$40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable
Source: LAT
With a convulsive rumble, followed by billowing flames and exhaust, a sleek 60-foot rocket emerged from its silo at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.
It was a test of the backbone of the nation's missile defense system. If North Korea or Iran ever launched nuclear weapons against the United States, the interceptors at Vandenberg and remote Ft. Greely, Alaska, would be called on to destroy the incoming warheads.
Scientists conducting the test at Vandenberg on Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010, had left little to chance. They knew exactly when the target missile would be launched from an atoll in the Marshall Islands 4,900 miles away. They knew its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and speed.
Based on this and other data, they had estimated the route the interceptor's heat-seeking "kill vehicle" would have to follow to destroy the target.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html#navtype=outfit
The more complicated it is, the more ways it can go wrong.
TexasProgresive
(12,148 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)But he is dead. We need to address the current crop of people who are wrong.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)At what point do things that continue for decades stop being all the fault of one ex-President?
Was Vietnam all the fault of Truman?
Or of Eisenhower?
Or of JFK?
Or of Johnson?
Or of Nixon?
Sure, Truman fell for "the absolute necessity" of taking the baton from the French while they were getting themselves the hell out of there, to contain the Red Satan, but geez, there was more than enough blame to go around. I rather suspect that is the case here, too. For one thing, JFK was one of few Presidents to stand the fuck up to the Pentagon.
When things get tough, the solution seems to be to get tough on the poor and keep your hands off the Pentagon. It's about time we hold Presidents and Congress accountable for failing to hold the Pentagon accountable. I am not sure exactly how we do that, but I doubt it's by blaming a long dead President for most to all of our current problems.
TexasProgresive
(12,148 posts)G.W.Bush started Iraq and Afghanistan so it is his legacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
merrily
(45,251 posts)I never questioned that Reagan initiated this, which is the only point your reply proves.
Also, I am not at all sure Reagan would have gotten the credit today (or under Clinton or Bush) if anything that Reagan had started finally worked during one of those administrations. However, neither of us can prove or disprove that point, given that it is totally hypothetical.
But the idea that no President can stop something started by another President is indisputably false. So why should all Presidents after Reagan get a pass for this? More to the point, how does it help Jane and Joe Q. American to say that only a former (and, in this case, dead) President has any responsibility at all for things he started and subsequent Presidents either continued or doubled down on?
TexasProgresive
(12,148 posts)But once these Military-Industrial-Complex boondoggles gets in place it becomes almost impossible to get rid of them no matter how worthless they are because the MIC and it's lobbyists and bought congresscritters will make every effort to keep the public moneys flowing into their pockets.
Bill Clinton attempted to slow down SDI but when Shrub became president, ever the worshiper of Ronald Reagan, he ginned SDI back up full force. It is just one massive fail and waste of money. President Obama's attempts to rein in spending on SDI have been called traitorous at the worst and weak minded at the least.
merrily
(45,251 posts)failing to reign in the Pentagon.
As far as Clinton and Obama "trying" to "slow down" this program, but Bush thwarting both his predecessor and his successor (and a Democratic Congress 2007-09?), please.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Press Trust of India | Washington | June 14, 2014
The US has a number of ground-breaking defence technologies, including a helicopter and an unmanned aerial vehicle program, to offer to India for co-development and co-production, a top Pentagon official has said.
We have a number of offers on the table for India. Theres a ground-breaking offer to share in the next generation of the Javelin missile, co-production and co-development, Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, told reporters.
He said the offers in the list also include a helicopter program and an unmanned aerial vehicle program.
We have an artillery piece. We have a number of things in different stages of process, said Kendall, who has been tasked by US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel to lead Pentagons Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) with India.
CONTINUED...
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-others/us-offers-ground-breaking-defence-technologies-to-india/
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)It had a Nuclear warhead. No need to hit the incoming Warhead. There was a problem with that concept: EMP
LongTomH
(8,636 posts).......and we're selling weapons to both! Like, what could go wrong?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks for posting.
