U.S. missile test mimicking Iran strike fails

[Elmore Furth]

Source: Reuters

By Jim Wolf 2010/02/01 at 2:25 pm EST
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2010 (Reuters) — A U.S. attempt to shoot down a ballistic missile mimicking an attack from Iran failed after a malfunction in a radar built by Raytheon Co, the Defense Department said.

The abortive test over the Pacific Ocean coincided with a Pentagon report that Iran had expanded its ballistic missile capabilities and posed a "significant" threat to U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East region.

The Missile Defense Agency said that in Sunday's test both the target missile, fired from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, and the interceptor, from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, had performed normally.

"However, the Sea-Based X-band radar did not perform as expected," the agency said on its web site. Officials will investigate the cause of the failure to intercept, it said.

The SBX radar is a major component of the ground-based midcourse defense, the sole U.S. bulwark against long-range missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads.


Read more: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre6104f4-us-arms-usa-iran/

---

In our first test of a simulated Iranian long range missle attack, our antimissle system failed. Damn.

[bemildred]

1. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Every time i see a story about this, I wonder -

Why did MAD work so well with the Soviets for 45 years, but it won't work with Iran or Korea?

Could they hit us with a long-range missile? Someday, possibly yes.

Would we turn their entire country into glass in response? Definitely, yes.

Wouldn't the prospect of their own absolute, unmitigated annihilation deter them? Why WOULDN'T it?

[SnakeEyes]

4. Because...

MAD only works when both sides fear death and destruction. If one side's leader believes it's will bring the return of the 13th Imam and usher in the end times, where Islam will be the world religion, then MAD no longer works.

[Bigmack]

6. Or when the Air Farce types...

in the US think that if they instigate a nuclear holocaust, Jesus will return and they all go someplace and get those virgins... or is that a different set of 12th century beliefs?

Actually, I think the guys who control those things on both sides are pretty sane... if sane is the word a person would use related to nuclear weapons.

MAD works... if not on the first country that lobs a kiloton weapon into the US, most certainly on anybody who imagines doing it second.

[SnakeEyes]

11. Which "Air Farce" types?

I'm not familiar with any "air farce" Christians who believe they need to instigate a nuclear holocaust in order for Jesus to return. Certainly not familiar with anyone with a government position that believes that. Also, can you provide me with information about Christians believing they will get virgins in heaven for such an attack? I'm only familiar with that concept in regards to the minority of Muslims that believe a radical version of Islam.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SnakeEyes]

29. Oh I see.

Guess you're right that the Air Force has problems. But it wasn't terribly relevant or a valid comparison to the situation with Ahmadinejad/Iran/MAD. Now if there were a problem with the military leadership and the president when it comes to trusting them not to believe that nuking someone would bring back Jesus then it would be a relevant comparison.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Arctic Dave]

33. Unless that president was bush. He wasn't what you would call based in reality

when it came to nukes and the second coming.

[SnakeEyes]

34. Not really...

Bush believes in the Second Coming but there is no evidence to suggest he believes any action can speed up Jesus' return.

[Arctic Dave]

35. Well that depends on your point of view.

http://www.alternet.org/news/140221/bush's_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges:_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22/

To me, using the prism of end of times thinking to look at problems the world faces today, is an indication that one can force its arrival.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. He believes that god talks to him.

How do WE know what the voices in his head are saying?

The next voice hears could be saying "He's at the door - better git ready!"

[Bigmack]

25. Ok... no hyperbole for you...

Gotta make it literal, I guess.

The Air Force Academy has had some small scandals about proselytizing the kids and the town of Colorado Springs.

If you haven't heard of US military officers giving a place at the table for Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry, you should. If you haven't checked out Martial Minutes, you should. If you haven't heard of Gen. William Boykin, you should.

"Air Farce" is a derogatory term used by Marines and such for our illustrious Junior- Birdman-Corps.

The crack about the virgins was just trying to point out that mocking one religion for a preposterous belief should be applied to other preposterous religious beliefs. I know the Muslims have a lock on the virgins... oh.... wait... I must remember to keep it obvious for some here on DU.

[TheWraith]

20. The Air Force doesn't have launch authority on nuclear weapons.

That requires the authorization codes of the President and Secretary of Defense.

[Bigmack]

26. You mean...

"Dr. Strangelove" was fiction?

I know the Pres has all the codes and shit.... but... let's not forget those weapons that got a ride around the US a couple of years ago... strictly unauthorized.

