Thursday, October 04, 2007

Hitting a bullet with a bullet

Progress on US ballistic missile defence of North America (but without Canada, pity):
After a successful test last week, the tracking radars and interceptor rockets of a new U.S. missile defense system can be turned on at any time to respond to an emerging crisis in Asia, senior military officers said.

General Victor Renuart Jr., the senior commander for defense of U.S. territory, said Tuesday that the anti-missile system could guard against the risk of ballistic missile attack from North Korea even while development continues on a series of radars in California and in the Pacific Ocean and on interceptor missiles in Alaska and in California.

While the new system is limited, it is the most extensive anti-ballistic missile system the Pentagon has fielded since the Safeguard ABM system near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota was briefly operated, starting in 1975. Congress immediately voted to shut Safeguard ABM down, and it operated for only a few months.

"We can bring missiles up or take them down as need be so that they can continue doing the testing," said Renuart, commander of the military's Northern Command, based in Colorado Springs [right next to NORAD, no less]. But, he added, "I'm fully confident that we have all of the pieces in place that, if the nation needed to, we could respond."..
But what about decoys?
Obering [director of the Missile Defense Agency] acknowledged that no decoys were flown in the path of the interceptor Friday as might be expected in a real missile attack. Skeptics have challenged the Missile Defense Agency to conduct more realistic tests that would include even primitive technologies designed to fool the interceptor. These include balloons and chunks of metal that separate from the missile along with the warhead...
More on BMD here.

5 Comments:

Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Very cool Mark, nice post.

5:05 p.m., October 04, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Yay! The pointless toy almost works!! Yay!

7:34 a.m., October 06, 2007  
Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Sure, it's pointless to have countermeasures to ICBMs. We already have perfectly good countermeasures right now. Like striking first, or using 30-year-old smaller ABM nukes to take out the big ICBM nukes in flight. Why would anyone need other options?

9:10 a.m., October 06, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Chris.. and who's going to be firing these missiles at us?

India? Pakistan? North Korea? - My reading suggests that they lack the ability to hit us.

China? And kill their markets? Please.

Russia? I suppose Putin could go nuts, but I don't really think that's likely.

So that leaves who? France? England? The US? The Ukraine? Unless you know something I don't these seem unlikely at best.

It's a political money pit that hogs money that could be better spent on solving real problems.

I thought that the point of strategic military spending was that you were to try and look forward to new/emerging threats.

3:13 p.m., October 08, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Oh, wait, I was rereading the articles about the Bears on training missions in the North.. I suppose they could drop some cruise missiles or some such...

How is this thing on stopping low flying targets that were launched from mobile platforms again?

hmm...

3:55 p.m., October 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home