HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » U.S. Missile Defense Syst...

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:02 PM

U.S. Missile Defense System May Not Work, Say Experts

Top generals have been insisting for years that if North Korea launched a missile at the United States, the U.S military would be able to shoot it down.

But that is a highly questionable assertion, according to independent scientists and government investigators.

In making it, the generals fail to acknowledge huge questions about the effectiveness of the $40 billion missile defense system they rely on to stop a potential nuclear-armed ballistic missile fired by North Korean or Iran, according to a series of outside reviews.

"They are leading political leaders to believe that they have a military capability that they don't, in fact, have," says physicist David Wright, who has studied the program for years as co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-missile-defense-system-may-not-work-say-experts/ar-BBA21rd?li=BBnb7Kz

19 replies, 3063 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. Missile Defense System May Not Work, Say Experts (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 19 OP
exboyfil Apr 19 #1
ProudLib72 Apr 19 #2
HoneyBadger Apr 19 #3
louis-t Apr 19 #4
Adrahil Apr 19 #12
tammywammy Apr 19 #17
louis-t Apr 20 #19
GeorgeGist Apr 19 #5
bluedigger Apr 19 #6
Orrex Apr 19 #7
Javaman Apr 19 #8
EX500rider Apr 19 #9
caraher Apr 19 #10
EX500rider Apr 19 #11
caraher Apr 19 #13
tammywammy Apr 19 #15
tammywammy Apr 19 #14
Takket Apr 19 #16
womanofthehills Apr 19 #18

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:14 PM

1. They get one launch

Then they go back to the stone age.

I am not in favor of a preemptive strike (unless we can verify a nuclear payload on an ICBM).

They launch a nuke tipped ICBM, then all bets are off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:15 PM

2. I no longer feel safe and reassured

I think the scientists should be reporting directly to congress. The military brass is doing everyone a disservice falsely bragging about our capabilities. You know that bragging could be what makes congress give the green light on war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:46 PM

3. No mention of Russia or China

But the retro tech from Iran and North Korea launching at the US (vs South Korea which is a few blocks away) is a problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 01:50 PM

4. It never has worked, it may never work.

During the Clinton years, they only got the percentage up to about 30 and they did it by feeding the coordinates of the target missile into the attack missile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:21 PM

12. I do not think that is accurate.

The Aegis BMD system has had greater success than that in recent years. I would not call it a sure thing, but they did a lot better than 30 percent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:38 PM

17. Aegis, Patriot and THAAD aren't for ICBM

GMD is meant for ICBMs. GMD has always had issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 12:46 PM

19. Note, I said during the Clinton years.

The last test done during his presidency was done in '99. Even 50% success rate doesn't make anyone feel too comfortable. How do you hit something going that fast with something going equally as fast? Nearly impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:17 PM

5. No shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:20 PM

6. Well, it's supposed to be a last ditch effort after all.

It's not meant to be the first response in peace keeping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:29 PM

7. It's actually one of the greatest success stories of all time

It has always been intended to funnel limitless cash to the manufacturers and their stock holders, and it has performed admirably in some form or another for many decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:54 PM

8. the doomsday clock alarm just went off. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 03:57 PM

9. Which ABM system is he talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense

Aegis?
As of February 3, 2017, Aegis BMDS has performed 34 successful intercepts in 41 at-sea attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#Flight_tests_to_date


THAAD?

The earlier tests in the 90's were so/so with many failures.
The tests since 2005 have been mostly successful.

Result posted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense


Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) ?
As of June 2014, 9 of the 17 (53%) hit-to-kill intercept tests have succeeded.

Not really a glowing recommendation, needs more work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense#Flight_tests

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 08:08 PM

10. GMD - it's in the article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 09:00 PM

11. Yeah it's the weakest link in the triad.

But if anything slips thru Aegis and THAAD, it's be a better backstop then nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:31 PM

13. There is no "triad" against ICBM threats

Aegis is good against cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles. Your own source points out,

Some critics say it is not as effective as a ground-based defense since the most advanced Standard missiles lack even half the range to hit ICBMs and even IRBMs arcing overhead.


The successes have come against missiles that wouldn't be targeting the continental US in a conflict with North Korea. That system would be be able to blunt missile attacks against South Korea and maybe Japan.

Similarly, THAAD is ill-suited to this kind of intercept. Again, from your source:

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army anti-ballistic missile system which is designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase using a hit-to-kill approach.


ICBMs are a much different type of target; they enter the atmosphere at extremely high speeds. This is another system that would be helpful in defending Japan and South Korea (and the article mentions Hawaii as well), but not against a longer-ranged missile.

At the same time, I don't think North Korea's efforts at building ICBMs quite add up to a reliable weapon system yet. So we have an iffy ICBM defense against an iffy ICBM capability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:36 PM

15. I believe, but I'm not 100% sure

GMD is trying to intercept before the ICBM reenters the atmosphere and prior to the terminal phase. It's a tricky concept in general.

You're correct that Aegis, Patriot and THAAD aren't meant for an ICBM threat.

If North Korea launches and ICBM toward the US, Japan or South Korea, even if GMD does intercept it we're all still fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:32 PM

14. Also, the Patriot AMD system works well

Especially when using the PAC-3 or PAC-3 MSE missiles. Patriot is currently deployed in both Japan and South Korea.

But Aegis, Patriot and THAAD aren't meant to intercept an ICBM and aren't tested against that either. Intercepting an ICBM is tricky, but GMD is a cluster fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:38 PM

16. i wonder what the actual plan is............

if a missile comes over the ocean, obviously we aren't just sending up ONE missile to intercept it. you send up 100... or 1000 or whatever it takes to make the odds of missing close to zero.

and what about fighter jets? we we scramble F-16s and try to smash into this thing once we know where it is going? imagine that would be damn near impossible at the speed the missile is going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 11:54 PM

18. Another article - it's the software folks

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-falls-behind-bringing-new-missile-defense-command-system-online

WASHINGTON — Software problems are causing the Army’s new air-and-missile defense battle command system program to fall behind schedule, a recent Pentagon testing report finds, and the service has yet to determine just how delayed it is.



Anyway, I live just north of White Sands Missile Range where they are doing some of this integrated testing. They actually have a ship in the desert attacking missiles. In the 90's when they were testing the Thaad missiles at White Sands, they would often put tri-ethyl phosphate in the missiles to test their ground sarin gas sensors and everyone would get beyond congested.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread