Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States Technology

US Interceptor Missile Successfully Intercepts Test ICBM, Says Pentagon (go.com) 136

Posted by BeauHD from the mission-accomplished dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The Pentagon has confirmed that the U.S. interceptor missile it launched has successfully intercepted the test ICBM fired from the Marshall Islands. From an ABC News report detailing the intercept test: "The ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California shortly after 3:30 p.m. EST Tuesday. The U.S. will launch an ICBM-class target from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away. If successful, the kill vehicle, or intercept, will collide with the ICBM test target midcourse over the Pacific Ocean later today. The ground-based interceptor system is mainly designed to counter a North Korean missile threat, but a U.S. official said Tuesday's test has been planned for years and is coincidental to North Korea's increased missile testing this year. This will be the 18th test of the ground-based interceptor. The last one, in June 2014, was the first success since 2008. The system is nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of target missiles. An ICBM target has never been tested before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Interceptor Missile Successfully Intercepts Test ICBM, Says Pentagon More

US Interceptor Missile Successfully Intercepts Test ICBM, Says Pentagon

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @05:03PM (#54513659)

    "The last one, in June 2014, was the first success since 2008. The system is nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of target missiles"

    That really isn't that reassuring...

    If I told my boss that the system I designed to stop us from going belly-up has ~50% success rate, I'm pretty sure he would fire me, or at the very least, order more tests until the success rate is just a bit more acceptable...

    • Re: Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

      By this article, at least half would be successful

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

        By this article, at least half would be successful

        This article doesn't give anything close to enough information to know how accurate this system is in 2017. This is the only test to shoot down an ICBM, and we haven't tested against shorter ranged missiles since 2008 (according to TFA). They were certainly not very reliable from 1999-2008, but they may be far more accurate now. Obviously only one test is not enough data points to determine an overall success rate.

        And just as NK could launch multiple nukes, the US could launch multiple interceptor missiles.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          If incoming missiles are set to detonate up succesfully being targeted than the resulting EMP will still damage the targeted country and likely knock out defence system long enough for following missiles to be effective. The problem with nuclear weapons blow the up and they release a lot of highly radioactive material, so you win very little, if they detonate close enough, you will even less. Detonate in space and over the years you rain down radioactive material across the whole planet, https://www.youtube [youtube.com]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ranton ( 36917 )

            If incoming missiles are set to detonate up succesfully being targeted than the resulting EMP will still damage the targeted country and likely knock out defence system long enough for following missiles to be effective.

            The idea is to take down the missile thousands of miles from the US border, so the EMP will not affect its target.

            The problem with nuclear weapons blow the up and they release a lot of highly radioactive material, so you win very little

            No, you win quite a lot. There are examples of the non-nuclear explosives in a nuclear weapon detonating in an uncontrolled manner, and the nuclear fallout is many orders of magnitude less than a proper nuclear detonation.

            Detonate in space and over the years you rain down radioactive material across the whole planet

            The US tested detonation of nuclear weapons in space and while it did rain down radioactive material across the planet, it wasn't at dangerous levels. And that was from full nu

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.

        By this article, at least half would be successful

        NK's missiles seem to go in vaguely the direction of their target about 20% of the time. We just need to get better faster than they do.

        But, really, 50% is worth having. If you were likely to be shot next week, and you had a bulletproof vest that had a 50% chance of working, would you turn your nose up at it? Or would you wear it and shop for another layer?

        • NK's missiles seem to go in vaguely the direction of their target about 20% of the time.

          Hey, they have hit the ocean every time they have aimed for it!

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            Not true, comically enough. They're less that 50% for "ocean". Many blow up on the pad, and at least one headed straight for China and had to be self-destructed (talk about awkward).

      • I just don't see the U.S. sitting on its collective ass under these circumstances. Or maybe Kim can suck Donald's dick that good.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Most smart nations know the US reload rate and amount of stock the US has ready to load with.
        Even with a 100% detection and interception just use a much larger count inwards on the same path.
        The US has a lot of areas to cover so its systems will be spread out. Each optimal path down will be covered but with only so many missiles at a set reload rate.
        The US will be able to track, plot and have the systems to intercept but might have to wait for a reload.
        Well placed spies deep in the US gov/mil/contract

        • Most smart nations know what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the US. Most nations that can afford to have multiple missiles on the same path are smart. We don't have to defend against Russian nukes, since they aren't going to attack us that way.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by MouseR ( 3264 )

      Define "us". Whenever the media pompously mention "capable of reaching the U.S.", what they mean is the Guam base.

