Interceptor Missile Fails Test Launch

jangobongo writes "The US missile defense system suffered a serious setback today, just 2 weeks before it was scheduled to be activated. A target ICBM was launched from Alaska, but crashed harmlessly into the ocean as the interceptor missile based on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean shut itself down due to an unknown "anomaly". The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

Is it worth it?

[Thunderstruck]

I read this article, and all I can think is, "Gosh, that target ICBM must be expensive."

Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program leading up to this test. Just let me worry about this ICBM lying on the bottom of the ocean.

Re:Is it worth it?

[pHatidic]

Spoiler twice encoded in ROT13 below for extra security:

$85 million

Re:Is it worth it?

[Hawkxor]

It was just that test that cost 85 million. The actual program costs many orders of magnitude more. Also, the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Jace of Fuse!]

the ICBM was a dummy... no worries.

The ICBM isn't the dummy that worries me about this failure...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Znork]

"How about the money "wasted" on SCRAM jet technology?"

SCRAM jet technology actually has uses. Missile defense systems on the other hand, for all their marketability, are trivial to beat. I can think of at least four methods to render them useless offhand, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

But while they're useless against an enemy, they're excellent for transferring taxpayer money into desired pockets. Guess why monkeyman and his merry band of chimps like them?

A wasted ICBM is just a christmas bonus for the contractors.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

Note the distinction between missiles and nukes.

Find a missile defense system that can find which truck on the freeway is carrying a nuke, and then destroy it, and maybe your argument would work.

Re:Is it worth it?

[lachlan76]

My point is that any nuclear attack using missiles is suicidal, and your country is going to shoot back, quite possibly before the first missiles hit.

Face it, no-one is going to launch missiles at you.

The reason I said it like I did was because you said that the USA would use it so that they have NUKES and are able to use them, and their enemies do not. In reality this would not be the case, because their are many other attack vectors which an ICBM shield cannot stop (truck, boat, cruise missile, plane, etc).

How about we just agree that as far as things have been going, the whole program is a waste of money?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Duhavid]

Depends on the players...

Yes, for China, Russia, et al to launch, that would be suicidal.

North Korea, on the other hand, is potentially a bit different.

A: How can China know that any nukes sent by us in retaliation for an NK first strike are not aimed at them?

B: Will they care? Nukes detonating in NK are sure to cause Chinese problems, them being close geographically.

And NK is working on missiles with the range to hit continental US targets. Then there is the latest brewhaha about enriching Uranium

Re:Is it worth it?

[1u3hr]

Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing? All GWB said was that he wants a missile defense system and pushed to have the money appropriated. he has absolutely nothig to do with the thing failing.

GWB didn't cause the missile to fail; however he ignored the advice given by every competent scientist that the system can never work no matter how much money is pissed away on it.

Your sense of "waste" is downright scary..

[cybrthng]

Typical of right-wingers with an agenda instead of a cause.

You see the Agenda we can't stand is the smoke & mirrors of these projects. You know the smoke that a missile defense "shield" will make us stronger/"safer" and the mirror that the failure of the program that Bush wants isn't Bush's fault. Take a vote, and I bet the public would drop this for the pork project it is.

If this were a cause, it would be an international & consorted effort of defense of democracies against known enemies and terrorist groups. Instead it's an agenda to line the pockets of specific groups and agenda makers.

Instead we're told pork-barrel projects such as Social Security, Medicare, Health-Care and welfare are a huge waste of tax dollars yet ALL of them could have been solvent for our lifetime had we not insisted on these useless "defense" programs and wars.

Scramjet is completely different than missile defense programs and dummy ICBM's being wasted. Scramjet is a technology that could potentially increase our feasibility of cheaper exploration of space and faster transportation. I guess Scramjet falls under that useless "science" category huh?

Remember, It's a democracy and we can voice our opinions just like you. Dissent and questioning government is the only defense and expectation of a true democracy.

If Bush didn't want us to think his policies were useless then its up to that man to turn those views around. I'm tired of the pointless defenses of this man without any sustenance.

If your not a right-winger or a neo-con I must apologize. However as a citizen of this country and someone who is fitting the bill for our government my voice should be heard and democracy doesn't mean the blind leading the blind.

Re:Is it worth it?

[the_mad_poster]

Actually, Philip Coyle, the man who used to be in charge of weapons testing, specifically pinned the blame for this failure on Bush last night. See, everyone who worked on this knew it didn't work. That's why Clinton decided against going forward with it - he wanted to wait for more testing to occur and let his predecessor decide on its fate based on the results.

Bush, however, didn't just call for more testing, he called for implementation. Back in 2002, he promised to have the beginnings of the system - the system everyone (except him, apparently) knows doesn't work right - in place by the end of this year. As a result, testing halted while production pieces were rolled out. Now, we see that not only do the revised test systems not work, the production pieces that are already in place almost certainly don't work (actually, this is pretty much a forgone conclusion because they never DID work and now they STILL DON'T work).

So, yes, this is directly Bush's fault because he halted development in favor of putting a known-useless system into production. If you are a Bush supporter, I fully expect a bizarre, otherwordly excuse that only a mentally retard lemur would believe to now emanate from your general direction.

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndyL]

What's the cost of a missile compared to the cost of bringing a warhead to Las Vegas on a truck?

This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future, and even if it did work it'd be trivial to defeat and confuse with new missiles. People working for the Pentagon call this "Job Security".

Personaly I think it'd be cheaper and at least as useful to buy everyone in the U.S.A. Alex Chiu's Immortality Rings [alexchiu.com]. Scientists say it doesn't work, but then scientists say there's such thing as Global Warming, so what the hell do they know? They obviously don't care about American lives.