The US has "lost" 11 nuclear weapons since 1945... and thousands of components.

If you think the chain of command can't break down... well, you haven't been in the military I knew. Remember... the word clusterfuck was not coined in the civilian world.

[The Stranger]

9. That's it, right there. MAD doesn't work when it is overidden by the bigoted and racist belief that

whole nations, peoples and cultures will, immediately once they get a bomb, launch it, in the hopes of ending themselves.

But this is nothing but a bigoted, racist and Nazi-like belief. These nations have rich, ancient cultures, and are run by laws and populated by civilized people very much like Americans, or those of other nations.

But a belief system has been put in place to divide these peoples into thinking that they must go to war or, worse, one must eradicate the other because it somehow does not (ironically) does not "fear death and destruction."

[SnakeEyes]

10. Nice strawman lead...

I appreciate that. Unless of course you only accidentally missed that I specifically mentioned the leader and not the people of Iran as a whole. You then speak of other nations, plural, which I did not and is not relevant to the specific discussion of Iran and their nuclear ambitions and the concept of MAD between the US and Iran. As for your last sentence, I'm not entirely sure what your point is there. Are you saying there are leaders in Iran that have divided the people and have led some to believe they need to go to war or perhaps eradicate others? If so, that would contradict your earlier statement that it's nothing but a bigoted and racist belief. Certainly wouldn't be nothing.

[The Stranger]

15. No, it is the same thing.

The leader becomes the iconic face of the "Other," but the people and their culture are really the source of the racism and bigotry that short-circuits the normal course of diplomacy. Your bit about the 13th Imam is not specific and wholly localized on some leader, as if that or any nation is led by one "leader." That is a culture you (and they) are talking about. A whole group of people, some small subset of which believes in this bit about the 13th imam (much like some in the West believe in the return of some supernatural figure, and begin doing irrational things so as to expedite that return).

The ruse is to dehumanize. In fact, as was evident in Iraq, the Neocons don't even want to engage in diplomacy and had to short circuit it and the chorus of weapons inspectors insisting there were no weapons of mass destrction in Iraq. Even CIA was on record as saying that Iraq was years away from nuclear weapons, so the Neocons created a new intelligence agency in the Defense Department to fabricate "intelligence."

Their propaganda was designed to invade no matter what the "leader" says. Saddam Hussein didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that was the pretense for launching a multi-trillion-dollar war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. So trying to parse "leader" and "government" and "nation" and the people that make up all of these really doesn't get you away from that. The leader is merely a face put on the "Other."

Finally, regarding "nations" in a a more general sense, all nations are made up of people that are faced with the very similar wants, desires and needs. A job, sustenance, a good life and livelihood, peaceful place to live, and retire with their families. These things are universal and cross boundaries. In order to get them to go to war and die killing each other, they must be convinced that the enemy is an "Other," somehow very different from them.

[SnakeEyes]

27. Wait...

My "bit" about the 13th Imam (apparently I goofed and it's the 12th but oh well) is "not specific" yet "wholly localized on some leader". That's contradictory. How much more specific can I get than talking about one specific person? This is the leader of the country that is supposedly pursuing nuclear weapons, that has the believe of the 12th Imam, and that is the subject of this MAD discussion. You can continue to setup that up as a strawman (as you just did again by trying to broaden to to a "whole group of people" which I did not say) to refute but it does nothing to help your argument since I specifically said leader and was not more broad, unspecific, or vague.

You are correct in saying it would like anyone in the West that believe they can expedite the return of a supernatural figure by doing irrational things. They too are very dangerous. The difference is they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons.

The rest of your post goes completely off track and strays far from the topic of why MAD doesn't work in this case so I have nothing to say to the rest of that.

I'll just merely restate my point in another way. Let's say you have a knife for protection and I also have a knife and we approach each other but I believe I'll bring about the return of the 12th Imam that will lead to global Islam by stabbing you and I don't care if i get stabbed because I'll go to heaven, get 72 virgins then you have additional worries because you are no longer able to say "well, we both have knives and neither wants to be stabbed so everything is ok." That is why MAD cannot be relied upon here. MAD only can be relied upon when both sides are rational and neither sees their own death or the deaths of others as a good thing.

[The Stranger]

46. Here:

The rest of your post goes completely off track and strays far from the topic of why MAD doesn't work in this case so I have nothing to say to the rest of that.

That I am explaining the context in which your argument is made does not meat it is "completely off track" or "stray(ing) far from the topic." And it is a bit too easy to simply declare that and then believe that you don't have to address it.