Orrex
(63,083 posts)It was conceived, designed, and implemented as a means to funnel cash into the pockets of its corporate backers, and it has functioned perfectly since day one.
struggle4progress
(118,032 posts)This has become nothing more than a Cash Crop for the Weapons Systems Industry.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)with that money..........
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)malthaussen
(17,065 posts)We eventually got to the moon anyway.
-- Mal
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Indeed, it's still working (and using up a piece of the radio spectrum NASA would really like to get back).
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)Caused mass hysteria back in '57.
-- Mal
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the explosion of our rocket added to it as we tried to get as powerful as they were beginning to appear.
The Russians telling us that a piece of their rocket that put Sputnik up there fell on us didn't help any, I suspect. Or when Khrushchev made fun of our satellite. Called it an 'orange", 3ish pounds compared to their orbiting 180 lb sphere. After the rocket blew up and threw it free they reported it laid on the ground, beeping.
Satellite-Launching Attempt Fails As Vanguard Missile Blows Up; Reds Say Sputnik Rocket in U.S.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1957/12/7/satellite-launching-attempt-fails-as-vanguard-missile/
Seems the Russian papers at the time had a little fun too, praising their Sputnik and calling our efforts a "Flopnik".
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,773 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Actually, Vanguard I, Vanguard II and Vanguard III, which were all launched in 1959, and all three of which are still orbiting.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and I saw the poor little "grapefruit" in DC
lark
(22,993 posts)and it's still a total cluster f***. Even when we know exactly where the missile should be, we can't hit it. This is a stupid waste of money and I'm apalled that Obama is still including one cent of funding for this boondoggle.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)From February of last year at http://thebulletin.org/does-missile-defense-work that is apropos.
I can sum it up briefly: Missile defense systems are very expensive, Republicans love them, but they don't work very well.
In particular, the system had great difficulty distinguishing between actual warheads and dummy warheads. An example of a dummy warhead is a balloon, which are dirt cheap and can be deployed in quantity from a single missile.
I did a statistical analysis of an attack by ten missiles, each with one real warhead and nine dummies, being countered by 100 missiles, with each counter missile having a 90% chance of hitting a real or dummy warhead (and that is an incredibly generous probability of a hit -- 50% or less is much more likely).
The chance of at least one real warhead getting through was over 99%. The chance of 5 real warheads getting through was over 85%.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then, but that's not good enough for nuclear war.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)....is significantly better then 10.
Also the Israeli's Iron Dome system has worked out fairly well. It calculates impact trajectory and only fires if it's going to hit a urban area. I think if we had incoming Chinese or North Korean warheads a large percentage would be off course and the ABM system would benefit from that type of discriminatory software. Obviously knocking them all down would be better but if ones going to hit empty desert and one is going to take out LA the LA warhead is a much better target.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)......more warheads and 'penetration aids' (dummies) on their existing missiles.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)dubbed, "Thor," which changes its flight trajectory radically during flight which makes it almost impossible to intercept. It was cheaply made and made Raygun's dream die in the silos. It zigs and it zags.
caraher
(6,276 posts)The engineering problem is vastly more difficult for ICBM warheads. Re-entering warheads are so fast it would be far too difficult to effect an intercept by the time you determined whether a warhead is on-target - and what "on target" means is subject to some guesswork given the unknown yield of the warheads.
You'd also be stuck coping with decoys. This is part of why boost-phase intercept systems get talked up - you have a target with a big signature across the spectrum and if you can hit it on the way up, decoys are a non-issue.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Do you know how many missiles were intercepted? I'll give you a hint, it's an integer between 1 and -1, non-inclusive.
Simply put, anti-missile systems are incredibly expensive and don't work very well. In the analysis I made said that there was essentially a 50% probability that at least 7 warheads would get through. That is NOT significantly better than 10.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts).....and again, the 3 possible US cities saved might be considered a better outcome for the inhabitants of those 3 cities...