Re:Is it worth it?

[PylonHead]

Yea, you're right.

Let's ignore the scientists, and trust the politicians.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Doc Ruby]

You are evil. Like "the Author of Lies", you throw out the excluded middle, in your fallacy defending these useless wastes of money. You try the playground denial tactic of painting your team, the Republicans, as "falsely accused as evil", when none of the comments here had done so. You come up with "steal from poor blacks and old people" out of the depths of your own guilty, greedy conscience. And you kick it all off with a false "amen" - just the kind of behavior that is not just bad, but *evil*, in the context of American religion - hypocritically invoking religion and the poor to defend your pet project. Which is a part of the killing machine.

You defend the government technology programmes as tech hothouses. Where are you when people propose the government invest in wireless networks, rather than bombs? Elsewhere, you probably scream about welfare and communism, while you hunger for more useless corporate welfare. How about some body armor for our troops, who you no doubt "support" with flags and stickers? How about spending $85M on a covert operation to hunt and kill terrorists in Pakistan? They've already spent over $100B on Star Wars, and all it does is suck more money, and justify laxity in the diplomacy and human military/intelligence preparedness that actually defends us.

You are not qualified to talk about "Science" when you conflate it with expensive engineering boondoggles that make us less safe, in the name of "defense". You are qualified to talk only about your selfserving greed, your thirst for bigger bombs, your profligate waste of the people's tax money on corporate welfare. You can talk about evil, because that's what you know.

Excellent

[Safety Cap]

You try the playground denial tactic of painting your team, the Republicans, as "falsely accused as evil" ~.

For an administration that pledged to "bring honor back to the office," they've done anything but; no one takes responsibility for anything. In fact, it is all Clinton's fault: Iraq, OBL, 9/11, Global Warming, and now, the failure of the "missile defense" pork barrel program.

The Reds now own the congress and the executive branch--they're the ones responsible for funding this stillborn dog. We've po

Re:Excellent

[Doc Ruby]

The only way to stop this crap is to end the tolerance of informed people of ignorance by the misinformed. That is, of course, the rationale behind the rightwing media takeover, political takeover, military takeover, religious takeover - everywhere a minority of ambitious fascists can game a centrally organized American institution already under threat by economics and social evolution. It might be selfserving, but it's effective - that's how they have won so much. The way to justify informed, socially resp

Re:Is it worth it?

[AndrewRUK]

You cannot put a price on American lives.

Oh, really?
how much would you be willing for your taxes (or the cost of your new car) to rise by to prevent 100 of the 42,643 annual deaths on US roads? (Figure for 2003, source [usatoday.com].) 500 of them? 1000? 10,000? Unless your answer is "unlimited", you've just put a price on American lives.
Or, consider that courts award compensation in wrongful death suits. That is, by its very nature, putting a price of people's lives.

Just because you don't like to think you put a price on people's lives, doesn't mean you (or rather, your society) doesn't do it.

Re:Is it worth it?

[corbettw]

As an aside, Canada and Mexico are American too.

Well, not yet you're not. But give it time. NAFTA was only phase one.

Oh, and for those who get upset with calling Americans "American", remember that only the United States of America uses "America" in the long form of the country name. Just like the citzens of the United Mexican States are typically called Mexicans, and the citizens of the (former) Dominion of Canada were called Canadians. You might live on the North American continent, but you are not an

Re:Is it worth it?

[bstadil]

Bliss is having no idea how much my federal government spent on the rest of the program

What about the $200B we are pissing away in Iraq? Makes you feel good?

Re:Is it worth it?

[PsiPsiStar]

I was agreeing with you till that last part. Bush was warned that Al Queada was planning to attack the US using airplanes. He did nothing. Woulda been nice if Clinton had gotten OBL in Sudan, but that wasn't the only reason we got hit.

Re:Is it worth it?

[vought]

What should Bush had done after the August 6th briefing?

How about staying in the fucking office and working, rather than taking a month-long fucking vacation?

Jesus H. Christ, man. Shut off the Rush and Hannity and get relative.

Bush holds the record for the most days spent "at leisure" by a President - that is, outside the White House - while our country had a P-3 Orion forced down, was attacked by OBL, started one war, started another on overwhlmingly false pretenses, and now we have YET ANOTHER FAILURE (in this not-ready-for-prime-time system called missile defense). And people still find a way to defend the man and his actions. This, truly is not the United States I grew up in.

Keeping in mind the August memo was really really vague in it's warnings.

Yeah, like this line: "bin Laden wanted to follow the example of the World Trade Center attack by Ramzi Yusef..."

Or maybe this very vague line:
"bin Laden wanted to hijack U.S. aircraft to gain the release of..."

Or maybe this is the vague part:"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks including recent surveilance of federal buildings in New York."

Now, I know Bush isn't a mind reader, but when someone tells you that it maybe, might rain, do you grab your umbrella as you leave the house?

Keep in mind that this "test" employed no decoy warheads and that the test ICBM had a freaking HOMING BEACON on it! That's how we build a missle defense system - hey wait, can we get a set of $50 Million training wheels for this piece of shit?

Re:Is it worth it?

[Vulcann]

No, we used only PGMs in the Iraqi conurbations. We never "bombed the cities." We used regular, unguided munitions dropped from B-52s to destroy the terrorist camps northeast of Baghdad, but those were dozens of miles away from any built-up areas....

Its interesting that you use the term "terrorist". In the context of Iraq, these are people who believe the Americans have no business being there and want to get them out. How does that make them terrorists ? If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!

Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles...