And, on the contrary, along with the fascinating testimony by the former U.S. soldier in Iraq, this shows how racism and bigotry operate. In the case of the U.S. soldier, racism and bigotry provide the context in which attacking and killing civilians is permitted. In the context of your argument, racism and bigotry provide the context in which the theory of mutually assured destruction, which served to prevent a nuclear holocaust between the West and the Soviet Union for decades, suddenly isn't supposed to work any more.

Because here, your argument goes, this nation is full of people who are suicidal. Or, this nation is so backwards that it would give the authority to use nuclear weapons to one individual. Both of these are fundamentally irrational. They are based on massive generalizations about a nation and an entire culture. It is an attempt to render all of that as nothing more than a subhuman, racial, ethnic and religious "Other." The only conclusion is that of course the doctrine of mutually assured destruction would work. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

I'll just merely restate my point in another way. Let's say you have a knife for protection and I also have a knife and we approach each other but I believe I'll bring about the return of the 12th Imam that will lead to global Islam by stabbing you and I don't care if i get stabbed because I'll go to heaven, get 72 virgins then you have additional worries because you are no longer able to say "well, we both have knives and neither wants to be stabbed so everything is ok." That is why MAD cannot be relied upon here. MAD only can be relied upon when both sides are rational and neither sees their own death or the deaths of others as a good thing.

Thanks for this. You are illustrating my point now. What you have presented is a set of assumptions in your little game theory construction that actually reveal some very important things.

First, the fact is that you are not irrational and you do not believe that you will bring about the "return of the 12th (or 13th, 14th or 15th, for that matter) that will lead to global Islam." The fact is that you, despite whatever biazrre aspects there are to your religion (or at least what is provided to me as snippets of youre religion), are generally a rational person, an intelligent individual, who conducts himself on a day-to-day basis, and even may have the capacity and skill to govern, in some capacity.

These things tell me that you are not some sort of suicide bomber. More important, your nation is not some kind of massive "national suicide bomber." The only way to make that jump is to see the entire nation as a racial, ethnic and religious "Other." To limit an entire culture and all of its good and bad into one evil, sinister, hateful "Other." This is the only way. Without this, the the doctrine of mutually assured destruction exists and functions as it would in any other circumstance.

And, perhaps most critically, you are not the caricature that you present of yourself. If I use my own ability to criticize the caricature that has been presented to me, I can see this as well. I can go beyond the lies that are propagated 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the lying media. You are not seeking to kill me in order to get to "heaven" or "72 virgins." That is a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification of you and your nation. As I write this, I begin to see how fucking ridiculous it would be for anyone to think the leader of a nation would believe it.

The fact of the matter is that, as a rational person in every other aspect of your life, livelihood, training, and your ability to govern, you act and behave as any other human being, rationally. You would not want to sacrifice yourself, much less an entire nation of people. Rather, you would do whatever is possible to preserve and protect your own people.

[SnakeEyes]

48. Not racist or a caricature when the guy says it...

For the sake of ending this strawman charade (or parade?) I am going to quote your entire post and be done with this. Unless you want to continue with an actual argument that doesn't rely on misstating what I have said.

Because here, your argument goes, this nation is full of people who are suicidal. Or, this nation is so backwards that it would give the authority to use nuclear weapons to one individual.

Quit with the strawmen. Once again, I have said neither things about the people. I spoke specifically of Ahmadinejad who is part of the minority of muslims who believes in the 12th Imam.

Both of these are fundamentally irrational.

It's easy to declare irrational what you've invented that I said. I never said either. However it's not irrational to say that Ahmadinejad is a 12th Imam believer since he is. Because you have invented what I said, the following is irrelevant and I'm going to move along.

They are based on massive generalizations about a nation and an entire culture. It is an attempt to render all of that as nothing more than a subhuman, racial, ethnic and religious "Other." The only conclusion is that of course the doctrine of mutually assured destruction would work. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Now we get to this:

First, the fact is that you are not irrational and you do not believe that you will bring about the "return of the 12th (or 13th, 14th or 15th, for that matter) that will lead to global Islam." The fact is that you, despite whatever biazrre aspects there are to your religion (or at least what is provided to me as snippets of youre religion), are generally a rational person, an intelligent individual, who conducts himself on a day-to-day basis, and even may have the capacity and skill to govern, in some capacity

How does "I believe I'll bring about the return of the 12th Imam that will lead to global Islam by stabbing you" mean I'm rational and don't believe in the 12th Imam? You can't just change dos into donts and then leave the scenario so that it fits your argument. Yet another strawman. In this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe stabbing you will bring back the 12th Imam and that being stabbed in a good thing since I get virgins in heaven. MAD theory no longer applies.

