Defense missile fails to launch

Defense Missile for U.S. System Fails to Launch [NYT permalink]

Today's test had already been postponed twice because of rain. The third time was not the charm.

Sean Carroll has harsh words about our heroic missile defense system that doesn't work in the rain.

Comments

[Mike G]

Ah but it does work in the rain. In fact, rain, snow, or sun, it works exactly as it is supposed to work. It brings in FUCKING HUGE ammounts of money to Defense Department contractors. It brings a few jobs to Alaska and that keeps our crooked Congressional Delegation riding high. And its very existence proves that there is something out there that we should be afraid of and so we should keep throwing billions of dollars down this rat hole. Just because the damned thing doesn't fly and will never intercept an incomming missile doesn't mean it doesn't work!

[NewScrewer]

Exactly, exactly, exactly. Just as I wrote on The NewScrew this morning.

This bothers nobody, I truly believe, but us who can't stand the wasted billions and hope, and those who actually believe the IMC cares at all if this works.

(Hey! I heard that! We get to say "Industrial Military Complex," and we get to say it with a straight face. A Republican 5-star general coined the term and warned us to beware of it.)

(Okay I still fell stupid saying it.)

[Mike G]

Of course, this is nothing new. You can look at a million other government policies in the same manner. For example, we have the DARE program, designed to keep school kids from trying drugs. This program has been around for decades and there is not one shred of evidence that it has reduced drug use among participant. But it gives local politicians a reason to stand up and say, "look, I really am trying to do something about drugs."

The unstated objectives of a program are often the most important ones. These are always the ones you need to look for.

[Steve]

Yeah, and what's with those Wright brothers? They must be crazy. A heavier than air craft will never fly under it's own power!
The internal combustion engine is just a fad anyway. Put all your money in chariots! Mark my words! Chariots are making a comeback!
Next thing you know the government will be telling us that they plan to land a man on the moon!

[Ron In Portland]

This was always pork for the defense industry and now we know that pigs still can't fly.

[Herbert Browne]

I'm sure that the Wright brothers must have noticed the "heavier than air" geese who ogled the "heavier than air" kites that they used to consider aerodynamics, friend Steve...
My feelings are that the missile defense program should start small and work its way up to the ballistic missile configurations- say, with a 30-06 taking out an Army .45 slug. Then, when they're batting something like Ted Williams' lifetime average, they could move up to ballistic entities measured in the 10s of millimeters. By the time the N. Koreans can put something over Adak, we should be ready for them... ^..^

[lazybratsche]

Herbert-

The basic concept of anti-ballistic missiles has worked, at a smaller scale. Remember how the military was able to shoot down SCUD missiles with a lot of success during Iraq I? The technical problems behind the "missile shield" concept might be solved, and nobody should expect first or second generation technology to fully work. Now, there are plenty of other questions, especially about the management of the current project and whether it is really worth the cost. Here there is plenty of room for argument that the system has no real need - N. Korea and Iran are the only two potentially hostile nations that have ballistic missiles, with almost no real chance of a nuclear strike from either nation. This is a valid argument, though it's shortsighted. Having a military equipped for current threats means it may be unpreparred for future threats. This is why the army was so under-equipped in the recent Iraq war - it was outfitted to fight a land war against the Soviets, where support units behind front lines wouldn't have been under constant threat of ambush, as they are now. So the vast majority of transport vehicles aren't armored, and people in supply units have to do without adequate equipment for the current situation. To bring this back to ABM -- there may be no use for such a system currently, but the future is always uncertain, and there are many nations capable of launching ballistic missiles.

From my very limited perspective, it seems that ABM development should continue, but at a much lower priority. It is without a doubt highly politicized, and something meant to soothe artificial public fears.

[Sovok]

Good Primer on the subject (from the invaluable Federation of American Scientists website)

Star Wars: Clever Politics in the Service of Bad Policy

Neither clear and present danger nor compellingly sweet technical innovation currently propel the debate over ballistic missile defense. Rather it is propelled by a series of narrow, expedient and self-interested calculations by a range of national political actors, each putting short-term political advantage over sound national policy. The damage wrought by such political expediency in the 1960s took nearly a decade to repair. It is to be hoped, though perhaps not anticipated, that this object lesson will enable sense to prevail over nonsense sooner rather than later.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/pir0996.html

Of course, the wingnuts will dismiss these as "so-called experts" and "liberal college professors".