We failed to invade Sudan, we invaded Afghanisan, we invaded Iraq, we invaded so and so.... Wow. Who the flying fuck gives America the right to invade whoever it pleases the world over ? Is it just me or have you noticed that it seems to be the only country large scale invading the ass out of the world ? Dont give me that bullcrap about "to prevent problems at home". Iraq had no means of doing the US any harm. All the charges against it were trumped up right down to the laughable WMD threat. The world over people knew that was horseshit and thats why any self respecting country (which wont get squeezed by the US) in the UN told you to fuck off! France got noticed only because it had veto and gave enough of a shit to say something about it...

What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home....

You're thinking is laughably simple. What did Sept 11th involve ? Aircraft and a bunch of seriously pissed off fanatics. Period. If you invade every country out there you will multiply the pissed off fanatics five times over. Wiping out "terrorists" in Iraq will only fuel more violence. America has a rich diversity of people and the more countries you invade the larger percentage of you're local populace you're going to have pissed off at you. Yeah thats solving problems at home...sure! --you see where I'm going here ? --mayhem at home! Militancy never solved anything unless it was absolutely necessary.

Re:Is it worth it?

[FrYGuY101]

If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!

If I carbombed civilian targets because the Russian military targets were too well fortified... yeah. I'd be a terrorist. I like to think that, instead of killing my own countrymen, I'd use sniper tactics against military officers instead.

I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Hatta]

And the countless numbers of civillian casualties written off so callously as "collateral damage", what does that make the US?

Re:Is it worth it?

[redbeard_ak]

um, tell me exactly how Iraq was related to September 11th?

Oh, right. It wasn't.

Petty that so many Bush voters thought so. [pipa.org] Sorry that's a pdf, but questions 13, 14 and 16 explain a lot about why people supported this war and voted for Bush.

Re:HAIL TO THE CHEIF

[smithmc]

You could at least spell "chief" correctly. Dumass.

Oh, sweet irony...

Re:Is it worth it?

[bigmouth_strikes]

Dude, you've been watching Fox News again haven't you ?

Re:Is it worth it?

[jrumney]

Plus, even if the total numbers are low for a war

The numbers killed are "low" because current medical technology is better at keeping patients alive than in any previous war. If you count the injured as well as the dead, the US casualties in Iraq in the last year are comparable to 5 years of Vietnam.

Re:Is it worth it?

[1u3hr]

You can blame President Clinton for ordering too many Humvees, and not enough Bradlee's.

Clinton wasn't planning to invade Iraq. He kept a lid on Saddam without committing ground troops and had no reason to believe that would change.

Yes, if we had more armor, fewer troops would have died. But we didn't. You go to war with the Army you have.

If you choose to go to war, you have no one to blame but yourself if your army is not up to it. Invading Iraq wasn't a military necessity, and even if you think it was, Rumsfeld et al had over a year to plan it, and build or fit more armor, amongst other things (like training prison guards, getting people who can speak Iraqi, etc).

Tactics...

[CustomFort]

Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.

Yes, it is pretty amazing what you can do when you hold a gun to someone's head. Literally. Or maybe you forgot. This was a man whose son would grab women off the street and rape them. He tortured people by the thousands, for no good reason.

I

Re:Is it worth it?

[Kombat]

[US politicians] already control Canada

Excuse me? You think so? Tell me then, why is Canada's Prime Minister, Paul Martin, refusing to go along with your cockamamy "Missile Defense Shield" program? He (finally) took a stand on the issue last week, and announced that Canada will not put any money into the system, nor will they allow American missiles to be launched from Canadian soil.

Also, if Canada is merely a US lapdog, then why did Canada refuse to commit troops to the War on Islam^H^H^H^H^HIraq? T

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How?

[BWJones]

I try and be non partisan here but I have a few questions: How much money is this system costing? How are we supposed to justify the cost in addition to the $100 Billion (approx 25 Billion more than Bush said we would need before the election) we are going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan next year? How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history: There has never before been a time in the history of the United States where during a time of war, we have had a tax cut. If our soldiers (Semper Fi) are paying the ultimate sacrifice (1,344 US Military and a significant number of British, Spanish and Iraqi troops in addition to unpublished numbers of private contractors), then we should at home be expected to sacrifice as well.

The performance of this program really does make one wonder what we are getting for our tax dollars and investment given all the dramatic failures this program has endured.

Re:How?

[zennor]

Driving to work this morning (in Australia) the discussion on the radio was about the half trillion USD current account deficit and the half trillion USD budget deficit. Using my basic maths but woeful understabding of economics this still adds up to a lot of money the US owes. That some high paid US citizens now have their desperately needed tax cuts (after all, new cars are expensive - not to mention Country Club dues) I guess the rest of you will just have to work a bit harder to pay it off. :(

On readi

Re:How?

[bucuo]

Well, this has been the US's wet dream for a long time. If we're able to shoot down other people's nukes we get to own the world and all that. Also, this isn't nearly the first time we've failed miserably at it.

We're shouldn't be talking about how much money has been poured into this thing this year, we should be talking about how much has been poured into it since at least the 80s, and probably before that.

On an aside, here at MIT a Professor Postol gave a very convincing lecture a year or two ago on the fraud surrounding the first National Missile Defence test, and the subsequent cover-up of the allegations by MIT's Lincoln Labs and others. Needless to say, he's received a lot of "pressure" from all over the place. More info here. [ucsusa.org]

Re:How?

[andr0meda]

We're shouldn't be talking about how much money has been poured into this thing this year, we should be talking about how much has been poured into it since at least the 80s, and probably before that.


The rest of the world is thinking "the more the better". Seriously, if the US has one more expense channel to have to pour money into, it means the rest of the world can watch the US deficit grow ever larger. Ultimately, superpowers bring themselves down. It's history lesson number 1.

