Did we shoot down Kim Jong Il's missile, when will we read about it in the NYT?

[scottmandue]

Silly boys... don't you know we have a group of brainiacs in a bunker twenty miles underground that can knock anything out of the air with telekinesis?

Oh no... here come the helicopters!

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Seahawk
You need to look some more...they are moving some cruisers into the Sea of Japan as we type, for TBMD. The cruisers provide a shield, not a target.

Tech, I have witnessed skin to skin hits on supersonic targets from Aegis class cruisers. I have flown off the f'ing things on two six month deployments.

Groovy. How many ICBMs have you seen or heard of being intercepted?

Most of the tests are done out here from Vandenburg. I believe there was a successful test 7/15/01 against a missile over Kwajalein. Another was reported 6/22/06 -- this one from a ship.

These tests, I believe, involved an anticipated launch and anticipated trajectory, with known defensive system deployment.

Even the Bush administration states that the likelihood of an interception is "high." When you're dealing with nuclear ICBMs, the probability of a shootdown has to be higher than that.

The point is that the task is near enough to impossible that 20+ years of development and billions given to defense contractors have not made us appreciably safer -- primarily because the threat has shifted from symmetrical to asymmetrical.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Silly boys... don't you know we have a group of brainiacs in a bunker twenty miles underground that can knock anything out of the air with telekinesis?

Oh no... here come the helicopters!

Oh, man. Now you're off to join Art Bell in exile.

:-/

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Tobra, as far as I know, we do not have a working defense for real ballistic threats. The competition for money is intense and back then the likelihood of needing a defense against a NK ICBM would have been dismissed out of hand.

Does anyone know if the Taepodong had destruct capabilities, either command or self destruct? Or could this have been a major engineering mistake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501551.html

If it does not have self or command destruct, I think we are very prudent putting assets near by to attempt to destroy an errant missle.

Did anyone hear of a target zone and any NK assets in the area to monitor the test?

Brings up a interesting point. Why all this "defence" issue? We just hack into their self destruct system and send our own signal to destruct their missile after it launches... Cheaper and easier by a long shot.

[IROC]

Originally posted by techweenie
These tests, I believe, involved an anticipated launch and anticipated trajectory, with known defensive system deployment.

While this is true, the object of these tests was to incrementally test different subsystems, etc., so the "orchestrated" nature of the testing was somewhat of a necessity.


The point is that the task is near enough to impossible that 20+ years of development and billions given to defense contractors have not made us appreciably safer -- primarily because the threat has shifted from symmetrical to asymmetrical.

FWIW, I have seen the documents and read the reviews (and worked on the program) and the technology is impressive and it *does* work. Is it 100% reliable? Maybe not. There are ways to confuse the EKV. There has been alot of money spent on this program that might have been better spent elsewhere, but that's another discussion. Does it work? Yes. Are we completely safe? Never.

Mike

[Joeaksa]

Mike,

Please do not say things like this! Weenie is now an expert on missle defence (among other things, its getting to be a very long list) and he just knows that THIS DOES NOT WORK, so telling him that you worked on the program and know it works depresses him...

There are many things that we in the field know works. Glad the public had not had everything leaked to them by the news media just yet.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by IROC
FWIW, I have seen the documents and read the reviews (and worked on the program) and the technology is impressive and it *does* work. Is it 100% reliable? Maybe not. There are ways to confuse the EKV. There has been alot of money spent on this program that might have been better spent elsewhere, but that's another discussion. Does it work? Yes. Are we completely safe? Never.

Mike

Well, that's reassuring, assuming everything remains static. AFAIK, several years ago, it was "brilliant pebbles" that were to confuse defense systems. Today, NK may have progressed past that point. And tomorrow?

The thing with weapons systems is that they are not static.

And yes, its foolish to think 'completely safe' is a practical goal. But even a 5% chance of a thermonuclear device hitting a major US city is a bit tough to swallow.

[nostatic]

was Jack Bauer in NK?