These things tell me that you are not some sort of suicide bomber. More important, your nation is not some kind of massive "national suicide bomber."

No, I am. Again, in this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe in the 12th Imam and that I get virgins in Heaven.

The only way to make that jump is to see the entire nation as a racial, ethnic and religious "Other." To limit an entire culture and all of its good and bad into one evil, sinister, hateful "Other." This is the only way. Without this, the the doctrine of mutually assured destruction exists and functions as it would in any other circumstance.

I have said nothing about the nation or it's people. It is you who have invented that I have stated this for the purpose of arguing against it. Again, strawman and irrelevant since I never said any of that and commented only on the fact that Ahmadinejad believes in the 12th Imam.

And, perhaps most critically, you are not the caricature that you present of yourself.

If I use my own ability to criticize the caricature that has been presented to me, I can see this as well. I can go beyond the lies that are propagated 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the lying media. You are not seeking to kill me in order to get to "heaven" or "72 virgins." That is a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification of you and your nation. As I write this, I begin to see how fucking ridiculous it would be for anyone to think the leader of a nation would believe it.

The fact of the matter is that, as a rational person in every other aspect of your life, livelihood, training, and your ability to govern, you act and behave as any other human being, rationally. You would not want to sacrifice yourself, much less an entire nation of people. Rather, you would do whatever is possible to preserve and protect your own people.

This is the only thing that is a relevant comment. If you'd like to assume that Ahmadinejad is only a caricature of how (the media?) or he presents him(self) so be it but then you are not paying attention. If you want to believe that he doesn't really believe in the 12th Imam, that his comments toward Israel and the west/non-Muslim aren't his real thoughts, and that he is only pursuing nuclear technology of peace then so be it. Heaven and 72 virgins is only a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification when it's applied to people that believe it. When it comes to nukes, I'm going to take the guy at face. It would be dangerous and foolish to think otherwise.

[The Stranger]

49. No, it really is a caricature.

For the sake of ending this strawman charade (or parade?) I am going to quote your entire post and be done with this. Unless you want to continue with an actual argument that doesn't rely on misstating what I have said.

That's really cute. You're trying to claim that you're talking about war, but you're only talking about one person in a nation of millions that is supposed to wage that war. So, since you're being called out and shown that it is really a nation of people that would be involved in the war, you squawk "strawman" repeatedly. No, one person does not a war make.

Because here, your argument goes, this nation is full of people who are suicidal. Or, this nation is so backwards that it would give the authority to use nuclear weapons to one individual.

I have said nothing about the nation or it's people. It is you who have invented that I have stated this for the purpose of arguing against it. Again, strawman and irrelevant since I never said any of that and commented only on the fact that Ahmadinejad believes in the 12th Imam.

This is the logical conclusion of your bullshit little statements regarding mutually assured destruction. You can't avoid it by claiming "strawman." No one is "inventing" what you said. Be mature enough to acknowledge the logic of where your position leads. Here it is reductio ad absurdum. If you think it leads elsewhere, state where that is.

How does "I believe I'll bring about the return of the 12th Imam that will lead to global Islam by stabbing you" mean I'm rational and don't believe in the 12th Imam? You can't just change dos into donts and then leave the scenario so that it fits your argument. Yet another strawman. In this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe stabbing you will bring back the 12th Imam and that being stabbed in a good thing since I get virgins in heaven. MAD theory no longer applies. . . . No, I am. Again, in this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe in the 12th Imam and that I get virgins in Heaven.

You are re-stating assumptions that actually illustrate my argument. I think you have to cede the points made, unless you really don't understand them. I suppose I could try to re-state the argument here if I had the time and the inclination. But this isn't a rebuttal. This is just restating something I have already addressed.

his is the only thing that is a relevant comment. If you'd like to assume that Ahmadinejad is only a caricature of how (the media?) or he presents him(self) so be it but then you are not paying attention.

Why did it take you so fucking long to get to the point? You are the one that is making assumptions. And you can't claim that a geopolitical doctrine like mutually assured destruction, which is based on nations going to war, is limited in some infantile way to one person in the entire nation.

But this doesn't make any sense:

Heaven and 72 virgins is only a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification when it's applied to people that believe it.

