Missile defense in place in Alaska, but will it work?

The Seattle Times ^ | July 17, 2005 | Alex Fryer

[neverdem]

I wonder where those 48 other missile defense battalions are?
AP
Workers lower the first anti-missile interceptor into a silo at Fort Greely, Alaska, on July 22, 2004.

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The tops of silos that hold defensive missiles at the national missile-defense site at Fort Greely, Alaska, about 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks.

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
At Fort Greely, Maj. Eric Maxon stands next to a scale model of an engine that will steer the missiles toward their targets.

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
An interior lining that will go into an underground missile silo at Fort Greely, Alaska.

Missile-defense history

The threat and the defense (PDF) (It's a better image of the first .gif.)

[SteveMcKing]

I think it's cover for an ionospheric charging method to destroy incoming missles. (Me, Art Bell, and some other enlightened folk.)

[jla]

Reagan Legacy ping

[Waco]

It's always best to wait till yer up to your ears in alligators before planning yer next stradegy,,,,,,right??? Knew you'd see my point.

[Steely Tom]

The malfunctions and costs — roughly $31.6 billion between 1996 and 2011, with no final price tag

What does the government spend in transfer payments to people who do absolutely nothing except crank out babies? And what is the "final price tag" on that program?

(steely)

[jz638]

I was kind of thinking along the same lines. When did the Seattle Times start caring if a government program would "work"

[Southack]

The article omits numerous things. First of all, we've got more than just the 18 missile interceptors in Alaska and California (plus one "test" interceptor in Alabama). That's just the land-based part of our National Missile Defense system.

We've also got Aegis destroyers and SM-3 anti-missiles at sea. At least two of those systems are off the coast of North Korea at this very moment.

In addition to all of that, we've got one Boeing airborne laser interceptor...as well as armed UAV's that can take out enemy missile launches in the first 30 seconds (the time it takes to reach Mach 1) of firing. These systems can down enemy missiles while they are still over enemy airspace.

Put together in sum, those 3 phases of our missile defense constitute a viable, if not perfect, defense system.

Also, it's no accident that we've put 18 land-based interceptors into operation so quickly. That happens to be the exact number of Chinese nuclear ICBM's at the moment.

Thus, we've fundamentally altered their military options and calculations from this time 5 years ago.

[Squantos]

Also, it's no accident that we've put 18 land-based interceptors into operation so quickly. That happens to be the exact number of Chinese nuclear ICBM's at the moment.

HEY !....Quit scare'n my kittens !.......:o)

[ExtremeUnction]

But no one is certain whether the interceptors at Fort Greely actually work.

I say it will work. I vote on the ingenuity of American engineers.

[null and void]

It doesn't have to work perfectly.

It is sufficient that it introduces uncertainty into a potential opponent's calculations.

[xrp]

I thought the Chinese had around 40 ICBMs?

[Southack]

"It is sufficient that it introduces uncertainty into a potential opponent's calculations."

Precisely.

Though it does help that along with the enemy's new uncertainty of our defensive capability, that the enemy also has to know with certainty that we will retaliate offensively with a nuclear response EVEN IF their nuclear attack is entirely shot down.

[Southack]

40 nuclear warheads, perhaps...but loaded onto only 18 serviceable ICBM's.

[tarator]

But no one is certain whether the interceptors at Fort Greely actually work.

Well, then I guess little Kim will have to ask himself one thing: "Do I feel lucky?"

[topher]

Sounds like the Seattle paper thinks it better that Seattle be nuked than defended.

One can always put a nuclear tip on a missile and explode it close to an oncoming missile. That is being than 500,000 people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle or Portland getting nuked.

Trying to defend it better than getting nuked... But I guess the liberals just want to bend over and kiss their rear end goodbye if Red China, North Korea, or Iran launch nuclear missiles.

[null and void]

Though it does help that along with the enemy's new uncertainty of our defensive capability, that the enemy also has to know with certainty that we will retaliate offensively with a nuclear response EVEN IF their nuclear attack is entirely shot down.

We will respond -not react- in a time, place, and manner that suits our needs. They will get to sweat as long as that pleases us, not one millisecond longer.

[null and void]

Precisely.

[JohnBovenmyer]

But no one is certain whether the interceptors at Fort Greely actually work.

So long as "no one" in China or North Korea knows that is a very good thing. Confusion to our would be enemies! The one thing WE can be certain about is so long as Bush is in power we'll keep improving whatever it is we've got. They've already proven it can work.

[Teacher317]

Interesting that the article does not call into question the efficacy of Russian or Chinese (or even American) nuclear missiles. After all, none have been effectively used in about 60 years.

[neverdem]

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list. I'm sorry for redundant pings.