from attacking only by escalating a shooting war with the US, we should... polish the trigger and load the gun?
If N Korea could hit something that actually damaged US ability to counterattack militarily, economically, or - last resort, like always - diplomatically (like cut off their trade with all their neighbors), then we might want to consider an antimissile defense. But the Aleutians are a buffer against such an attack. If they hit them, we'd suffer minimal loss, and N Korea would finally find itself facing the most global opposition possible. It would be a boon to the US, just as Georgia's attacking Russia finally gave Russia the chance to slap down its Georgia nuisance.
Because the US, unlike N Korea, has plenty of reach anywhere in N Korea, once the nice guy gloves are off. And N Korea, unlike the Aleutians, is full of targets useful for destroying its regime.
In case you missed it, I'll make it plain: an antimissile defense of the Aleutians from N Korea is precisely the worst distraction from the proper, conventional response. Even plainer: exactly like invading Iraq when a couple dozen mostly Saudis attacked us from an HQ in Afghanistan protected by the secret police in Pakistan, antimissile defense of the Aleutians from N Korea is a bait & switch that would just squander everything, including unprecedented world alliance, to make everything worse, with no way out.
Re:How come we haven't nuked ourselves yet? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why a missile defense is such a dangerously stupid idea.
The advantage of the old nuclear doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) lay in the fact that it was assured. There was no "risk" about it - if the US attacked the USSR then the US would also be devastated (and vice versa). With a missile defense on the other hand, there's less certainty, and hence greater risk.
Even if the shield is not actually very effective, there's still an increased possibility that the US could escape massive retaliation, and this can only cause the Pentagon to be more likely to take the risk. This is obviously bad for the population of "designated enemy countries" such as Iran, but it would also be a very bad idea for the population of the US, because it is a very high-risk strategy. Furthermore, since the military strategists of other countries know that a "missile shield" may make the Pentagon more trigger happy, they will naturally take steps to counter the perceived threat. In the face of this threat, it's actually rational for the USA's designated enemies to deploy nukes, develop ICBMs, with MIRVs, with lots of "dummy" warheads, etc, as well as to prepare asymmetric measures which completely side-step the missile shield.
Re:It will be cut. (Score:1, Interesting)
the real problem with it working is the only thing more devastating than a nuke detonating would be successfully vaporizing one in the atmosphere.
ten trillion defense outdone by $100 in offense (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been known for quite a while in defense circles that it's generally a poor idea to have a weapojg, defensive or offensive, that can be gotten around at miniscule cost to the other side.
For example, defensive missles, due to the basic geometry of the scenario, can only protect from missles coming through a very narrow cone. You see missles can't slew sideways worth a darn when in boost, and not at all post-boost. The incoming missle is bearing down at 18,000 MPH or more, even a small angle off results in an impossible to hit target. I know, in the movies and artistic simulations you ALWAYS see missles hit at ridiculous angles, but in the real world it's a no-go.
So all the bad guys have to do is target a place that is a couple hundred miles from the nearest interceptor base, or launch from an unusual angle, or use low-trajectory missles, or use say a Cessna to deliver the bomb. Voila, or whatever the word is in NK-speak, you've bypassed a trillion dollar defense system.
Re:How come we haven't nuked ourselves yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I think that missile defense makes a lot more sense in this era. While it was certainly a destabilizing force in the cold war (in a maddeningly "War is Peace" kind of way,) the calculus changes completely when you're dealing with the asymmetric challenges of rogue states and the remote possibility of an non-state entity getting access to a few missiles. In the new case, MAD is in no way going to prevent them from launching, and wouldn't prevent us from using ours on them, due to the sheer difference in number.
Also, in a purely technical sense missile defense makes more sense with asymmetric threats, because theres no way such a system could shoot down half of Russia's arsenal flying at us, we'd have to have double or triple the number of interceptors, based on what I can tell of general precision. However, if its only one or two, or one that got fired off by accident, throwing multiple interceptors at it is totally worthwhile.
Really, I think the biggest risk is upsetting Russia with it, even though it really doesn't make sense because there's no way we could stop a barrage from them. But demagogues and presidents trying to look tough on the world stage won't necessarily approach it logically, at least not in public.
Re:Iran? Uh huh ... yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
I give a nice sarcastic "boohoo" to both sides. Both are racist morons blinded by religion and a baseless sense of entitlement. Both like embittered 2 year olds who don't get their way, except armed with tanks, missiles, and suicide bombs.
I haven't found much of a reason to feel much pity for either side. I'm not religious, so I don't buy the "god gave this to us" crap, nor do I think the events of 2500 years ago has much relevance on the land claims of today. So there goes the Jewish side of the argument. I also don't think that killing innocent civilians just because you don't like your neighbors garners much respect (this is true for both sides), especially when you decide to kill your neighbors distant relatives and relations (true mostly for Palestine), or decide to teach your children first how to hate (true for both sides, but more towards the Palestinians), and to commit suicide for no real reason.
I think the US should just leave both sides to fend for themselves. Helping either side is morally murky, being that both sides cross the boundaries. Picking sides in this conflict has done NOTHING to help the US, and much to hurt us. I don't even get why it is a damn issue.
They will have to learn to live together, and compromise (the mature, rational, and intelligent answer), or annihilate each other (the answer they want).
Re:Iran? Uh huh ... yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Posts like this are a perfect example of why we need a "-1: Proudly ignorant" or "-1: Sanctimonious moron" or perhaps "-1: Dr. Goebbels" moderation.
As it is patently obvious to anyone who followed the Georgia/Russia conflagration to any degree, it was the Georgians who launched a surprise attack on South Ossetia in order to "reclaim it" from the local Russian-speaking population, an attack involving firing Grad missiles indiscriminately into civilian dwellings, not to mention that the advancing Georgian troops targeted specifically the Russian peacekeeping force deployed in the separatist region.
I am absolutely positive that this same very poster was whining with high histrionics about Serbian forces under Milosevich in Kosovo and jumped up and down on his sofa cheering on the NATO bombing of Belgrad. Not to mention that he likely had an erection when "Shock and Awe" started in Iraq.
Re:Iran? Uh huh ... yeah (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree with you on the 2-year-old-part. But I would like to object the following:
I think the US should just leave both sides to fend for themselves. Helping either side is morally murky, being that both sides cross the boundaries. Picking sides in this conflict has done NOTHING to help the US, and much to hurt us. I don't even get why it is a damn issue.
There are no clear two sides. There are those who are angry enough to fight to death, but there are also those who live there and want to live there peacefully. However, since one guy deciding it is time for a killing affects a lot of others, not only are the already militarized affected, but also the before peacefully living are filled with sadness that can easily change to anger and hate. Thus new people are drawn into the conflict and it never ends.
They can't really move from there, it is there home. They should turn the other cheek, but tell that to someone who got his sister, brother, father, mother or best friend killed.
The US and UN do not get any benefit atm from interfering in the conflict except maybe not letting the conflict escalate which would affect surrounding countries and trading relations.
But would you neutrally watch 2-year-olds scratching their eyes out with the argument that you don't get any benefit from stopping them?