Posted on 08/26/2006 6:01:18 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
North Korea's July 4 missile tests and Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied rocket reign of terror against Israel underscore why the U.S. must quickly ramp up its missile defense efforts. Four years ago President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it severely hobbled our development efforts. Yet, since then, there has been a strange lack of urgency to rapidly develop a robust series of systems that can destroy missiles of any size at any phase of deployment. Yes, we are developing ground-based missile defense sites in California and Alaska, and we do have ship-based Aegis missile defense systems that theoretically could shoot down a North Korean missile. But given the growing threat of terrorist forces getting their hands on more and more sophisticated rockets, with greater ranges and the ability to carry chemical or biological warheads, and given that North Korea and Iran will in the not too distant future have ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. shores, a crash program should be of the highest priority.
The Independent Working Group (IWG) on Post-ABM Treaty Missile Defense & the Space Relationship, formed in 2002 to examine missile threats to the U.S. and its allies and what we should be doing to meet those threats, recently released a sobering report. IWG encompasses a dazzling and impressive group of experts.
While diplomatically worded, the report's bottom line is simple: We are not doing nearly enough. It lists a variety of recommendations, including reviving the early 1990s Brilliant Pebbles system, which entailed deploying an array of small, advanced kill satellites in space. It was to be a cheap, effective way to destroy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.
Naturally, the Clinton Administration put Brilliant Pebbles in the deep freeze for fear of being accused of "militarizing space." The Bush Administration should defrost, develop and upgrade this system immediately. We should, among other things, also fund a system to defend against shipborne SCUD missiles launched off our coasts at U.S. cities.
Democrats will howl about increased military spending. But the American people would overwhelmingly support such an accelerated effort. The nightly news reminds us that the day of our vulnerability to terrorist missiles is nigh.
And you think such a feat is beyond all possibility of being accomplished?
Because Madeleine Albright though it was unfair for us to have cooler toys than the Third World, and was worried they might feel threatened. ;)
We could certainly have intercepted 1 ICBM. We certainly could not have intercepted all of 10,000 ICBMs.
In between we could have intercepted some, making Soviet Targeting more difficult. If they wanted to have a 90% chance of hitting 100 targets, a 50% chance of getting any one missile makes their required number of missiles go up really really fast.
Full disclosure. I worked on the US ASAT program that hit a satillite in one shot, using a missile launched with an F-15 aircraft as first stage.
Boy, the "sweet people" complained to high heaven. The Air Force got sued by someone who claimed he was damaged because he had planned a bunch of research using that satillite (for which he hadn't bothered telling the AF, which owned the satillite). Got laffed out of court.
Thank you.
We should have anti-missile systems to cover all contingencies. If we don't, we will get hit where we are vulnerable.
ICBMs are slower speed than satillites, usually at lower altitude, and have higher signatures (because they are doing things like launching (with a big boost heat plume) or reentering (with a big heat plume).
Having said that, our work used solid rocket boosters, and an F-15 with minor modifications. Could be launched from anywhere.
Yes, easy.
You are implying that the current missile defense system is bunk then?
I submit the current missile defense system would also work. It has been tested, and each failed test was analyzed to find and correct the reason for failure. The most recent test(s) were successful.
I appreciate your contribution.
By the way, Boeing doesn't throw away the blueprints. They are purchased by the Government, and used to repair the existing aircraft.
Depot maintenance on the B-2 maintains the skill sets required to build more B-2s. Alas, it doesn't necessarily provide enough practice to cut the production costs.
It is my pleasure, (and back then, I got paid for it).
Brilliant pebbles won't work against cruise missiles and nukes in cargo containers.
I am glad to know that, because the next time there is war, I'd love the military to take out the TV comsats first. Then send all the human rights group to Darfur for a conferance.
In hindsight, even Lefties probably would grudgingly admit that Star Wars was a good idea and should have been pursued, maybe even earlier.
BUT, Lefties will never admit the depth of despair that LBJ cast upon each and every one of us with his "Great Society" fiasco. What does this cost you? Figuring the cost of the Great Society (conservatively) at northwards of 7 trillion dollars since 1967 and taking a SWAG estimate during the 40 years of an avg. of 250 million U.S. citizens (beaners don't pay tax), the average cost of the failed Goofball Society to you and for each of your dependents (every one of them) is $60 per dependent and climbing.
Aren't Dimmies warm and cuddly? They should all have Hillary's maiden name -- Rob'em!
"Because Madeleine Albright though it was unfair for us to have cooler toys than the Third World, and was worried they might feel threatened. ;)"
~~
I think GW should send Madeleine Halfbright back over to Pyongyang to do the macarena under the sheets with Kim Jong Dildo.
"ASAT"
What is/was ASAT? Just an uninformed former NAVSECGRU guy here.
"..and nukes in cargo containers."
This Dimocrat line about 'we should be inspecting EVERY container,' is absolute bunk. Clearly no one who spouts that line knows a smidgen about statistics and has never been thru W. Edwards Deming's course. There's a predictive exercise called the Red Bead Exercise in which 10 or 20 beads are used to predict the color of a population, red or white. The Exercise is correct in a very, very high percentage of the time. It goes straight to the corporate philosophy of whether you choose to spend 20% of your fund to be pretty darn certain of your results or the remaining 80% of your fund to be certain. Spend 2 Billion to feel comfortable or spend 100 Billion to be sure, then put the excessive cost (the 98 Billion) around the necks of the Republicans.
Let's use the 98 Billion to build a really good fence btwn us and Mexico and us and Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.