Re:How?

[rufey]

I can't find my sources at the moment, but the cost of this test is probably pocket change compared to the money the United States Government has to pay in interest on the loans that were (and are continually) taken out to finance this (and the entire Federal Budget).

This story reminded me of another story [msn.com] that was in the press the past few days about a very expensive spy program that a few US Congressmen critized. We're talking about billions of dollars here.

I have to wonder how long it will be be

Re:How?

[dj245]

How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review? If we are truly at war, then we have to consider some history:

We are at war. However the war is against none of the usual suspects. Not terrorism, not poverty, not Iraq, not Drugs, not even Comminism or totalianism. We are fighting our economy right now. And

Re:How?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

And the sad truth is that the only way our country can sustain itself is by having a massive expenditure on the military and an even larger spending on private contracting.

Is that the true "truth"?

While spend $100 Billion on the military and private contractors to stimulate the economy would work, but spending $100 Billion to get the homeless off the streets and into a job, with much of the money going to private contracotrs, would work just as well, if not better.

We spend $100 Billion on military contr

Re:How?

[DM9290]

How are we supposed to pay for this with the dollar at an all time low against the Euro? How are we supposed to pay for this and have the tax cuts made permanent? How are we supposed to pay for this and reduce the deficit (at an all time high off of a budget surplus just five years ago)? How are we supposed to pay for this and the new stealth spy satellite program that is currently under congressional review?

I dont think there is any intention to pay for any of this (at least no intention to pay it off). The idea is that the States should become bankrupt. This would make it easier for global corporations to more directly run the country (world) without needing to answer to democratic institutions.

If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.

When the government spends billions of dollars on this or that defense project, (it doesn't matter which one) who do you think gets most of the money? (answer: privately owned global corporate conglomerates).

Sure it creates a few "temporary" jobs. Just as any government spending project creates jobs. But it creates a lots of profit.

It doesn't matter if missile defense works, as long as it costs a lot of public money.

Not only should taxpayers expect to pay more (not less) taxes during war, but corporations should be compelled to contribute to the war effort by providing services and goods(for the war effort) AT COST. no profit (from those war based earnings). This is morally equivalant to the draft (except that morally corporations do not have rights, whereas the soldiers we compell to fight do)

War should not be a profit making exercise, and if this makes investers shy of going to war, perhaps it would be for the best. War should be waged because it is morally necessary. Not for profit.

Re:How?

[Derkec]

We don't accept being nuked. Given that as a premise, and the possibility of N. Korea claiming to have an ICBM at some point as well as a dozen nukes, a system that could shoot down a handle of nukes could keep us out of another land war in Asia - which is, after all, one of the classic blunders.

Re:How?

[Insanity]

The question isn't "who would want to nuke the US," but rather, "who would want to nuke the US using an ICBM?"

I'm not an expert on military hardware or capabilities, but it's practically certain that the US has the ability to detect a rocket launch from anywhere in the world. I say that it's a practical certainty because, without that capability, the principle of mutually assured destruction couldn't have been effectively implemented against the Soviets.

The bottom line is that, before an ICBM even hit Ame

Re:How?

[Curtman]

And spend it on what exactly? Feeding the homeless? Inner-City Schools? ... but many (The Left) doesn't realize that throwing money at it wont fix it.

How about don't spend it, its my fucking money in the first place.

Its too bad that many (The Right) would rather divert your attention than address the stupidity of the plan.

Don't spend it

[PsiPsiStar]

We're already deep in debt. Running up the debt is the same thing as raising taxes. Bush wants to take the credit for tax cuts but unless you cut spending, you're just signing people up for a huge loan that they have to pay back later.

This debt was run up under Republican presidents and it is now skyrocketing under a Republican president and congress (while it decreased under a Democratic president and congress). There's no longer a Democratic red herring in the mix to throw people off the scent.

The big p

Re:Don't spend it

[Forbman]

The national debt went from $1 trillion or so to over $4 trillion under Reagan.

Perot got the credit, to which the Republicans co-opted the idea to try and screw up Clinton, who then proceeded to co-opt the whole notion himself to help screw over the Republicans in Congress. If you can't fight them, join them.

Budget deficit was shrinking under Clinton, even with a Rebublican-focused Congress.

What is US debt at now, $7.5 Trillion?

Re:How?

[gnuman99]

If I ran my household finances the way the gov't. currently handles its finances, my ass would be out cold on the street.

Anyway, defecit -> debt -> devaluation of currency -> inflation -> redistribution of wealth. You see, it is the poor that will loose it all in inflation times. Why? Because the "rich" will move their money to Euros or gold and thus bypass the inflation. Hence they emerge richer in comparison to the poor living from paycheck-to-paycheck.

People don't give a damn about the deficit. They buy sound bites "strong dolar", "tax cuts", "strong economy", "strong military", "arrogant french", "liberate iraq", "terrorists will get you" and the rest of the bull shit. People have no idea what these issues mean. They just care that the slogans sound good.

Most people don't know what "the market" means as long as it has a word "free" in it, then it must be good. It kind of reminds me of what people thought of Nuclear Magnetic Resonanace. Simply put it, people freaked out about "nuclear" without understand what actually happens. So, NMR was renamed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging and people are happy, still ignorant, but happy.

You see, you don't understand why national budgets are run the way they are because you don't have a clue about the backdoor deals, "scams" (borderline legal, hence quotation marks) and "favours' that are done. Why? Because it is not *their* house. They are only there for a few years and end up "on the street" regardless. In the time that they run the house, they will do whatever they have to to forward *their*, not *our*, best interrests. If all politians wanted to forward *our* best interrests, there would be no wars. Heck, there would be no need for national military and the $450 billion dolar waste that goes into it because it has nothing to do with *our* interrests.

