ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

[DRoseDARs]

No worries, they'll just release the occassional security update...

[Urban Ranger]

Monthly patches

[BeBMan]

Re: ARTICLE: Cloudy Skies Knock Out Anti-Missile Defense!

Don't worry, if the US is attacked they simply wait another 48 hours to intercept those attacking missiles

[Dinner]

The funny part is they've spent tens of millions deploying a system which failed two out of three of the tests that I know of. Those tests were rigged in the systems favor too. Meaning they knew the exact launch time of the incoming missile, it's complete path and trajectory, they didn't launch more then one missile which might have confused the system, plus all of the conditions were choicen to be ideal. The system still failed 66% of the time.

Why isn't this a prok barreling white elephant again?

[Urban Ranger]

The targets also had big metallic balloons attached to them, making the targets really easy to see.

[The diplomat]

I don't understand why people are against a missisle defense system. Do you want the US to be defenseless against a missile attack? Do you want North Korea to nuke a US city?

No complex piece of technology will work the first time out. There will always be initials failures as we test and improve the technology. When we develop a new fighter jet, it takes years to perfect the technology. But shouldn't we try to have a system that can offer us some protection against a missile attack? Even if it only works half the time, that would be still be a 50% chance of saving millions of lives. Isn't that better that nothing?

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The idea of testing is to test under ideal conditions, so you can test the missile system, and not the weather conditions.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The idea of testing is to test under ideal conditions, so you can test the missile system, and not the weather conditions.

How exactly does testing on a cloudy day test the weather conditions?

[shmily_dana]

The always want to have good weather on flight tests so that they can get photos.

Also, I imagine they have telemetry coming out of the missile. Need good weather for good reception.

There are also range safety issues that mandate good weather.

[Hurricane]

Remember, even on a sunny day "the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission".

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The funny part is they've spent tens of millions deploying a system which failed two out of three of the tests that I know of. Those tests were rigged in the systems favor too. Meaning they knew the exact launch time of the incoming missile, it's complete path and trajectory, they didn't launch more then one missile which might have confused the system, plus all of the conditions were choicen to be ideal. The system still failed 66% of the time.

Why isn't this a prok barreling white elephant again?

it went 5 for 8 in tests, and the failures were hardware failures on the rockets in 2 of the cases, not failure of the system to intercept the missile.

[Tuberski]

The weather affect the ability to judge the results. How hard is that to figure out.

Now it may be a crap system, but the test wasn't postponed because the system needs clear skies.

ACK!

[Admiral]

The reason that some of us are opposed to the idea of the ABM system is the nature of the threat environment today. The cold war is over. No matter how strong China gets, it has economic ties to the west that it can not risk breaking for a wee bit of nuclear war. North Korea is being much-touted at the moment as a serious nuclear threat, but let's examine this seriously. NK has a very slim chance of building a nuclear missile(s) in the next fifteen years, and if they did, our missile shield wouldn't help.
First, why would they use it against the mainland US. We are not in a war with them right now, and if they chose to do that, we would utterly destroy them. The whole point of MAD was that in any first strike, one had to utterly obliterate the other side, and there is no way that NK could ever possess that capability. Much more likely, they would use it as a diplomatic tool, and try to use it to bargain with SK. In this case, a US missile shield would be worthless. Also, the NK state is a secular state. Therefore, they do not believe that if they die while fighting the capitalist oppressors, they will go directly to heaven. Therefore, they will not risk certain death just to kill a couple million Americans.
Much more threatening are the terrorists, anational groups dedicated to punishing the US and the West for percieved transgressions. These groups are extremely unlikely to be able to construct ICBMs, or any sort of cold war-esque system for attacking the US. If they do get their hands on nukes, the could much easier put on onto a ship, and sail it into like Boston harbor, and then set it off. It is a much more cost effective solution for the terrorists, and currently, there's not a lot we could do about it.
Now, in a perfect world, where we had infinite resources, it would be nice to create a missile shield to defend America, but we do not have infinite resources. Rather, our resources are stretched somewhat thin. Therefore, it makes little sense to be spending trillions on the ABM system when it does not address the majority of threats out there today. Throw in its lack of success, as documented above, and it becomes a threat to national security. As Gatekeeper pointed out, if we had spent the money on the equipping our military, Rumsfeld's "the army we have now," would have been better prepared for the Iraq war, and casualties would have been diminished, and the situation would be generally better.
To me, this failure shows that the Pentagon/Defense Department are out of touch with the modern military world, and I do not understand how anyone can defend them.

[Flubber]

I agree with Admiral on the system in general


On the testing I agree with Drake . . . In early tests you go for optimum conditions to maximize the test data. Once you prove something can work in the ideal scenario, I think you can work on making it work in less than ideal situations

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I don't understand why people are against a missisle defense system. Do you want the US to be defenseless against a missile attack? Do you want North Korea to nuke a US city?

No complex piece of technology will work the first time out. There will always be initials failures as we test and improve the technology. When we develop a new fighter jet, it takes years to perfect the technology. But shouldn't we try to have a system that can offer us some protection against a missile attack? Even if it only works half the time, that would be still be a 50% chance of saving millions of lives. Isn't that better that nothing?

Would this line of reasoning also apply to social programs that cost taxpayers bundles of money, but only save maybe 3 in 10 people who actually use them? Or would that be a waste of taxpayer money?

As for anti-missile defense systems, I have no problem with them, so long as they're working as advertised. This one is being drummed up by various interested parties as the be all and end all of defending America from "rogue" nations and terrorists groups, and that worries me. Moreso since it's not perfect, not even good, and is costing taxpayers a lot of money. What's this going to be? Star Wars II? Are we going to find out 10 to 20 years from now that, hey, this system never really worked, was never meant to, but did succeed in deterring or bankrupting those who opposed us? That's how it was with Star Wars I. I don't know if our opponents will fall for the same tactic twice.

Gatekeeper