      If Kimmy feels sassy and angrily trows a hissy, wether the dong reaches it's missy, there will be a angry pappy ringing his doorbell thingy.

      • Whenever the media pompously mention "capable of reaching the U.S.", what they mean is the Guam base.

        ORLY?

        I recall news items a year or more ago. As I recall their ICBMs were estimated at being able to hit the western 2/3s of the continental US, but hitting the east coast or Florida was a stretch. If they've improved the range (loaded with a nuke), or lightened the nuke, even moderately, look out DC.

        From what I see now they're working (successfully) on reliability and accuracy.

        Further: since they've gotte

        • How can cities be a week from starvation when the human body can go for 3 weeks without food?

          • By going the prior 2 weeks without food, or having already exhausted bodily stores of food that would allow a human body to go 3 weeks without. While someone with fat reserves in their body could go 3 weeks without food, an already malnourished person cannot.

          • How can cities be a week from starvation when the human body can go for 3 weeks without food?

            That's a different definition of "starvation" than I was using:

            One week to the start of starvation (having no food avilable, the ongoing process). Four weeks to death by starvation.

            Not that it matters all that much. With the power out the pumping and purification of water will also be interrupted. Death by thirst is much faster, and death by contaminated water (e.g. cholera) is not that much more prolonged.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MouseR ( 3264 )

          They have very few of those and there's great doubt they actually could reach continental US.

          As for scudd variants, not capable. If kimmy wants to hurt, he's got to do it fast and sending something to reach continental US would take too long and the presumption is, retaliation would come before it goes down, if it reached at all.

      • They also can exit the outer space treaty and just park the warheads in orbit. That way they would have global reach and would be virtually impossible to intercept

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      Without the system, you're 100% sure to go belly-up.

      • ...and yet you still see notjobs at the gate to VAFB protesting the system literally every day. People are truly morons.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @05:18PM (#54513765)
      In practice (at least theoretically) multiple interceptors could be deployed versus a single target [wikipedia.org], greatly increasing the success rate (as only a single interceptor needs to find its mark to make a successful intercept). I'll take this strategy versus a 100% chance of a bad outcome with no such defense deployed, thanks.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Multiple fake ICBMs could negate the advantage of your proposed multiple interceptors. With multiple independent re-entry vehicles, the defender has to block every launch with overwhelming odds to avoid loosing cities quickly.

        • What you're really talking about are penetration aids [wikipedia.org], basically cheap ways to confuse your opponent, but they would never launch a full "fake ICBM". You've got to realize that a single ICBM is incredibly expensive, each Minuteman III costs somewhere around $7 Mil [wikipedia.org] per missile. Compare that to ~$1Mil for the AGM-86 (ALCM), less for non-nuclear options.

          You may think that multiple warheads (or fake warheads) would be a good answer, but MIRV [allthingsnuclear.org]'s have been decommissioned in the U.S. Not to mention the total numbe

      • Russia has ~1500-2500 nuclear warheads.
        They employ MIRV warheads.

        "Keeping _some_ away" (and that's the real world, if you look at the (often claimed to be overblown) partial stats of operational systems like Israel's Arrow project.

        When there's hundreds of MIRV warheads coming your way, this is hardly going to help you.

        • That's why shifting your goals is at least a decent PR move. The efficiency of the "multiple interceptors" solution against Russia is dubious at best.

          OTOH, against North Korea?

      • I also wonder what type of communication exists if any between "multiple interceptors". Presumably they are smart enough not to shoot each other down. Also given say a swarm of MIRV's and say a swarm of interceptors, what prevents all the interceptors going for the one warhead, rather than trying to sort out which one goes where. Would be an interesting piece of code should it actually exist...

    • Games theory. The point is to put uncertainty into North Korea's plan.

      Now his certainty is lower, he will need to spend more resources on numbers.