But this is not the fault of politians. This is the fault of our entire society(ies). It is always "us vs. them" or some other bullshit. People need to realize that there is no "them". It is only "us" on *our* little blue planet. </rant

Re:How?

[Waffle Iron]

Stop thinking of the government like it's a private citizen with a credit card. That analogy leads you to conclusions that aren't just wrong, they're really, really wrong.

You're right. Unlike a credit card, the government can just print its way out of any economic dilemma. It's a great strategy, and I'm glad we're finally using it. Just look at the what the Weimar Republic was able to achieve!

Re:How?

[PsiPsiStar]

That's why polititians talk of 'paying down the debt' not 'paying off the debt.'

The debt doesn't need to be nearly as large as it is to provide for economic stability. It could be a tenth the size, and noone would be the worse for it.

Re:How?

[arodland]

Basic economic theory says that you're wrong. The time value of money says that you'll always be able to make a low-risk buck through simple lending in all of its various forms. The government is just a particularly good choice right now because it's deeply entrenched and has a lot of guns. But please, stop confusing conditions with laws. Within "the system" of the world around us, here and now, certain rules apply, but they're not the whole of economic theory; they're just the product of certain organizati

So...

[AnimeFreak]

And the United States wonders why we're [Canada] reluctant to join the missile defence programme...

It doesn't work, that is why.

Agreed

[ashitaka]

Prepare for the chants of "but it will after more development!"

Doesn't matter. It isn't needed. It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.

At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests. Financial war can be messy but at least you don't get this [nejm.org].

Re:Agreed

[AnimeFreak]

The main question is whether or not there is a real threat to the United States. Twenty years ago, it was conceivable that the USSR would roll into Canada and attack the United States, or would start raining hellfire on the country as a whole.

These days, the threat is from countries that have limited missile capabilities. North Korea has the ability to fly only a few hundred kilometres with their existing missiles, and the same is for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries.

As a Canadian, i do not se

Re:Agreed

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Right now, the conflict between the US and the PRC is very, very cold, and it's likely to stay that way for a long time.

China and the United States don't really compete over resources. Yes, the US would love it if China would open up its markets more so we could sell our products there --markets are the most important resource of the 21st century --but it's not a big problem at this point. It's a small thing in the grand scheme of things.

That was also true of the USSR, but there's a critical difference be

All these big weapons....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

and the terrorists that did Sept 11 used $20 of box cutters.

What really frustrated the military and Busg about Sept 11 is that they had nobody to point the might of aircraft carriers at.

Re:So...

[tarunthegreat2]

Sir, judging by the colour of your comment, you have no honour! Now put on your aluminium foil hat!

Why can't we all just get along?

[Vombatus]

That way we wouldn't need new ways of blowing things up

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Why can't we all just get along?

Simple. Because you and I have different views of what getting along is. Now multiply the number of people who have different views by the worlds population.

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[bigberk]

Because then you are putting your nation's safety on the honor system, hoping the other country(..ies) are as optimistic as your are. Do you really want to roll the dice on that one?

Yes, because I have faith in humanity. I think that if countries maintain close ties (economic, social, and political) then there is little or no reason to be hostile to one another. If countries respect people in other countries, and don't exploit them, don't take advantage of them, then really where is the animosity going to come from?

Americans and Europeans are ignorant of their own history if they think they have treated the rest of the world respectfully and justly. American foreign policy for decades has been to exploit weaker countries, manipulate international politics to their advantage. This is documented; it was explicitly outlined by presidents.

England has spent most of its history conquering people, overthrowing cultures and screwing around in places they don't belong.

All people want to live in peace. Hostility does not appear out of thin air. Respect others, and they will respect you. Nobody wants violence. Do you think these are crazy ideas?

Re:Why can't we all just get along?

[Mant]

Americans and Europeans have just done what humans have done to each other throughout history, they were just better at it.

Before the Europeans took control of other countries were they all peaceful and loving? No, they were killing each other. The Spanish destroyed the Aztecs with the help other local tribes that the Aztecs had conquered. The world's largest empire was created and ruled by the Mongols. Just look at the history of Africa or Asia and you will find plenty of wars before the nasty white Europeans showed up.

Just look at Africa now and you will find plenty of fighting, often driven by tribal or religious differences.

It's trendy to blame the white guys for playing "conquer the other guys" better than everyone else, but everyone else was playing too.

The idea that people just want to live in peace requires a wilful ignorance of human history. Humans naturally form groups (tribes, nations whatever). A person may not want violence, but a society tends to fear the other, and groups of humans have always turned on each other. Fear, greed, anger, prejudice, remembrance of past wrongs real or otherwise. Hostility may not come from thin air, but it comes easily enough.

Then there is the issue of respecting others. To respect someone, they have to behave in a way that earns it. Should we have respected the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the way they treated people? Just chalk it up to cultural differences and ignore it?

Waste of Time

[egg troll]

Unfortunately this expensive, worthless boondoggle will only continue. Meanwhile, the cost of university tuition is skyrocketing.

Probable cause

[uniqueCondition]

if it was software related it was probably due to a fault in the scheduling algorithm re: data sharing between processes most problems in RTS come from an excessive amount of world inputs that aren't properly accounted for by data structures then again.. it could of just ran out of gas

And so...

[bravehamster]

The cause of the failure could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."

And let's all speculate aimlessly until we know which.

Damn...

[JessLeah]

Stupid rackafratchin' metric conversions ;)

My concern

[Frennzy]

Ignoring for the moment the cost and the dubious necessity for such a system, what worries me more is:

'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly'

What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs...possibly in the NYC sanitation department.

