What It Takes For Missile Defense To “Work”
Tweet
If you are one of the cons who gets all your news from sources like “The Captain’s Quarters”, you would assume that a succesful missile defense test had occured, the latest in a long string of successful launches.
But the reality of the THAAD system is a little more complex.
The successful test comes after a massive program restructuring precipitated by early poor performance. Between 1995 and 1998, THAAD missiles missed their targets in five consecutive tests. The program was suspended in 1999 and resumed ground and flight testing in November.
THAAD’s failures echo the mixed performances of several U.S. missile defense systems. The Missile Defense Agency’s long-range ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California that were put on alert to shoot down North Korean missiles haven’t hit a test target since 2002. An Air Force plane designed to shoot down missiles using a powerful laser has been downgraded to an experiment, with no plans to field the system.
Test failures don’t surprise missile defense expert Philip Coyle, an advisor to the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. Considering the unforgiving physics of missile trajectories, Coyle likens hitting a ballistic missile to scoring a hole-in-one in golf. And if the missile is equipped with decoys or descends in a cloud of debris, as is common, intercepting it is like “hitting a hole-in-one when there are a bunch of black dots on the green and you can’t tell which one is the hole.”
The Hera target in today’s THAAD test used no decoys and did not simulate debris. Still, McGrath calls the test “representative”.
(via)
36 Responses to “What It Takes For Missile Defense To “Work””
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Save,
Slightly better working crap is still crap.
If I remember correctly, one of the early experiments was largely successful due to the homing beacon inside the missile it was trying to shoot down.
Think N. Korea will install those for us?
So … something that used to not work at all now works better. And that proves we should kill the program because … why?
“So & something that used to not work at all now works better. And that proves we should kill the program because & why?”
Ask pedro, that’s the same reason why he thinks funding alternative energy technology is a waste of time.
Missile defense is a Pentagon welfare project and a major boondoggle destined for the same scrapheap the Osprey and the Sgt. York (and soon to be the B-2) quietly reside.
Will missile defense ever be proven as 100% effective? -where it just takes one nuclear warhead to make a bad day?
I don’t think any and all missile defense should be scrapped, but we should cease pouring cash into sinkholes that only work with rigged tests. Its as if you had a car and the airbag only deployed if a technician pressed the button. Would you put that car into production?
If NK decides to launch an ICBM at the west coast tomorrow, I’d rather take my chances with 30% effective system that’s already deployed than with a 90% system that’s still sitting in a laboratory being perfected.
Deploy it ASAP and improve it as you go. Hopefully you won’t need it until it’s more effective. But at least you’ve got something in place now if the need arises.
First conservatives want to repeat the mistake of the Athenians in Sicily. Now they want to make the mistake of the French Maginot line. Great track record, cons.
I think the Republicans have a pre-1940 mentality given their love for their modern Maginot line.
How wonderful it must be to live in a 9/10 mentality.
“if you are one of the cons who gets all your news from sources like The Captain s Quarters ,
No. Google’s 39 news story entries for this test is where most would find better coverage.
“you would assume that a succesful missile defense test had occured”
It was the first time the complete system — including launcher, command center, radar and interceptor — was used to track and destroy a live target.
Nowhere in the cited article does it say that the test was rigged. In fact it concludes with the following paragraph:
“In coming months, THAAD testing will move to a missile range off of Hawaii for several more flights at longer ranges. Beginning with the next flight, all THAAD systems will be operated by regular Army personnel instead of industry testers.”
If anything, it sounds like they’re moving to more real-world conditions.
Also, it bears mentioning that systems like this do not need to operate at a 100% success rate. In an actual situation, several of these interceptors would be fired at the incoming missle, dramatically improving the hit percentages.
The 100% accuracy demand comes from the Reagan days, when a system like this would have to defend against hundreds or thousands of russian missles, and where an error rate of even 1% would have dozens of missles impacting the United States.
All in all, sounds like a pretty successful test.
From the same article:
So to sum up:
9/10: Bush’s security policy fixated on Iraq and missile defense, Bin Laden at large.
Today: Bush’s security policy fixated on Iraq and missile defense, Bin Laden at large.
Ah yes, 9-10 back when missile defense was Bush’s number one defense priority and not, you know, terrorists:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2676-2004Apr10?language=printer
And there you have it.
Jeesh, that’s missiles…
Sorry about that.
You mean the 9/10 mentality where we used to take box cutters and airplanes for granted?
“If NK decides to launch an ICBM at the west coast tomorrow …”
As someone who lives in Los Angeles I can honestly say that being hit by a North Korean nuke is so far down on my list of things to worry about it doesn’t even rank as a mild concern.
Or the 9/10 mentality where the president can ignore PDB’s?
As someone who lives in Los Angeles I can honestly say that being hit by a North Korean nuke is so far down on my list of things to worry about it doesn t even rank as a mild concern.
But if it ever does occur, I’ll bet you’ll be happy there’s a system in place to at least make an attempt to intercept it.
I also live in the LA area and don’t lose any sleep over the thought of an NK nuclear-tipped ICBM. However, I feel better knowing that if it does happen the chances are better than 0% of a successful interception.
I think the Republicans have a pre-1940 mentality given their love for their modern Maginot line.
I think you’re in love with your Maginot line analogy.
Whoever said that a Missile Defense System was the end all/be all of our National Defense? It’s just one component, designed for one specific target: ICBM’s. And where have you seen ANY proponents of the system claim it will be (or should be) 100% effective?
“I ll bet you ll be happy there s a system in place to at least make an attempt to intercept it.”
Ya, I also saw Armageddon and want to know why the government isn’t spending billions of dollars to destroy killer meteors.
I’ll say one thing about the North Koreans, they’re a whole lot better at staging half time shows than they are at building long-range missiles.