Also it's a multi-layered defense with Aegis for boost, GBI for mid and THAAD and Patriot for terminal. No doubt the Russians could swamp the system with MIRV's and penetration aids but the Chinese and N Koreans not so much. And with 4 different systems batting 50-70% you will see a higher attrition rate then 50%.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)If I were to present a medical treatment that failed 99% of the time, the best response I could hope for is "better luck next time". But you want to THROW AWAY vast amounts of money on an anti-missile system which has a massive failure rate: A fifty-fifty chance of failing 70% of the time is unacceptable in the real world, especially given the huge costs.
Incidentally, in my analysis, I was extremely generous in my success rate -- I gave each anti-missile a 90% chance of hitting a target. I just did it again with a considerably more realistic success rate of 50%. In that case, there is an 87% chance of all ten warheads hitting their targets, and a 40% chance of six getting through.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)...should not be left in the hands of possibly crazies or megalomaniac leaders and dictators around the world. Even the possibility of accidental launch is there with China or Russia. I don't trust the leaders of N Korea any further then i can throw them. The only way to get a robust ABM system is to continue to work to develop one. And the Ageis RIM-161A system has not failed "99%" of the time.
Overall the Aegis has been successful in about 85 percent of its test firings.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The people doing the firing knew exactly when the target missile would be fired, from where it would be fired, and its precise course. And, of course, that there would be only one target, no dummies.
No, my objection stands: ABM systems are extremely costly, and the success rate does not justify the cost.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)Knowing when and where isn't that much help, they don't preload the directions....either the BMEW's or AGIS gets a solid lock and transmits to the missile or it doesn't. Either the missile locks on on final or it doesn't. And Chinese and N Korean missiles will be on well know trajectories from their silos also. Only difference will be the time constraint on getting a green light to take the shot.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Compared to a surprise launch. If you are conducting a test, and you know all the parameters, that makes things much easier. And it's not quite hitting a bullet with a bullet, it's more like hitting a duck with a shotgun. If you know exactly where the duck is, exactly which direction it's flying, and exactly how fast it's flying, that makes shooting it much easier.
No, it is clear that you support throwing billions of dollars at a system which works for crap. I do not know why you have this avid desire to waste vast amounts of money, but I say that it is a waste. A bloody expensive waste.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)....if you are wrong millions of Americans could be incinerated in their homes from a rogue lunch, accidental launch or suicidal launch.
I would tend to error on the side of caution here. ymmv
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)" i am wrong we MIGHT POSSIBLY develop some more high tech that may have spin offs (or we might just throw away billions for nothing". And if there is a "rogue launch, accidental launch or suicidal launch", the ABM system almost certainly won't work -- so we will have millions killed as well as having wasted billions for nothing. And, also " I would tend to error on the side of wasting over a trillion dollars here. ymmv"
Let me restate my point: ABM systems work very poorly, and are very expensive. The US has poured over a trillion dollars down that rathole, and has nothing to show for it.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)The percentages of successful warhead interception seem to indicate otherwise.
And a trillion dollars while a very large chunk of money is still only about 6% of the US annual GDP of around 16 trillion. And over what period was 1 trillion spent? Still a amount I would gladly spend if it kept even 1 US population center from being nuked in the future.
ymmv..
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Your argument amounts to "I'm afraid, so I believe the country should waste trillions on a system that DOES NOT WORK. Furthermore, I am going to pretend that it does work."
That is a very silly argument. Oh, and if you think that a trillion dollars is a drop in the bucket, then you will have no problem in sending me a thousand or so. I have some plumbing issues in my house that a grand would almost certainly solve, and money clearly means nothing to you.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)On 4 October 2013, an SM-3 Block IB eliminated the medium-range ballistic missile target at the highest altitude of any test to date. The test was the 26th successful intercept for the SM-3 program and the fifth back-to-back successful test of the SM-3 Block IB missile. Post-mission data showed that the intercept was slightly lower than anticipated, but the systems adjusted to ensure the missile intercepted the target. The SM-3 Block IB is expected to be delivered for service in 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
KareBear
(192 posts)Iron Dome for short range
David's Sling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Sling) for medium range.
David's Sling would wipe the floor with incoming scuds today.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Every dud they launch equals more $millions in rework and bug fixes
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The missile defence shield was yet another of the many lies Americans were told, and seem to relish believing.