The system 'shut itself down'...ergo, a failure condition (anomaly) must have existed. I fail to understand how the 'system' knew about a problem that was bad enough to shut itself down, yet somehow the folks running said system aren't able to discern exactly what that was? Hell, even Windows has 'event viewer' and kernel dumps.

This cash cow needs to have her neck severed.

Re:My concern

[Dun Malg]

'failed to launch due to an unknown anomaly' What kind of engineering is this? With all of the possible metrology, the system 'shut down' due to an unknown anomaly? If the scientists and engineers can't grok what causes a 'shut down', then they need new jobs

The talking head who said "unknown anomaly" probably talked to the engineers first. They probably said something like:

"The primary system dumped core with error 0xEA09, which indicates the fizgig wasn't able to spin up to polarity. We need time to dump the logs and figure out if it was the metabalancer, the interflexor, or maybe even the sky modulator that miscued the fizgig."

To which he says, "I'll just tell 'em we don't know what happened yet"

Some perspective is needed

[crumbz]

Some have said: A shameful waste of American money. An inducement to start a new nuclear arms race. Another dangerous precedent for continued American unilateralism.

Meanwhile, the thousands of cargo containers entering American ports everyday are rarely inspected.

Meanwhile, tons of radioactive materials are left unsecured in the former USSR.

And more nations are pursuing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to keep the U.S. from invading their countries.

Someone want to educate the current administration on asymmetrical warfare? And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors.

Re:Some perspective is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And how the next threat is likely to be immune to missile interceptors

Just like there is no alquaeda in Iraq, there will be no falling ICBM.

It will come through the ports on a container ship that isn't inspected and detonate somwhere down the road.

So you're right, it will be immune to missile interception.

Meanwhile countless americans don't have healthcare.

This is "morals and values" for you folks.

Cost versus Benefit?

[hunterx11]

Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?

Re:Cost versus Benefit?

[Qrlx]

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

But we still need aircraft carriers and interceptor missiles.

Foreign Aid, 2003: $15 Billion [globalissues.org]
Military Budget, 2004: $399 Billion [cdi.org]

Which one of these is a black hole again?

Congratulations, I guess

[Tom7]

as the interceptor missile ... shut itself down...

Well, it could have been worse! Nothing like going from one incoming ICBM to one ICBM and one haywire interceptor...

More harm than good.

[Stripsurge]

Just a thought. If I was a terrorist (I'm not honest!) and I heard Americans going on and on about how great this system is knowing full well its faulty I'd probably put it to the test. Seems like that would be the ultimate slap in the face. "Your billions and billions of dollars STILL can't stop us" An unfounded claim just begs to be tested.

Its like those "indestructible" CD holders they sell in those little booths at the mall.... Lets just say I'm not allowed back in that mall for a while.

Wow. That sounded bad. Ok. No more writting in the first person as a terrorist.

--
To sig or not to sig

The fault was in the missiles' AI

[the_skywise]

It was too broadly programmed and decided to become a conscientious objector...

(Now there's a sci-fi story waiting to be written... an AI that refuses to do non-efficient work that it was designed to do..."This job is stupid, I'm not doing it...")

The press spokesman

[DougDew]

Critics of anti-ballistic missile defense systems have often pointed out the futility of trying to build a missile defense system. As the critics have explained, it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than it will be to build an effective defense.

So, it seemed tragically humorous when the press spokesman for the missile defense effort inadvertantly agreed with the critics when the press spokesman proclaimed that although the interceptor had failed, the target missile had functioned properly.

With all of the money being spent on this program, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to hire a more savvy spokesman.

5 day forecast

[dghcasp]

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including weather problems [...]

Important Notice to Rogue States and Terrorists: If you plan to attack the US, check the weather first and make sure it's a calm, clear day so our missile defence system has a chance of working. Love, the US government.

I don't know about you Americans but...

[No. 24601]

up here in Canada we're celebrating. This means we can procrastinate further on whether to help you guys start the next arms race. After his recent trip, Bush had a lot of people up here arguing about whether it's in our best interest to help with missile defense.

Personally, I hope the defense project fails... otherwise Canada will be forced to disagree again with American policy. I'm sure there'll be economic consequences.

Re:I don't know about you Americans but...

[zx75]

Procrastinate further? Well I suppose we've done a fair share of it lately, but Martin said yesterday that until he gets an official written document asking for our participation along with a detailed list of what is being requested, there is no debate. It will not happen on Canadian soil and not one Canadian cent will be spent on Missile Defence until that happens, and if it does, it will go to parliment.

Pretty definitive I'd say... and I must say I very much approve of this approach (and policy of not jo

No, the next arms race has already started.

[mcc]

This means we can procrastinate further on whether to help you guys start the next arms race.

America may not be out of the gate yet but Mr. Bush's arms race is already well underway. [www.cbc.ca] Before too long Russia will have missiles inherently capable of penetrating any missile defense shield we can build.

The White House, of course, will probably continue to claim there was no reason to continue those ballistic-arms-buildup treaties we had with the USSR.

My take on nuclear missile defence.

[Steamhead]

I wrote this for an English teacher of mine so I won't bother to reformat it, but it shows why us Canadians are reluctant to join into this program.

Winnipeg is among Canadian cities where a North Korean nuclear missile could land if the U.S. shot it out of the sky with its ballistic missile defence technology.

Although the chance of Winnipeg getting hit is distance, it's still a sobering thought for Prairie dwellers at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush is pushing Canada to sign onto his plan.