      If and when he gets an actual ICBM working, it will be liquid fueled. Fuel/Oxidizer that can be stored is a bitch, fuel that can be stored in the rocket is even worse. He won't have solid boosters for some time. A bunch of silos full of liquid fueled rockets in North Korea? cue 'Exploding Blue Danube...' At the very least it will cost a fortune, in blood and

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        According to Game Theory, if the US ever manages to develop a reliable ICBM shield it needs to be nuked before the shield can be deployed. In fact, probably better nuke it right now, just in case it really is >90% effective and the hit/miss ratio is just a lie. After all, the moment one side gets the upper hand the attack, MAD breaks down and that side attacks, right?

        Or maybe Game Theory is bullshit.

        • Wrong, your understanding of game theory is weak. (aside: We could have nuked the USSR in '46 but didn't. We were building a nuke/month at that point.)

          How would anyone ever have 100% confidence, in a any system not tested in practice?

          Not even an issue until the interceptor count gets into the same order of magnitude as the number of offensive missiles.

          More fundamental: Historically nations go to war when it's more profitable than not. With modern weapons, that condition rarely happens, to say nothing

        • MAD is for larger nuclear powers. For smaller ones, "We'll squish you like a radioactive bug" tends to work. We can't build a ICBM shield that will stop a major nuclear power (even stopping 90% of incoming Russian nukes isn't nearly enough), but if we can stop a lot of North Korean or Indonesian or whatever nuclear missiles that's a Good Thing.

    • Alternatively, they finally fixed the things that made stuff go boom. Or rather, didn't prevent stuff from going boom.

    • If Obama had attacked North Korea (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If Obama had attacked North Korea during his second term, the USA would have more favorable odds. North Korea would have tested nukes multiple times to show the world it was serious, but not far along for many of the ICBM parts to work. I guess it could be called bad project management. Will the current project manager make a similar mistake?

      • There are two problems with stomping on North Korea. One is China, who wants to keep N.K. as a buffer state. One is Seoul, the capital of South Korea, which is under North Korean guns, and which would take absolutely horrifying civilian casualties and damage if the artillery starts firing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by es330td ( 964170 )
      At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully stopped an ICBM attack. My guess is that were a country attacked and some sizable fraction of incoming missiles were stopped, the people who did survive would consider the defense to be very effective.

      • At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully stopped an ICBM attack.

        The US and the Soviet Union both stopped their own launches several times, successfully. MAD also stopped launches from both nations during the entire cold war.

        My guess is that were a country attacked and some sizable fraction of incoming missiles were stopped, the people who did survive would consider the defense to be very effective.

        If we're talking about all out war between the US and Russia, they may in the short term. But once fallout and radiation sickness starts to take affect, they may change their minds considerably. Not to mention the probable lack of electricity, running water, and other things we all take for granted.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        "At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully stopped an ICBM attack"

        At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully launched an ICBM attack.

    • 1) this is rocket science. Remember the saying!

      2) they put a beacon in the targets in the past... I wonder if they did this time or because of the fall out from the last time perhaps it's top-secret and we will have to ask the Russians about it.

      3) Billions every year since Reagan's failed Star Wars and it continues to fail...(under other names.) That money is better off going to everything they are trying to cut. The $50 billion of cuts in just about everything is about the same amount we put into anti-miss

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Yeah, the U.S. should cut cancer research because it has been what, several decades and they STILL haven't solved the problem. All those billions wasted when they could be better spent on other things. You should tell them this, I'm sure they'll listen to you.

        " I wonder how high the total is today after 30 years of graft... and nothing still to show other than increased corruption and a pile of old junk."

        Maybe if you ask politely, they'll put you on their routing list for memos. Then you wouldn't have to ta

        • You said it: Cancer RESEARCH. Billions more than that are spent on missile defense systems-- not research but multiple deployed systems which have not worked -- mostly it is not research, it's graft --- highly profitable security THEATER.

          This is like spending $ millions on each patient to do experimental cancer treatments with high failure rates. We don't do that; it's a stupid waste of money - we do small cheap experiments then small cheap clinical experiments and after it works well enough, THEN it gets

      • The GPS beacon is a standard part of the package. It's there because this is a *test*, not an operational bird. You want to collect all the information you can possibly get when you do a launch, and I can tell you from experience the VAST array of testing elements that involved. You measure the the snot out of these things so you can try to tell what went wrong, if something goes wrong.

        The GPS beacon is used for data collection, not targeting.