The whole point is that a racist caricature is being used to persuade people that individuals, and even nations full of individuals, are irrational and willing to commit massive, national suicide. But viewing an entire people as willing to do something like that can only be justified by viewing them as an "Other," a group of crazed people, and this is a racist viewpoint. That is what you are doing above. That is what is pointed out here. The basic fact is that no nation would commit massive, national suicide. Not even the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union. Not even Iran or its leaders.

So the doctrine of mutually assured destruction does apply and it does work, as has been seen for decades. It has the potential to work with all nations, and it clearly has the potential to work with this nation.

[SnakeEyes]

51. Ok....

For the sake of ending this strawman charade (or parade?) I am going to quote your entire post and be done with this. Unless you want to continue with an actual argument that doesn't rely on misstating what I have said.

That's really cute. You're trying to claim that you're talking about war, but you're only talking about one person in a nation of millions that is supposed to wage that war. So, since you're being called out and shown that it is really a nation of people that would be involved in the war, you squawk "strawman" repeatedly. No, one person does not a war make.

Who said anything about going to war with another nation? Now we are getting somewhere. Either you have misunderstood the concept of MAD or are now trying to argue as if it means something different. I'll accept that it's not anything malicious. MAD is not about going to war with other nations, in terms of using men and other weapons. MAD is about the use of nuclear weapons. MAD says that neither side will use nuclear weapons on the other for fear of an equal or greater than nuclear retaliation that would wipe out those who struck first. Nobody wins because "everybody dies". Like the computer learns at the end of WarGames. This is why MAD does not work with a 12th Imam believing leader like Ahmadinejad because he doesn't care about the retaliation strike. His action and death from the retaliation strike supposedly ushers the 12th Imam, global Islam, and he goes to heaven and gets virgins; as does any other Muslim that is a victim.

Because here, your argument goes, this nation is full of people who are suicidal. Or, this nation is so backwards that it would give the authority to use nuclear weapons to one individual.

See above comment. This is not about the people. This is about the leader (and his people responsible to being able to use nuclear weapons), his beliefs, and MAD.

I have said nothing about the nation or it's people. It is you who have invented that I have stated this for the purpose of arguing against it. Again, strawman and irrelevant since I never said any of that and commented only on the fact that Ahmadinejad believes in the 12th Imam.

This is the logical conclusion of your bullshit little statements regarding mutually assured destruction. You can't avoid it by claiming "strawman." No one is "inventing" what you said. Be mature enough to acknowledge the logic of where your position leads. Here it is reductio ad absurdum. If you think it leads elsewhere, state where that is.

It is not a logical conclusion. You are adding in people/culture and elements that were never there to start with and then refuting my argument based on what you've added. That is a strawman argument.

How does "I believe I'll bring about the return of the 12th Imam that will lead to global Islam by stabbing you" mean I'm rational and don't believe in the 12th Imam? You can't just change dos into donts and then leave the scenario so that it fits your argument. Yet another strawman. In this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe stabbing you will bring back the 12th Imam and that being stabbed in a good thing since I get virgins in heaven. MAD theory no longer applies. . . . No, I am. Again, in this scenario, just like Ahmadinejad does, I believe in the 12th Imam and that I get virgins in Heaven.

You are re-stating assumptions that actually illustrate my argument. I think you have to cede the points made, unless you really don't understand them. I suppose I could try to re-state the argument here if I had the time and the inclination. But this isn't a rebuttal. This is just restating something I have already addressed.

There is NO way that my restatement of the valid comparison of the scenario do anything to help your argument. Not when you claim I am the exact opposite of what I stated. Your whole point was predicated on me being rational and not believing in the 12th Imam when in this scenario I am not rational and do believe in the 12th Imam. By misstating the conditions of the scenario you set up a strawman and everything following it is invalid.

This is the only thing that is a relevant comment. If you'd like to assume that Ahmadinejad is only a caricature of how (the media?) or he presents him(self) so be it but then you are not paying attention.

Why did it take you so fucking long to get to the point? You are the one that is making assumptions. And you can't claim that a geopolitical doctrine like mutually assured destruction, which is based on nations going to war, is limited in some infantile way to one person in the entire nation.

It "took me so long" because I felt it necessary to address each of your comments since you took the time to type up your post. I'm not making assumptions. I'm taking Ahmadinejad at face based on things I have read that he has said and that have gone into detail of who he is and what he believes. Which I believe is a wise thing to do given we are talking about the threat of nuclear weapons.