If the U.S. hit the feared missiles early enough, they would make it no farther then the arctic before landing or breaking apart. But a few minutes delay and a missile could fall much closer to its target, such as in southern Canada.

The anti missile technology works by destroying the rocket's booster rocket.

The Nuclear warhead would either break apart and scatter radioactive material over a wide path, or continue intact but come short of it's target, if it did hit the ground it may, or may not explode.

U.S analysts haven't thought much about the consequences for Canada, which lies in the path or a nuclear missile from North Korea, or of Berlin and Edinburgh, which lie in the path of a nuclear missile from Iran. A United States official commented that saving New York is worth killing one or two of our reindeer.

If you draw a line on the globe from North Korea to Chicago, it passes quite close to Yellowknife, The Pas, Kenora, and Winnipeg . I suppose Chicago is worth the three reindeer in Assiniboine Park, and 600 000 Winnipeggers eh?

The trajectory to Washington passes not far from Toronto.

If Canada joins this plan, we would have to demand protection of our major cities, but more then likely if we do join this, we will just end up being a target.

OBSOLETE

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The system is a total waste.

It is obsolete before it is even functional.

Why do I say this?

Because to overcome the defense, all you need to do is send more warheads and make the warheads travel faster. A CHEAP EASY WAY TO OVERCOME A TRILLION DOLLAR SYSTEM. They can be real warheads, they can be decoys, just put lots in the air at once, the US won't be able to shoot them all down. Make them move faster, and the defense system can't keep up.

This does not require very many missles.

The new Russian system announced recently does all this. Each missle carries more warheads (10 or 12), and the missle travels much faster than previous missles.

Now, how about the other issue .. the fact that the system has never yet worked properly under normal expected conditions?

The ONLY time the system has EVER shot down a missle has been when the target missles have been set to travel and a greatly reduced speed AND have been made to emit a homing signal for the defensive missle to follow in.

Do you really think any 'rogue states' are going to slow their missles down and put nice friendly homing beacons on them? dumbass.

Hmmmm maybe that's why DUBYA is such good friends with the nuclear military dictatorship of Pakistan, as well as the well known terrorist leader of Libya who has murdered hundreds and has billions in the bank to fund any terrorists he wants ... wouldn't want any real threats to test the system, better to just invade the imaginary threats that never had any WMD's.

Re:OBSOLETE

[Edmund Blackadder]

it is always much much easier to throw a ballistic missile in the air than to intercept it. Ballistic missiles don't need any fancy electronics, they are essentially unguided.

and you dont have to triple strategic force ... all you have to do is over load a particular sector.

really all you have to do is cram more junk in a multiple warhead missile. Still relatively cheap compared to the effort required to detect all the junk and determine which piece of junk is a nuke and which is merely junk.

Contractor - Boeing

[Artifakt]

Primary contractor for the interceptor missile system is Boeing. Four previous tests have been successful as tests of at least some parts of the system. At least 1 previous test was spectacularly unsuccessful after the missile boost stage failed to separate, and others have had less obvious problems.
Orbital Sciences Corp. is an alternate contractor for a booster system in case the Boeing design doesn't meet final acceptance, and several companies such as Lockeed-Martin also have standby programs.
The warhead that may ultimately be deployed is technically an EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle). Raethon has the contract for this design. It contains a sensor suite that is supposed to descriminate between actual nuclear devices and decoys. Tests so far have had balloon decoys whose IR characteristics were relatively easy to discriminate vis-a-vis an actual warhead. This test would have been against a wider selection of balloon decoys.

For more info, and some nice photos, try:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi. html/ [designation-systems.net]

Common failure..

[tji]

This used to happen to me all the time.

That little sticker that holds the igniter [estesrockets.com] up in the engine probably came loose. Either that, or the alligator clip came off the igniter.

Estes is usually good to deal with, just call their 800 number and they'll send a new pack of igniters.

There is a helpful guide here [estesrockets.com].

Probably a Good Thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Despite what all the official propoganda says, this system is primarily an offensive weapon.

As others have pointed out - no two-bit dictator with a nuke is going to launch it at the US (or any of our allies that might be geographically closer) because they know it is a sure ticket to "liberation."

But, what the US military, and anyone who bothers to think about it for 30 seconds, does know is that if the US premptively liberates a country from its two-bit dictator, then any nuke that guy has at his disposal will be launched just as soon as he can hit that red button.

Ballistic missile defense is designed to neutralize that retaliatory threat and thus make it "safe" for the US to liberate a country like Iran or North Korea. That's the reason all the talk about how "it will never work" because of decoys and whatnot doesn't make an impact on development - they don't (plan to) need to deal with a well-funded and well-planned attack, only the last-minute, "if I'm going down, I'm going to take as many of them with me" kind of attack.

Speaking as a US citizen and a WORLD citizen, I tend to think that the less free the US feels to throw its weight around, the better off the planet is in the long run.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[Tyrell Hawthorne]

You have made a very good post and you seem to be able to see through a lot of propaganda. The only thing I object to, and which makes your post a bit scary, is how you use the term "liberate" without quotationmarks or marks of any kind, when in fact you are talking about invasions.

Re:Probably a Good Thing

[drew]

yeah, it's too bad that iran actually *HAD* a democratically elected government, and we saw fit to replace it with a theocracy.

oh, sorry, i forgot. iran, iraq, and afghanistan have always been the axis of evil. we would never have suported their governments with weapons or intelligence.... my bad.

welcome to the new defense department

[Edmund Blackadder]

This is evidence of the Bush's administration new policy of testing and deplying at the same time. The idea is that when the government used to test before deployment, Boeing would actually have to create a working system in order to get the bulk of their money. But they would much prefer it if they start getting their money before their system even works.