        Ferret

        • Literally Billions of $$$$ on the line and you trust private contractors to bend the rules??
          You think anybody important would get punished for doing such a thing? Senators probably ask them to do such things if it impacts them--- they put a ton of effort to keep the shuttle, keep high numbers of F35, F-22 and plenty of other graft programs beyond what the military even asks for.

          A simple homing beacon is all that is needed; GPS not required. wouldn't take much to put it in... but since GPS would be legit to

      • It's a good thing people on slashdot keep repeating the phrase "Raegan's failed Star Wars" because otherwise people might see the connection to the existing ABM ABL systems we have in place and remember how the tyranny of the USSR collapsed shortly after Raegan's administration and remember how many administrations and parties continued Raegan's foreign policy and think *gasp!* it was an amazing success. Perhaps you think Carter's military campaigns were successful or the stealth program (which started unde

        • We didn't build a fleet of stealth planes which couldn't fly. We did build F-22 which can't get wet ;-)

          It is spelled Reagan you drone.
          I purposely use Star Wars because it was renamed for propaganda reasons and I actually want people to connect past failure to present one... when I said Star Wars continues. It's not just research, it's largely expensive deployed GRAFT. They argue it'll work later with "upgrades" and decades later after completely replacing the system many many times (cost wise) it may imp

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Also in that the military has had a long history of fudging high profile, high tech tests, both for PR purposes and for information warfare purposes.

      The Reagan administration rigged tests of the SDI missile defense system -- for example in one test they had a target missile broadcast a homing signal to assist the kill vehicle. When it came out a decade later officials claimed it was to fool the Soviet Union, not Congress.

      More recently the Air Force and the Marines have declared the F35 ready for combat op

    • If I told my boss that the system I designed to stop us from going belly-up has ~50% success rate

      That "50%" figure only makes sense, if the successes/failures are random and independent.

      If, on the other hand, lessons are learned after failures and subsequent attempts offer more and more successes, then there are reasons to celebrate improvements. And, indeed, the previous such test was in 2014 and was also successful...

      Now, something about Slashdot... Someone spinning New Zealand's failure to launch a pay [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      If I told my boss that the system I designed to stop us from going belly-up has ~50% success rate, I'm pretty sure he would fire me,

      Then you should have built 4 or more of those systems before telling him about it :P

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      It's a test, a single test, and improvements are constantly made based upon these tests. You expect 100% results from an extremely complex system without some early failed tests? At some point in the not too distant future, we'll be able to intercept with energy weapons that can be fired multiple times, but until then, we need to improve on what we've got before NK makes it's weapons viable.

    • Nah, you **can** build a defense system with a 50/50 hit ratio...but better is better of course.

      We'll get there. They need to step up the testing IMO.

      Ferret

    • Well it is 1 for 1 or 100% for ICBM's.... Though that is a ridiculous test sample... though at the same time it isn't like ICBM and their launches are just laying around either.

      But no, not all that reassuring I'd say still. Also I'd argue that intercepting an ICBM is likely harder than "other type of target missiles", so I wonder if they have improved it by that much, or if they just got lucky. Also depends on how they run the test. Kinda cheating if you know exactly when and where the missile is coming fro

    • True, but if not implementing your system meant a 100% failure rate, he might deign to keep you on and see if you can do better in the next test.
      In the real world with current events, adding in a 50% chance that the 1 or 2 IBCM's that NK could launch would be shot down adds tremendously to the risk that they would not hurt us. If they succeed or not matters a lot to us, but it will only matter to them for a few minutes, then they will see everything they have built obliterated in a counter attack. The mil
    • If you were arguing for moving the odds more in our favor I would say you have a good point.

      But since this is slashdot I think your quest for reassurance just involves the government sending the military budget as free money so you can go back to bed.

      I would think the progressives would be all about making things (e.g. the odds) better.

      Maybe that's a misnomer?
  • lots of ocean to choose from. my Great Circle Skills suck.

  • Gee, I wonder if they test the way I test a new program I wrote. I use data I know will ensure a successful and quick test :)

  • Putting aside national pride for a moment, this is the same government that denied "domestic surveillance" and seems determined to live up to the "shoot the messenger" tactic against the heroes who exposed the lies.

    How can anything they say be considered trustworthy?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Yep, it is well known that the U.S. government is a monolithic entity where every part is aware of what the other parts are doing.

  • Russia, China, North Korea, Iran et al. Hitting a missile with a missile... USA USA USA USA

  • Can somebody please confirm whether it is OK for countries to test fire missiles or is it not?