But this doesn't make any sense:

Heaven and 72 virgins is only a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification when it's applied to people that believe it.

You are correct. As written, it does not make sense since I accidentally omitted the word "don't". That sentence should have read "Heaven and 72 virgins is only a racist caricature and bigoted oversimplification when it's applied to people that DONT believe it." Since Ahmadinejad does believe it, it is then not a racist caricature or bigoted oversimplification and instead becomes a factual statement of his beliefs.

The whole point is that a racist caricature is being used to persuade people that individuals, and even nations full of individuals, are irrational and willing to commit massive, national suicide. But viewing an entire people as willing to do something like that can only be justified by viewing them as an "Other," a group of crazed people, and this is a racist viewpoint. That is what you are doing above. That is what is pointed out here. The basic fact is that no nation would commit massive, national suicide. Not even the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union. Not even Iran or its leaders.

I believe I already addressed everything here in my first paragraph but to reinterate: It's not about the entire people of Iran. MAD is about the leaders with the ability to use nuclear weapons and that will be responsible for the deaths as a result. Ahmadinejad, as a 12th Imam and virgins in Heaven believer, is less likely care if he were responsible for it... other that caring about being the one responsible for the return of the 12th Imam. MAD only works when all people responsible for a nuclear strike fear the deaths of themselves and others (including the people they attack).

[The Stranger]

16. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7380181&mesg_id=7380362

[SnakeEyes]

28. Already familiar with it

Not relevant to the MAD discussion.

[ronnie624]

42. Thanks for posting that. n/t

[bananas]

32. MAD didn't work so well - new report says "sheer damn luck" it wasn't triggered

It was almost triggered by accident numerous times.

New 230-page report I haven't looked at yet:
news article at http://www.sabanews.net/en/news204132.htm
report at www.icnnd.org

Previous work by Martin Hellman estimates deterrent failure rate at 1% per year: www.nuclearrisk.org

[TheWraith]

37. Yeah, MAD was a STUPID fucking policy.

It was based entirely on the assumption that the other side would back down. Problem is, BOTH sides were relying on the other side to be the ones to back down. I highly recommend the movie "Thirteen Days" for a lesson in the strategic issues of MAD.

[TheLastMohican]

44. Because Soviet Union

was not the country that could be bullied into submission like US does now to the rest of the world.

[GliderGuider]

47. Since MAD is no longer in play

The US is going for what it wanted all along - full spectrum dominance. they only thing that kept the ABM treaty in place was MAD. Now that the treaty has been abrogated and there is no fear of MAD from Iran, the US can proceed with its original plans.

[BadgerKid]

3. Translation: increase our funding. n/t

[marshall]

5. Hopefully it will be up and running by 11 Febrary

Since that seems to be d-day for Iran.

[formercia]

7. Waves do that.

Back in the 50's, there were Radar Picket Ships stationed across the North Atlantic to cover the gaps in the DEW Line. It's not fun duty.

[MilesColtrane]

8. I'm shocked that the dream of an Alzheimer-suffering, "B" actor is going on 27 years now, and it...

still hasn't been realized.

I mean goddamn, George Lucas has released four Star Wars films since SDI was announced, and the Pentagon is still working on Episode IV: A New Hope?

Maybe if the rockets used ten thousand dollar bills as fuel?

[WriteDown]

12. Are all tests supposed to be successful? Just curious. nt

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

13. If they were, the tests would be pointless

Something that is apparently beyond the grasp of 90% of the population is the fact that these tests are not system tests but usually limited to specific unproven subsystems. Creating complicated test scenarios is pointless if all you are doing is testing rocket steering systems or a new piece of radar software; it makes it harder to isolate variables if you throw a lot of needless complexity into the test.


A good example of this are kinetic intercept missiles. They perfected target discrimination and terminal guidance twenty years ago, but have had an endless string of problems with steering the new hyper-kinetic rocket motors they wanted to use. Consequently, they've spent many years running ballistic missile intercept tests that seemed awfully contrived and simple, but the fact is that those tests were only intended to see if the rocket motor would respond correctly to steering commands; on older proven rocket motors they hit the target every time. (The new class of rocket motors operates at such extreme performance envelopes that even the most exotic materials engineering has a hard time producing a rocket that survives its own performance capability -- even parts fabricated from single sapphire and diamond crystals, which have been used in these types of systems for some time, start to break down. It isn't that the engineers suck, it is that they are operating at the limits of conventional molecular materials which forces them to become very creative and tryout a lot of ideas.)