And where have you seen ANY proponents of the system claim it will be (or should be) 100% effective?
Not very good thinking by VRWC. Let’s try and remember that we’re talking about nuclear weapons. The ramification that several nukes get through our ‘missile defense’ is nothing short of catastrophic.
Additionally, Star Wars is nowhere near 100%; in fact, it’s nowhere near 10% effective. A country desperate enough to face certain nuclear annihilation might consider a ‘missile defense’ less than 10% effective to be pretty good odds.
It’s worth noting that even if we able to get ‘missile defense’ up to around 70 or 80% effective–it’s very likely this would drive hostile nations to produce more nukes in order to maintain some kind of nuclear deterrence. More nukes means a greater liklihood of those weapons falling into the wrong hands or an accident.
As someone who lives in Los Angeles I can honestly say that being hit by a North Korean nuke is so far down on my list of things to worry about it doesn t even rank as a mild concern.
If you were the only one who was going to be killed, I must confess that it would only be a mild concern for me, as well.
I love you too Frank.
Frank_D Jul 13th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
As someone who lives in Los Angeles I can honestly say that being hit by a North Korean nuke is so far down on my list of things to worry about it doesn t even rank as a mild concern.
If you were the only one who was going to be killed, I must confess that it would only be a mild concern for me, as well.
Says the blog’s only commenter stupid enough to publish his street address on the internet in a fit of anger.
When did we start discussing the Taepodong 3? At least that’s what I assume we are talking about when we talk about North Korea striking Los Angeles. The Taepodong 2 can only just hit Alaska and Hawaii, and that’s only theoretically, given that they are at the fringe of its estimated range and there has yet to be a successful test. L.A. has nothing to worry about, at least not yet. What’s more, there are significant doubts not only about whether North Korea can ever make a sufficient number of missiles to really be considered a threat, but as to whether they actually have the nukes they claim to have built. Even assuming they do, in all likely hood they would target South Korea or Japan for attack since they could rely on more stable mid-range missile technology and would almost certainly strike a significant target rather than wind up at the bottom of the ocean.
As for the idea of missile defense shields, if you were being attacked by an archer, would it make sense to try to shoot his arrows out of the air with your own arrows? Except 21st century incoming “arrows” can use any number of countermeasures (balloon decoys, aluminum shavings to blind radar, flares to create false heat trails, mid-course trajectory changes, and so on) to confuse any interceptor and get through to the intended target. Just look at the confusion that reigned after NK fired its test missiles. The White House said there were 5 launches, then 6, then 5, then 6 again. Russian and NK both claimed 10. Nor could the U.S. tell what types of missiles were launched or predict their trajectory. Just how the f*ck are you supposed to shoot down a missile if, a.) you can’t tell how many there are, or b.)you can’t accurately predict their trajectories? What makes anyone think that any technological advances the occur over the coming decades to make this system even barely feasible won’t also help those systems that might be used to undermine it? How do any of the missile defense systems deal with suitcase bombs or short range devices launched just off shore? Or am I to believe that the next major terrorist attack is going to come from an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Putting aside the enormous technological hurdles the program faces, consider the destabilizing affects of thumbing our nose at the AMB treaty with Russia. The effects could ripple all the way through Salt I and II, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and more. In short, it could undermine the last 40 years of arms negotiations. Now how effective does that crappy missile shield look?
Why the ABM Treaty is important and why Bush doesn’t have to trash it.
A 1985 article detailing why Reagan’s Star Wars plans were crap, many of which still apply.
It doesn’t work and its destabilizing
He’s going to get us all killed.
If you are worried about nukes,
try this, from the freaking Cato Institue no less
It would be a tragedy if a decade from now when Virgin Galactic has regular suborbital service and competitors in a dozen nations, somebody hijacks a rocket and slams it into the White House. It would be a double tragedy if we couldn’t stop it because we gave up on deploying ballistic missile defense because we hadn’t worked out a solution for certain more complicated scenarios.
The private sector is heading into space. We’ve got maybe a decade before an entirely new threat picture emerges of sub-military quality missiles emerges. It sounds like THAAD will at least be able to deal with that by then.
Roni, that line is kind of played, you know, considering that there have been zero consequences as a result.
If you were really hoping for something to happen, you could always go hunting back through the threads — we know how good you are at that — and reprint it. That would really show everyone else on the blog what a cool guy you are!
And, frame, you’re not afraid of terrorists, or nuclear bombs, why should I be concerned about you? You’re obviously not concerned about anyone else.
“only work with rigged tests.”
Duh. All preplanned managed test are rigged.
If you mean faked, you’ve got an earth shaking news story. An entire military service and program office has faked a test.
frame
“As someone who lives in Los Angeles’
isn’t that the county with more homicides than US deaths in Iraq?
(what have I done)
Frank_D Jul 14th, 2006 at 8:40 am
“Roni, that line is kind of played, you know”
Like repeatedly typing ‘you arrogant wannabe Nazi prick’?
“considering that there have been zero consequences as a result.”
But it was such a smart, security-conscious move for a family man in these post-9/11 days, don’t you think?
frameone:
US Soldiers : LA :: W.C. Fields : Philadelphia?
Don’t be a luddy-duddy! Don’t be a mooncalf! Don’t be a jabbernowl! You’re none of those, are you?
“isn t that the county with more homicides than US deaths in Iraq?”
Yes Dugger, it’s also the county where, given the option, any US soldier would rather be than in Iraq because it’s a whole lot fucking safer.
Hey, Roni! I’m DJ’ing a radio show right now.
If I died right now, I’d be a happy man.
How about you, junior?
How’d you like to head for the Pearly Gates right now, eh, kid?
You’ve accomplished a lot lately, haven’t you?
You shouldn’t curse frame.