    • Re:Bit confused here... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @05:48PM (#54513967)

      it's only concerning if the country in question is run by a petulant man child.

      Um...

    • North Korea is under UN orders to cease their nuclear and missile test programs. North Korea has elected to ignore those orders. Being unnecessarily provocative toward the United State and it's allies seems to give the short fat kid with the funny hair cut an all day woody and makes him feel important. We've tried sanctions, they did work. We've tried "strategic ignoring" which didn't work. Now we're trying to have both Russia and China apply pressure, if that doesn't work, things will get ugly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      What does that even mean? Are you asking if it's against some kind of international rules? If so, other countries have violated them. And what if it's not "OK"? Who's going to do something about it?

    • What's wrong with it? There are treaties against detonating nukes, but if you don't put nukes on the missile and don't fire it where it will hurt anyone, who cares?

  • North Korea strikes first = winner not NK

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Wrong calculus. Should that little twerp manage to take out Los Angeles, it won't matter THAT much to the U.S. that it was able to pound him back.

  • Mechanical means of warhead elimination will fall short.
    • What will happen with the plutonium fallout on the ocean and air. Even if they could eliminate a warhead near Korea, it spreads! Anyone thinking?? Does anyone think things though anymore? We (most) eat things that come from the ocean. No matter how you look at it, it's a lose/lose situation with nuclear ammunition.
      • would you prefer plutonium plus a city wiped out?
        • Plutonium does not stay in one place. Everything is circulated. Take iodine for instance. It's rare. But it still evaporates from the ocean to the air. As for your question, let's see.. A slow death or a quick one.. hmm.. I'll take the quick one. Ever notice the up rise in birth defects and cancer? Take a world. Make it filthy. This is what you get.
        • 3rd party? Unless a miracle happens and someone takes off like a race horse from the beginning. No way for now, but I'm open to it.

      • Pu-239 is an unpleasant thing to work with, but it isn't that horrible. The radioactivity isn't that bad, and the potential of chemical poisoning goes down with dilution. There's likely other things as unpleasant in the launch.

        The Earth is pretty big, and a few plutonium warheads aren't going to have a significant effect.

        • Well.. If you want to hear the honest truth about Plutonium here it is: We built plutonium reactors for one sole purpose - to make Plutonium warheads for the military. Otherwise we would have used Thorium which is billions of times safer. We now have the ability to have laser thorium reactors that can be turned off in a fraction of a second. (China is building them (and solar cells) like crazy.) Did you know that all the old CRT color TV sets had thorium in them? It made colors more vibrant, but it threw o
  • The video didn't have any explanatory track. I saw a missle going up. I'm guessing this was the target ICBM, then a puff of smoke. For all I know the ICBM could have been told to self-destruct.

  • To hit something you have to be at the right place at the right time (within a kill radius)
    First level of errors is in just picking up the actual current position/speed of the incoming
    Then you have to do you calculation quick (few milliseconds) and tell your interceptor to "move there" (mechanics/aerodynamics)

    If an incoming has no steering whatsoever, then it is kind of feasible.

    But if the incoming has even very little steering ten the control loop time (including mechanics) is so short that it becomes q

    • Yes, and no...

      If you have a missile chasing a missile, the persuer ought to take a shorter course. This is not the case if it overshoots, so the last part of the interception should be from behind rather than from the side. The interceptor will probalby explode and destroy the target with shrapnel, as closing the last bit is hard. Another, trickier but possible option is trying to hit the target from the side or head on. You can make your rocket lighter and more agile if you omit the explosives and shrap

      • The thing is once you've gotten into the ballistic phase, the flight path and speed is pretty set. You just put some gravel in the flight path, that's the only way from point A to the target and the reentry vehicle's 17,000 MPH of momentum destroys it.
        A Minuteman III silo has a 50/50 chance of surviving a 50KT detonation at or beyond 100m. This means the detonation has to occur a little less than 4 millionths of a second before impact! My understanding is a uranium device is incapable of detonating with tha

  • ...is smirking at Jed Bartlett.

  • <bored_soccermom_sarcasm>
    ...Those poor ships at sea that have hot metal crap raining down on them! This solution is unacceptable!
    </bored_soccermom_sarcasm>

  • To my fellow MDA peeps--well done.

    Ferret

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close