Posted on 09/30/2009 10:38:04 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ever since President Ronald Reagan proposed building a ballistic missile shield in 1983 to prevent a doomsday scenario, the idea has been dogged by an unanswered question: Will it work?
The prime target during the Reagan era was Russian missiles. A scaled-down defensive system recently proposed by the Obama administration would aim to shoot down warheads from Iran, which has heightened concerns by building a clandestine uranium enrichment plant and test firing missiles this week with a range of up to 1,200 miles.
But even as the U.S. prepares to meet on Thursday with Iranian officials in Geneva over the regime's nuclear ambitions, the administration's reliance on missile defense to guard against the unthinkable still amounts to a gamble.
Components of the latest system have shone in controlled test environments, but the new plan relies heavily on radars and ship-based interceptors that haven't endured real battle conditions.
"We're not building all these missile defense systems because we're worried about Iran firing a rocket with TNT on it," said Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief of weapons testing from 1994 to 2001. "We're worried about nuclear weapons, and nobody knows whether missile defenses can work with nuclear weapons going off."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Link to article spelling out his philosphy on defense:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2351564/posts?page=16#16
Hate to give him credit, but OWEbummer may have gotten this one right. AEGIS BMD has proven itself far superior thus far in tests against anything else DoD has tried. As well, it successfully took out the doomed satty last February and, besides, a ship can move around the more than 75 percent of the earth that is water...a fixed ground station cannot and is vulnerable to terrorist and other attack as well!
What about the questions of having enough ships....?
fyi
Guess that is over....
The Army-Navy game still isn't for a few months.
Oh please. As if. This admin is DUMB.
*******************EXCERPT*************************
Feb 24, 2005 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, Feb. 24, 2005 /PRNewswire/ -- The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System.
The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace.
The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.
I suspect it is a money driven strategy.....and if it leaves us weaker....Obama is ok with that...see #3.
There are reports (MissileThreat.com) that Iran has adapted mobile medium-range missiles for deployment from the decks of cargo ships.
lol
Decent piece below....mirrors many points made here about enlarging the Aegis fleet, range issues and effectiveness.
New missile defences in Europe
Shooting down a plan
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14515370
....Having ships permanently on station is costly. Even with an updated version (the Block IB update of the SM-3 missile, now due to be introduced in 2015), seven ships deployed in European waters could provide only patchwork protection. Maintaining it permanently would need more than the 18 Aegis ships that America now has. In a crisis, ship-based defences could “surge” only temporarily.
Here’s a pretty cool THAAD flight test video, shooting down a Scud-type missile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9079GWS0hfU
Here’s another video of a June 2008 THAAD test:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/thaad/THAADVideo1.html
**************************************EXCERPT****************************
So on September 17th Barack Obama’s administration abruptly abandoned previous plans for a powerful missile-defence radar in the Czech Republic and ten interceptors in Poland. Instead, it will deploy smaller radars closer to Iran on land and on Aegis missile-tracking ships. These would be armed with the less potent Standard Missile 3 (SM-3). As the kit becomes more powerful, initial inkspots of protection would grow, covering all of Europe by about 2018 (see maps).
...even as the U.S. prepares to meet on Thursday with Iranian officials in Geneva over the regime's nuclear ambitions, the administration's reliance on missile defense to guard against the unthinkable still amounts to a gamble.Thanks Ernest. "Best defense is a good offense" ping.
He is sympathetic to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and antipathetic to Israel.
The true thrust of his actions is to provide Iran time to develop its nuclear warhead and missile combination.
You say his is a "rhetorical defense".
This is found filed next to the "virtual barrier" on our southern border.
He takes Valerie Matrix on the Magical Mystery Tour as the 42d warrier is killed in Afghanistan in the month since McChrystal's request.
The market is down, tax revenue is down, and the next round of cuts will be borne by defense.
It could all be made right by putting Ahmadinejad on the menu.
A videogame for which we are superbly equipped.
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.