[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[rmmcdaniell]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?

Would they not be more effective if they had nuclear tips? I hope we are not hobbling our missle defense because we could not test such nuclear-tipped interceptors on account of the atmospheric test ban treaty.

[KamperKen]

The direct cost for the destruction of only two skyscrapers in NYC was over 100 billion dollars. The overall indirect economic losses were probably several hundred billion more. $36.1 billion? Strikes me as relatively cheap insurance. Anyone care to calculate the costs of a direct hit on a major US city? I'm sure its been done and the number dwarfs whatever the development and deployment cost of an ABM system.

Will it work? Well, that question looms as large if not larger for anyone contemplating launching an attack as it does for us.

Also, as I recall, the Polaris SLBM's failed their first several dozen tests. And I was chilled to read recently that Leonid Brezhnev wanted to launch a nuclear attack on America but what was ultimately deterred by those same SLBMs in the US arsenal that failed so many early tests.

[El Gato]

Debris — possibly including plutonium — either drifts in orbit or is incinerated as it falls to Earth.

Almost certainly including plutonium. Incineration makes no difference, other than possibly to make the resulting plutonium oxide(s) less reactive. The stuff is still radioactive.

One must remember however that the alternative is a nuclear explosion on US (or Canadian) soil, likely over a major city. I'll take a minor increase in the cancer rate over millions of people being incinerated.

[Looking4Truth]

"In a bulldozed clearing of moose-inhabited river delta"

WTF is this supposed to mean?

Do the moose still inhabit the river delta?

Did the bulldozers clear the river delta so that it is unhabitable?

MSM idiots should get a clue.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this!

[Carry_Okie]

The Army does not have environmental permits to launch experiments.

I want to see the citation from the DOS for the authroity to preclude launch tests on the basis of any environmental treaty.

After $31 billion, I don't buy it.

[familyop]

Here's one on a recent successful test (of several). The "dummy" (as the journalist put it) was hit outside of our atmosphere while it was in descent. The interceptor was launched from a ship.

US Downs Dummy Ballistic Missile in Successful Test
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350575/posts

[PLMerite]

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

Well, let's *not* do it and see how well *that* works.

[ScreamingFist]

.