There were several tests of the missile defense system some of them succesful some not, but there were certainly not enough tests to ensure that the system would be operational. Yet the DoD decided to go ahead with building the system before testing was complete.

Now we know there is some kind of problem but we can't make major design changes because the whole thing is already being build. Lets just hope it is a software glitch.

Now everyone knows that a system as complex as that cannot work on the first time, but that is why you do tersting before you actually start depoying. This way you can iron out the bugs before you spend several billion dollars on a bunch of hardware that might turn out to be useless.

No Confidence

[phalse phace]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but has anyone else noticed that the previous five (out of eight) tests of the tracking and targeting system were highly scripted [washingtonpost.com]?

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

The chief weapons tester doesn't even have confidence in the system [myway.com].

The current chief weapons tester, Thomas Christie, said in a written reply to Reuters that the test, if successful, would increase confidence that the system "has some operational capability against a North Korean threat ballistic missile."

Coyle said the tests so far and the coming one gave him no such confidence.

"The target launch time and location, the flight trajectory, the point of impact, what the target looks like, and the make-up of other objects in the target cluster have all been known in advance to plot the intercept," he said. "No enemy would cooperate by providing all that information in advance."

I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc. What a waste of taxpayer money. People should be outraged.

Parnas predicted this in the 1980s

[gtoomey]

David Parnas [wikipedia.org] predicted in the 1980s that software for missile defence was impossible to test.

The Physicists Aren't Surprised

[kravlor]

I'm surprised I haven't seen mention of several publications by the American Physical Society [aps.org] regarding the missile defense shield. As a physicist, I looked forward to the APS' findings, as it is one of the most prominent and well-respected professional organizations of physicists.

Physics Today [physicstoday.org] has several [physicstoday.org] articles [physicstoday.org] dealing [physicstoday.org] with the subject, and the actual report can be obtained here. [aps.org]

The verdict: living under the physical laws we all have to obey, boost phase missile defense really doesn't work -- even if the interceptors can get off the ground. Continuing on in with the fiendishly expensive and marginally beneficial program (beneficial in terms of the defense contractors' job security) in the light that it is not physically possible to expect a reasonable chance (or sometimes even a chance) of success is a demonstration of the Administration's ignorance of science and fact, as well as pork-barrel spending at its worst.

So, I'm not surprised at all about the failure -- and wouldn't be even if they launched the interceptor successfully. It's too bad that we won't see any sort of rational discussion of the topic of missile defense in Congress now that the topic is so politically charged.

Unnecessary and obsolete - think ships

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If I wanted to blow up New York City using a nuclear device, it would be by far easiest to load it into a container onto a container ship, offload it onto a speedboat off-coast (probably drop it off and have the speedboat pick it up so that the security people can't see what happened on the radar) and have a suicide bomber set it off inside New York harbor. Of course, you'd need a collusive captain on the ship.

However, answer me this: If you had an atomic bomb, wouldn't you agree that this is an easier and cheaper way to destroy New York City than to aquire, arming and sending off an ICBM?

Bob said it best

[Jeremi]

I think Stephen Notley says it best [angryflower.com]:

In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.

Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.

Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.

So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?

The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.

Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l

Re:Sooo funny

[miu]

What a slap in the face for the yanks.

Are you trying to "take the piss" or any of those other wacky colloquialisms non-American English speakers use?

Re:Sooo funny

[AusG4]

Though to be fair, it's hard to categorize the language spoken by Americans as "English". "Americanese" or just "American" is proabably a better name.

Re:This begs the question:

[sailforsingapore]

Combine this with the previous story, and you would get a killing machine that ran really slowly, and randomly shut itself down mid killer-rampage.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Derkec]

The major test ban treaty prevents us from testing real nukes. The only treaty that covered missle defense shields was one we signed with the USSR.

The Bushies claim that treaty is now moot as the USSR no longer exists. Moscow didn't see it that way. The US was open about it's plans and if I recall correctly that would have matched protocol for leaving the treaty.

I may have that last part wrong. It all happened in the early part of the Bush presidency when he was withdrawing from, ignoring or unsigning a m

Re:And the better course of action is?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

I think you're totally wrong. Iran knows full well that Israel has at least 200 nukes, all within range of Iran. Also, a nuclear strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation from the US. Iranians are not suicidal. Fact is, there is no 'rogue state' missile threat. That's a paranoid delusion created by the neocons.

Re:And the better course of action is?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Actually an imperfect shield is very dangerous because it makes people think they have a are protected and they tend to do stupid things.

There is one and only one proven way to prevent nuclear ICBM hits and that is mutually assured destruction. I know it does not sound nice but that is the only proven way. Remember missile defense systems are not new. The russians used build them long time ago, but soon they realized that they are a very unreliable shield and signed the ABM treaty and settled on mutually a

How Dare They!

[waldoj]

But it's kind of embarrassing that a Web site that purports to carry "news for nerds" should just parrot the misinformation carried in the wire service report.

How ridiculous that Slashdot should believe the media coverage about a secret event held in a highly-controlled military zone off the coast of Alaska! Why, Rob or Jamie or somebody should have been in a little rowboat, monitoring the whole thing themselves.

And they call themselves geeks... Feh!

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Shameful misinformation

[Edmund Blackadder]

Huh? so what exactly did the wire reporters get wrong? I am especially eager to know since they are quoting a statement from the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency.

I guess now any barely coherent rant on how the so called "liberal media" don't know anything is bound to be marked "informative".

Actually, the anti-missle missle is just a front..

[raehl]

The *REAL* anti-missile program is we sell these missiles to North Korea. Then they fail to launch when the Koreans try to use them.