The current big lie giveaway is the F35.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)isn't that a passing grade these days.
24601
(3,940 posts)Senator, you've nailed the definition of Circular Error Probable (CEP).
The most dangerous aspect of the possibilities of nuclear war were never the weapons but the humans.
Nuclear strategies, both counter-force (targets predominantly military) and counter-value (targets predominantly cities) strategies relied on judgments of the effectiveness. With the USSR, the decision makers had tables drawn up that calculation the correlation of forces. While the correlations themselves were not all that difficult, the challenge was to get to the next decision level to know: if Cf = X, the operational launch decision is Y.
The US and USSR had plenty of warheads & delivery systems for approximately 3500 targets in the USSR and 4000 targets in the US. What missile defenses did and do is, with respect to great power war, introduce uncertainties regarding the probable targeting success sufficiently to cloud decisions that could lead one to believe a nuclear exchange is winnable. To be effective, it doesn't have to be air-tight, just uncertain enough.
And regarding a smaller state actor who develops a small number of 1st generation weapons with a small number of missiles capable of reaching the US, a robust system that can overwhelm doesn't have to have a one-missile, one interceptor precision capability.
Is it worth it to have a capability to save just one target, even if it's only Honolulu, LA, or San Francisco, or even Las Vegas? And is it worth it to have a system that never has to be used because it keeps a rational decision maker from crossing the line to an irrational launch decision?
Should we pay lots of $ for something we don't want to have to use? That seems to work for health insurance where annual spending in the US has hit $3.6 Trillion and an injury or illness will never be scared away because you might have access to care.
Is the right spending level - much less than Americans spend annually on our pets ($61B), movie spending worldwide ($62B) or beer ($97B).
Worth as much as pets? Dogs maybe, certainly not for cats.
Is LA worth more than beer? Maybe, maybe not - are we talking about GOOD beer or Schlitz?
That's the beauty if the US, you can vote with your wallet and in the mid-terms.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_do_Americans_spend_on_beer_annually?#slide=2
http://qz.com/86525/americans-spend-more-annually-on-pets-than-beer-or-movies/
daleo
(21,317 posts)At any rate, it would cost less.
drm604
(16,230 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)repaired for that amount of money. I wonder what kind a monetary payout that would equal for every person in the US. Probably enough to take a vacation or make a mortgage payment or pay off a credit card.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)was to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to traitorous war industry profiteers.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Longie
(10 posts)A military that thinks it has an adequate missile defense is a very dangerous military to itself and to the world.
Longie
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)About the same results.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)What I gathered from this is that we need the Russians/Chinese/whomever to tell us when they are going to launch, where they are going to launch, and some other shit - and then we will have a viable defense system. Works for me Money well spent
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)That's our target, not some silly missile.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Figured as much. It's working as intended though, to make the MIC richer. I guess they'll be the next squeaky war wheel that gets more grease. Meanwhile, the homeless stay homeless and children remain hungry in this country and around the world, because by God, there is ALWAYS money for more war toys.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The $40 billion missile defense system has proven to be remarkably reliable at shitting gobs of taxpayer money down a rabbit hole that has defense contractors at the bottom of it,
- So success, in this case, is measured by what one's objectives are.
K&R
[center]
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)With Afghanistan winding down, the complex's profits are in danger.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It also contributes to an insanely aggressive foreign and "defense" policy, again with the essential element of plundering tax revenues to make hyperprofits for contractors in the consolidated mass-murder industries. That's all that ever mattered.
jmowreader
(50,447 posts)Write a contract with every country that makes ICBMs: we will give you X number of dollars for each missile, X1 for every litre of rocket fuel, Y number for each piece of support equipment and Z number for your technology, and if you make any more we will flatten the factory and your capital city with 15,000-pound conventional bombs.
As soon as we bought up all the missiles there were, we'd eliminate ours too.
If you fuckers want to blow each other up, do it the old-fashioned way: aerial bombardment from manned airplanes. No more missiles.
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)And their entire inventory?
Fat chance.