[Pavulon]

17. In other news air marshals complained about having to wear business dress.

seems the guy who shot the man yelling bomb in miami was wearing cargo shorts and a Hawaiian shirt.

The response was built by Benny Shriver and is sitting in the ground in the mid west. I believe there is around 3000 megatons online across the branches. While Iranians may shoot unarmed students, the probability of them starting events that will erase Persian culture from the earth is very low.

[Prometheus Bound]

18. A quick Googled history of anti-missle test failures:

2000 Testimony to Congressional Subcommittee:
What is the record to date? Overall, since 1976, when research on hit-to-kill weapons began, attempts to destroy mock warheads have failed more than 70 percent of the time. Since last October, the proposed system has been tested on three occasions against limited countermeasures (one decoy rather than nine). Two of the tests have been outright failures: in January 2000, a leak of sensor coolant made the EKV miss the target altogether and in July 2000, the EKV failed to separate from the booster rocket. Even the one successful test in October 1999 raises doubts about the effectiveness of the system. The EKV drifted off course and actually was homing in on a large balloon (decoy) when the warhead drifted into its path.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/3800/national_missile_defense.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dtestimony%26page%3D7

2000: ANOTHER ANTI-MISSILE TEST FAILS
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news00/000712-nmd1.htm

2000: Experts Play Down ABM Test Failure
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/global/071500missile-defense.html

July 2001: The rigged missile defense test
The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect
http://archive.salon.com/news/col/cona/2001/07/31/test/

2004: Missile defence shield test fails
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4097267.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html

Feb 2005: Missile Defense Fails Test Again
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml

May 2007: U.S. scraps missile-defense test as target misfires
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00758820070525

July 2009: 3 U.S.-Israel anti-missile system tests fail
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-24/news/17216748_1_anti-missile-arrow-missile-arrow-project

[TheWraith]

19. Kinetic and/or explosive energy weapons to intercept missiles don't work.

Period. The requirement for accuracy is simply too enormous to get around. Even a margin for error of one one hundredth of one percent in guiding an interceptor rocket is enough to miss the inbound missile.

The only reliable way to shoot down ballistic missiles would be with energy weapons, and our high end point-defense lasers are going to need a lot more research before they're practical to deploy.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

21. Kinetic works, explosive doesn't

Even at hyperkinetic velocities, the movement of the target is glacially slow at computer speeds. In fact, reliable kinetic intercept on conventional rocket platforms was proven reliable almost twenty years ago, at least insofar as being able to guarantee a high-probability of terminal intercept. It is trivially to design a terminal guidance package that has the capability to do kinetic kill; the precision of the package is extremely high. The supposed "difficulty" is greatly overstated; myriad weapon systems that have already been deployed and proven are based on the ability to track extremely fast targets at centimeter accuracy and is pretty much assumed at this point.

The caveat is that conventional rocket motors are a lot slower than the military would prefer when talking about missile intercept. We can put a kinetic intercept package on a conventional proven rocket system and hit targets all day, but the reaction time is far from optimal and the incoming targets move very fast. They developed a new class of rocket motors for deployment in the early 1990s, but it turned out that steering those rockets at extreme velocities within the Earth's atmosphere was an unholy pain in the butt. Elements of the rocket package had a tendency to degrade or fail in flight when manufactured with the most exotic materials we can make.

In the last five years or so these rocket motors have been showing up all over the place in late-stage field trials for many unrelated weapon systems, so I assume they finally worked the bugs out.

And explosive intercept doesn't work at all for a simple engineering reason: the terminal closing speed of intercept can exceed the detonation velocity of the fastest high explosives. A computer guiding kinetic intercept can compute a guidance correction in microseconds; the detonation wave can't even traverse the explosive charge in a warhead in that amount of time. By the time the chemistry is done in the explosive, the target is long gone. Computers can work at kinetic speeds, explosives cannot.

[TheWraith]

36. But when you're talking about ballistic approach, your margin for error is so small...

...that it might as well not exist. Kinetic energy weapons work great for short-range point defense, ala the Phalanx CWIS system for shooting down anti-ship missiles aimed at military vessels. But the higher the speed of the inbound target, the farther out you have to intercept it, and the more likely it is that even a microscopic error in the system, a tiny twitch in the hardware, even something as simple as a computer program rounding off to twenty decimal places instead of twenty five,is going to cause failure.