[Nathans_Dad]

He was on that Chinese Freighter being tortured at the end of Season 2...maybe they took him to NK...

[Seahawk]

Good googly moogly...


1. Cruise missiles. There are point defense solutions against these subsonic weapons. As a matter of fact, I have CHASED these weapons during test flights. You can fly form on these pigs. Is Los Angelas equipped to fend them off? No.

2. Supersonic threats. There are systems that work against these threats. Is Los Angelas equipped? No.

3. TBM's. There are systems that can intercept these weapons, phase dependent. Is LA...no.

4. ICBMS. Also phase dependent. And, yes, LA is out of brea on this one, too.

I love Huntsville, btw...

[stevepaa]

Joe, if the NK engineers did their job correctly, then falsifying a command destruct signal is nigh impossible. However, judging by their success rate, they might not be as thorough as we are and there might be an avenue there.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
He was on that Chinese Freighter being tortured at the end of Season 2...maybe they took him to NK...

dont' you mean season 5? I'm in the middle of season 4, having watched the show for the first time this year at the insistence of my g/f. now I'm working my way backwards...

I have no doubt that season 6 will have some China/NK action...

hey, maybe he'll get a new female sidekick

[Nathans_Dad]

Ah, you're right. I have the early seasons on the brain...my wife watched season 5 with me this year and decided to get caught up. I had already seen seasons 1 and 2, she watched those on DVD in like 2 weeks. Now we are on season 3.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I love Huntsville, btw...

Yeah, we do lots of neat stuff here and nobody really knows it.... :>)

Mike

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Good googly moogly...


1. Cruise missiles. There are point defense solutions against these subsonic weapons. As a matter of fact, I have CHASED these weapons during test flights. You can fly form on these pigs. Is Los Angelas equipped to fend them off? No.

2. Supersonic threats. There are systems that work against these threats. Is Los Angelas equipped? No.

3. TBM's. There are systems that can intercept these weapons, phase dependent. Is LA...no.

4. ICBMS. Also phase dependent. And, yes, LA is out of brea on this one, too.

I love Huntsville, btw...

HA!
We are working on a impenetrable layer of smog that will beat any of those attacks!
Almost done too cough cough...

[nostatic]

Reflections off of all the whitened teeth wreak havoc with missle control systems, and our SSS (silicone safety system) is designed such that when a warning goes out, all of the bleached blonde waitresses, um, I mean actesses, gather at the point of impact to provide a boobie-rebound layer (BRL) for protection.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I am skeptical that after the simulation reports that much was done on these devices. Following your logic, it woiuld have taken a very far reaching mind with substantail political power to pursuade DOD to spend money in case we could use them on a limited basis against a small country of limited assets. I don't think with all the other priorities that any one of those far fetched weapon ideas would have gotten very far. But that's just my opinion.

That is exactly what the systems I am familiar with are for. Mutually Assured Destruction seems to be a good deterrent for the (somewhat) reasonable folks with huge nuclear arsenals that have managed to control themselves all these years.

Obviously we would like a shield that would prevent any threat, but the systems that we are really interested in developing first are those that will take out a terrorist launch by a madman...Elvis, Saddam, and the Kooky Iranian President come to mind.

[snowman]

Fortunately,or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, the people in the "know" about this stuff, even 30 year old stuff, cannot talk about it. Needless to say Techweenie is 100 percent wrong about our development and capability. I wouldn't breath easy, but I wouldn't worry to much about Korea either.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by snowman
Fortunately,or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, the people in the "know" about this stuff, even 30 year old stuff, cannot talk about it. Needless to say Techweenie is 100 percent wrong about our development and capability. I wouldn't breath easy, but I wouldn't worry to much about Korea either.

Couldn't and shouldn't are close, folks talking about things they were sworn to secrecy about is what they NYT is in hot water about now

[fintstone]

Interesting system:

http://www.afrl.af.mil/articles/032006_ARM3System.asp