The guy down at the bar is much more credible these days, and of course, he's in charge now...

[shudder]

[Dr Pretorius]

"Remember how the military was able to shoot down SCUD missiles with a lot of success during Iraq I?"

No, no I don't remember that.

[Mike G]

The only thing those Patriot Missiles ever brought down were friendly planes. I'm not saying the concept of missile defense is complete crap. I'm saying this system that we are dumping billions into is complete crap.

[NewScrewer]

Remember how the military was able to shoot down SCUD missiles with a lot of success during Iraq I?

Thanks for stepping on that one Dr Pretorius, I almost put a scud in my pants.

[NewScrewer]

Remember how the military was able to shoot down SCUD missiles with a lot of success during Iraq I?

Thanks for stepping on that one Dr Pretorius, I almost put a scud in my pants.

[Kuas]

In fairness to the pentagon, the only two actual nuclear attacks in the history of the world happened on bright sunny days.

Of course, the delivery vehicles were propeller driven aircraft, but that's a minor detail.

[aleister crowleymas]

Well - the alternative is we don't try the preventitive approach at all. Wait and see what happens. I love suspence ... don't you

[aleister crowleymas]

I've begun to dig a very, very deep hole in my yard and I'm investing in a 500 yard length of hose so I can suck air. I'm not called "Hoggy dude" for nothing :)

[aleister crowleymas]

Does the failure of the defence missile to launch tell us something about the need for high tec viagra? We need to "stiffen" or resolve.

[Will]

"Well - the alternative is we don't try the preventitive approach at all. Wait and see what happens. I love suspence ... don't you"

Hey Aleister,

Is that the ONLY alternative? Really? The only one you can think of? It's either do it exactly the way we're doing it without a single change, or do nothing?

Good heavens, I was labouring under the mistaken impression that perhaps there were more than two options when it came to this issue. How silly of me.

[DanInAlabama]

Having worked as a DoD contractor in the ABMD (Anti Ballistic Missile Defense) area since 1975 I say these programs are worse than worthless. I have been on projects associated with DOT (Digital Optical Tracking), HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment), KDEC (Kinetic Energy Weapon), Brilliant Pebbles, SDI (Stragtic Defense Initive, now called NMD), PATRIOT, THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense - one of the more workable as it only tries to defend a small area), and Airborne Laser systems inside and outside the US. None of these programs have worked to any degree without rigging their tests - it is my opinion that these programs are more about white-collar welfare, and propping up Defense Contractors, than deploying a viable missile defense system. These programs have cost hundreds of billions of dollars with little to no success. But they are successful, nonetheless, because their main propose is not to defend against missiles. Their main purpose is to funnel money to Defense Contractors. No country is going to commit suicide by shooting a missile at us simply because we would know exactly where said missile came from. The real threat to our country is from a nuclear weapon smuggled into our country via any of millions of places along our borders and coasts. A terrorist group could thwart our multi-billion dollar programs for a few million dollars. To me, these anti-missile defense programs make us less secure because they preclude significant funding of programs that could actually make us safer. For a fraction of the dollars spent on anti-ballistic missile defense programs we could set up offshore monitoring systems to inspect every single cargo ship coming into our country, and do it without hurting commerce; we could place sensors at every airport in this country to detect radioactive material; we could upgrade and expand existing airborne surveillance systems capable of monitoring every inch of our borders with Canada and Mexico to the extent that a cat could not cross our borders at night without being seen, and yes, we do have the technology, computer power, and software programs to do this right now. But once in place these programs would not afford a big enough never ending supply of money to the big contractors, Lockheed, Boeing, and Raytheon, and therefore will not receive support (i.e. payoffs from the MIC to our congress in the form of campaign contributions) to put them in place. In short, these ant-missile defense programs are a boondoggle custom made to rip off the American Taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars while leaving us open to lo-tech nuclear attack.