Sure, it's theoretically possible. But you're talking about a weapons system where every single part would have to work perfectly, every single time, under any sorts of conditions. That's Apollo Program levels of testing for each chunk of hardware. In cost/benefit terms, it's hard to justify. A much more error-proof approach to defense against ballistic missiles, to my mind, would be something like a chemically pumped laser slaved to a radar system. There you have a system that can effectively take advantage of that computer speed without the perils of mechanical inadequacy.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

40. Not just theoretically possible but already widely implemented

The US has been working on extreme precision mechanicals since the 1960s. The ultra-precise inertial guidance systems that are now the mainstay of US military navigation systems (and JDAMs) were a technological byproduct of 1960s ABM research into extreme (at that time) envelope guidance system. Today they fabricate ultra-precise parts and mechanicals out of just about any material you can imagine. Complex, high-precision parts fabricated from sapphire and diamond are common, never mind all the exotic composites no one has ever heard of.

The problem with kinetic kill is not precise terminal guidance -- they solved that by the early 1990s -- but with secondary issues related to how they want to package it. One of the biggest ones is atmospheric ablation at the velocities they prefer to use; it will destroy all known materials, so you have to get clever with your shielding. On "slow" rockets, kinetic kill is highly reliable. Far too many people conflate the difficulty of building an ablation resistant hyperkinetic platform with the difficulty of kinetic intercept (which is easy).

Almost all modern US weapon systems are designed to function on extremely short update rates because this is the default state of the future battlefield. Most common subsystems in US weapon systems are now designed and validated to work in hyperkinetic environments and most have been very satisfactorily proven (the few that haven't, like some of the rocket motors, you've heard about). They've had a few decades to solve the engineering challenges and they mostly have.


Most US weapons, both offensive and defensive, are moving to either hyperkinetic or laser platforms. Lasers are easier to use in some ways, but lack the firepower and inexpensiveness of hyperkinetic weapons. Engineering materials and hardware that can function in hyperkinetic performance envelopes within the atmosphere is important for a very broad range of purposes, so it is inevitable that they will become better and better at doing it. For price performance it is hard to beat and the only defense against hyperkinetic weapons is kinetic intercept, which means it is essential research for defensive purposes as well.

[bemildred]

39. Right, the problem is the physics, not the programming.

So what? You can program faster-than-light rocketry too, but it marks you are a moron if you expect it to work in the real world. If you design something that fails for "simple engineering" reasons, what does that say about you and your project?

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

41. You completely missed the point

The design of the hyperkinetic rocket motor platform uses state-of-the-art materials in a performance envelope which no one has studied before. All cutting edge engineering is like this. It isn't magic, it is just a lot of work solving new problems. Hyperkinetic weapons are just starting to be deployed, so they will become ubiquitous in the not too distant future.

Kinetic intercept works great on slower rockets. Unfortunately, you want a faster defensive weapon if your enemy is using hyperkinetic weapons. The military decided to plan ahead a few decades ago and start working on the technical challenges. At the velocities involved, all normal molecular materials start to ablate ("dissolve") in the atmosphere, so long-range defensive rockets tend to fail in strange ways since the parts weaken as it flies through the air. Modeling the ways in which materials fail in that environment is new science. They seem to have a pretty good handle on it now since the US is starting to seriously field test a very diverse range of hyperkinetic weapons, many of which have nothing to do with ballistic missiles.


It marks you as a moron if you think you can engineer a completely new platform in a performance envelope that has never been well-studied before and get it right the first time. It is like expecting the Wright Brothers to go supersonic on their first flight.

[bemildred]

43. No, I completely got the point.

But you stick with your talking points, don't let me distract you.

[Politicub]

22. Well that's embarrassing n/t

[Mari333]

23. what a waste of frigging money

chest thumping knuckledragging adolescent impotent idiots.

[Canuckistanian]

24. Well then, time to give a $billion more to Raytheon

Obviously, they didn't have enough research money to do the job properly.

[yurbud]

30. Does anyone bother to ask WHY Iran would launch a missile at us since it would be suicidal?

We have thousands of nukes. We could burn any country off the map that launched a nuke at us. We would be hurt but their country would be extinct.

[yurbud]

31. RELATED QUESTION: how can we de-escalate tension with Iran?

It would probably be pretty easy to do so without jeopardizing our national security.

[MisterP]

38. because America, like Israel, sees itself as a perpetual victim, blinding it to its own actions? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

50. That is what I would have said "This will set us back a years work"

It's called "disinformation" .