Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yup they still work (US test launches Minuteman III ICBM)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 08:17 AM
Original message
Yup they still work (US test launches Minuteman III ICBM)
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 08:30 AM by Statistical

USAF Conducts Successful ICBM Missile Launch

The United States Air Force successfully sent an unarmed ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to several targets located in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, government officials said.

On Sunday at 9:01 a.m., the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic re-entry vehicle was sent more than 4,000 miles during the latest round of testing, which saw the missile approach speeds of 15,000 mph. Military officials didn't say if the most recent test impacted targets in the water or on land. Tracking and telemetry equipment was installed on the rocket by the 576th Flight Test Squadron, which was in control of the missile launch for the U.S. Air Force.


The US has 450 Minuteman III ICBM as part of its strategic arsenal.

http://www.dailytech.com/USAF+Conducts+Successful+ICBM+...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, why can't they build a reliable American car?
Priorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Believe me, if they figured out a way to launch a car
at the (enemy of your choice), that also caused massive destruction, we would have a car that not only was dependable, but would also wash itself, change it's own oil and rotate it's own tires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ridiculous. Built in obsolescence
Biggest waste of money in the history wastes of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Holy Shite! Are We Going To...
freak out over ourselves testing our own missiles. ...UN resolution anyone?

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well one difference is we notified the UN, Nato, and Australia.
We didn't violate anyone's airspace or launch unannounced. We didn't have the missile fly near populated cities and splash down in the ocean like NK did to Japan. There was no moments of terror like when Japan was analyzing the flight path to determine if the missile would indeed strike Japan. We didn't cause millions of dollars in costs by requiring another nation to put anti ballistic missile cruiser in place to shoot down the missile if it was aimed at an occupied city (US Navy paid for by US taxpayers when NK shot over Japan).

So yeah those "small" differences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'll Give You Your First Point...
that is was nice of us to make the notifications. However, it was a pretty well know fact that NK was going to test when it did. Also the idea that NK would purposely or even accidentally hit a population center in Japan, or Japan at all, is pretty far fetched. The sensationalist deployment cost for the cruiser is on us.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "pretty much know" and "know exactly" are different things
If you're testing a ballistic missile, you tell people when you're firing it - not ballpark when, but exactly, "three PM next Tuesday, weather permitting" when - you tell people where you're firing it, and you make sure that you're not firing it over the neighbors' territory for the sake of eliciting a reaction. North Korea did none of these things.

This really isn't complex, and the two situations aren't equivalent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Then there is who the internal law issue.
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 01:33 PM by Statistical
Japan has sovereign authority over its own airspace. North Korea had no authority to invade Japanese airspace with a military weapon. Even commercial aircraft can only operate with the express permission of the host Nation.

The US ICBM test only entered US and Australian airspace and we had permission to do that. The rest of the time the missile was flying in space a domain no country has legitimate claim to.

Of course North Korea missiles are rather unreliable. Even if North Korea didn't intend to hit Japan by picking a flight path that went directly over Japan they risked the chance of a failure which would cause the missile to crash early or detonate over Japan showering her citizens with fiery debris.

There was plenty of open ocean to pick a flight path they kept the missile out of another countries airspace. The intent was to terrorize.

The equivalent would be if we "tested" the ICBM by having it impact 2 miles off the coast of North Korea (in territorial waters) unannounced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC