US anti-missile defense system in Europe

[Simulacrum]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03missile.html?ref=us

This is a little old (printed yesterday) but I just caught it by accident during a news web search.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — After a successful test last week, the tracking radars and interceptor rockets of a new American missile defense system can be turned on at any time to respond to an emerging crisis in Asia, senior military officers said Tuesday.

Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., the senior commander for defense of United States territory, said that the antimissile system could guard against the risk of ballistic missile attack from North Korea even while development continues on a series of radars in California and the Pacific Ocean and on interceptor missiles in Alaska and California.

While the new system is limited, it is the most extensive anti-ballistic missile system the Pentagon has fielded since the Safeguard ABM system near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota was briefly operated, starting in 1975. Congress immediately voted to shut it down, and it operated for only a few months.

“We can bring missiles up or take them down as need be so that they can continue doing the testing,” said General Renuart, commander of the military’s Northern Command, based in Colorado Springs. But, he added, “I’m fully confident that we have all of the pieces in place that, if the nation needed to, we could respond.”

He said the system showed an initial capability in July 2006, when American missile defense went on alert as North Korea staged missile tests. Because the array of interceptors and radars remains under development, it has never received the military’s official status of being an operational weapons system.

General Renuart spoke during a Pentagon news briefing on Tuesday that offered a recap of a missile defense test held on Friday that was deemed a success.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the target missile was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and tracked by radar at Beale Air Force Base, near Sacramento. The interceptor missile was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base, north of Santa Barbara, Calif., scoring a direct hit on the dummy warhead.

“Does the system work? The answer is yes to that,” General Obering said. “Is it going to work against more complex threats in the future? We believe it will.”

General Obering acknowledged that no decoys were flown in the path of the interceptor on Friday as might be expected in a real missile attack. Skeptics have challenged the Missile Defense Agency to conduct more realistic tests that would include even primitive technologies designed to fool the interceptor. These include balloons and chunks of metal that separate from the missile along with the warhead.

The general said the next test, which is expected in the first half of 2008, would include countermeasures to gauge the interceptor’s ability to differentiate between the real warhead and decoys. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are scheduled to meet up in Moscow later this month for joint talks with their counterparts on Russia’s objections to American proposals for missile defense in Central Europe. American plans call for 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic to defend against a possible missile attack from Iran.

General Obering said Friday’s successful test would help make the Bush administration’s case with allies.

“I think it helps us in a very real way, because, as I have had conversations with our European partners and allies and NATO partners in the past, one of the questions I do get asked is, well, this system is not proven,” General Obering said. And this, he added, goes a long way “to answering that question.”

I can't help but feel that this is the beginning of a counter-arms race D:

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

Counter-arms race against... who, exactly?

ABM systems are designed to defend against rogue states with a handful of missiles. As they are now, they could never stop more than a dozen or so.

The US and Russia have hundreds or thousands, and China could, if it chose to.

[Simulacrum]

Russia is not taking this too kindly, for starters. Their current military exercises can be traced back to their discontent with this system. Of course, it starts off as a defense system against a handful of missiles, but Russia's response to this shows that the old tensions are still alive. Every race starts at the beginning. =\

[Hi Im God]

Canada already turned down the US missle defence shield. None of their tests worked as I recall.

[muishot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03missile.html?ref=us

This is a little old (printed yesterday) but I just caught it by accident during a news web search.



I can't help but feel that this is the beginning of a counter-arms race D:

I agree. During the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union who started the arms race. This time, it looks like we are starting another arms race. Wonder how the rest of the world view us? Are we the good guys or the bad? That remain to be seen. But I don't like this one bit and hope that it will go away before it really started.

[Hinji]

I agree. During the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union who started the arms race. This time, it looks like we are starting another arms race. Wonder how the rest of the world view us? Are we the good guys or the bad? That remain to be seen. But I don't like this one bit and hope that it will go away before it really started.

I think both, the USA and the other nation (Russia? China?) will be seen as the bad guys. We are all intelligent enough to solve problems with words not with guns, aren't we?

The 'problem' with America is, that it never had a war on its own ground. I mean it got attacked in WW2, but Pearl Harbor is far away from the american mainland. You never had your whole country destroyed and had to rebuilt it from ashes and dust (ok, I also hadn't but my grandparents)
I mean Europe had no war since WW2 but America had 4 1/2 (if i count right)

That's my opinion, but what this all will lead to only time can tell (Is this an correct sentence?)

[That NOS Guy]

Canada already turned down the US missle defence shield. None of their tests worked as I recall.

Says who? US ABM is multi-layered, so let's run through a basic systems check.

Boost-phase: ABL (airborne laser) and KEI (Kenetic Energy Interceptor) are due for testing in the 2010 timeframe and are already mature programs.

Mid-course intercept: The GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) made a successful test not more then 2 weeks ago. The SM-3 has made repeated successful intercepts.

Terminal intercept: THAAD is at operational capacity, PAC-3 upgrades are on course, the only question there is if the new SM-6 is going to take on the terminal defense option for sea-based assets.

It's working quite well or on it's way to working. So I don't know whose telling you what, but you're sorely misinformed.

That said, the Russians are pissing and moaning over nothing. The GBIs cannot hit Russian ICBMs. They're simply not suited to it in that position. They're not starting an arms race as much as they're just being the Russians.

I'm tired of people storming into these threads and thinking the next Cold War is about to start. Why do you think this? No reason at all? Kneejerk?

Hell, if there was an arms race afoot you wouldn't see the Russians MIRV their missiles (MIRVs only work in the absence of ABM, not as a viable way around them). Please. Think before you post people.

[Trov]

I think both, the USA and the other nation (Russia? China?) will be seen as the bad guys. We are all intelligent enough to solve problems with words not with guns, aren't we?

The 'problem' with America is, that it never had a war on its own ground. I mean it got attacked in WW2, but Pearl Harbor is far away from the american mainland. You never had your whole country destroyed and had to rebuilt it from ashes and dust (ok, I also hadn't but my grandparents)
I mean Europe had no war since WW2 but America had 4 1/2 (if i count right)

That's my opinion, but what this all will lead to only time can tell (Is this an correct sentence?)

False. We've had wars on our own land. Not a world war, but wars. Civil war, War against Britian, the Mexican war(not sure if you can count this, since out could be argued it wasn't our land yet).

[Hinji]

False. We've had wars on our own land. Not a world war, but wars. Civil war, War against Britian, the Mexican war(not sure if you can count this, since out could be argued it wasn't our land yet).

Yes, but not the last, lets say, 100 years. The Civil war is not a real war for me (don't know why).
But ok, you had wars on your land.

[Instant Karma]

This doesn't do much to ease concern about arms races....

[Simulacrum]

Honestly, I'm not surprised by Russia's response to this, or the current US government's utter lack of care about how non-allies are going to perceive this move.

What's really shocking is that a functional anti-missile system is operational, a landmark in and of itself, as well as the building tensions, are very newsworthy but I didn't see anything about it until I happened to come across the article while searching for a related news item about Putin rejecting an arms treaty with NATO in July (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126843,00.html), which happened after a fallout between Bush and Putin concerning the then-development of this missile defense system. Why isn't this escalation getting more coverage?

=\

[Doc. Q]

Canada already turned down the US missle defence shield. None of their tests worked as I recall.

that and Canada would have been fucked by it while America got all the benefits of it working. :notrust

[Sexta Espada]

The world is gonna get pissed with the US actions one day, and then they're all gonna invade. Honestly, do we really need all this stuff all over the world? All it does is get people pissed and scared.

[That NOS Guy]

Honestly, I'm not surprised by Russia's response to this, or the current US government's utter lack of care about how non-allies are going to perceive this move.

Should the US care?


What's really shocking is that a functional anti-missile system is operational, a landmark in and of itself, as well as the building tensions, are very newsworthy but I didn't see anything about it until I happened to come across the article while searching for a related news item about Putin rejecting an arms treaty with NATO in July (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126843,00.html), which happened after a fallout between Bush and Putin concerning the then-development of this missile defense system. Why isn't this escalation getting more coverage?

=\

That's just Putin showboating. Russia can't afford to match an actual arms buildup. The fallout from Russia/NATO treaties isn't actually only the US' doing, most of the fuel for that conflict comes from the fact that NATO has expanded right up to Russia's doorstep, in violation of the tacit agreement between both sides at the end of the Cold War.


The world is gonna get pissed with the US actions one day, and then they're all gonna invade. Honestly, do we really need all this stuff all over the world? All it does is get people pissed and scared.

Yes, we do. They're also welcome to try:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/ThatNOSGuy1/Atomicanniefire.jpg

[Toby]

Why isn't this escalation getting more coverage?

=\

Because it isn't directly influencing people. The media does not cover stuff which people might be scared by, but only stuff which will make them happy, angry or sad. Once the media tries to educate people you step across an extremely difficult barrier like the BBC did in Britain.

People become very arrogant. Indeed, literate, but very arrogant. And then they get high and mighty, which is the expansion of social intelligentsia.

Also, people in general (in Europe) think of MAD as something which belongs to the past. I suppose a similar attitude exists in north America since I see no coverage of it in their media either. Only those interested in politics read about this, and you probably have a knack for comparative politics if you are interested.

Suffice to say, Europe should make its own shield, we shouldn't rely on the U.S. every fucking second when it comes to military matters, and we should be left alone.

Seriously. Half the problem is that the U.S. spoils the EU with all its military products. We don't need half of the arms we buy from them. *rants at poor person for being poor*

[DarkFire]

wow watch how this is going to piss off other superpowers

[muishot]

Says who? US ABM is multi-layered, so let's run through a basic systems check.

Boost-phase: ABL (airborne laser) and KEI (Kenetic Energy Interceptor) are due for testing in the 2010 timeframe and are already mature programs.

Mid-course intercept: The GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) made a successful test not more then 2 weeks ago. The SM-3 has made repeated successful intercepts.

Terminal intercept: THAAD is at operational capacity, PAC-3 upgrades are on course, the only question there is if the new SM-6 is going to take on the terminal defense option for sea-based assets.

It's working quite well or on it's way to working. So I don't know whose telling you what, but you're sorely misinformed.

That said, the Russians are pissing and moaning over nothing. The GBIs cannot hit Russian ICBMs. They're simply not suited to it in that position. They're not starting an arms race as much as they're just being the Russians.

I'm tired of people storming into these threads and thinking the next Cold War is about to start. Why do you think this? No reason at all? Kneejerk?

Hell, if there was an arms race afoot you wouldn't see the Russians MIRV their missiles (MIRVs only work in the absence of ABM, not as a viable way around them). Please. Think before you post people.

I understand how you feel. But you are looking from an American standpoint. To us, why is it so difficult for the Russians to understand that we are not aiming at them but rather at Rouge States like Iran. But to the Russians, they would never believe us.

Just like Iran keep telling us that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian uses and nothing more. But we don't believe a single they said aren't they?

[muishot]

Honestly, I'm not surprised by Russia's response to this, or the current US government's utter lack of care about how non-allies are going to perceive this move.

What's really shocking is that a functional anti-missile system is operational, a landmark in and of itself, as well as the building tensions, are very newsworthy but I didn't see anything about it until I happened to come across the article while searching for a related news item about Putin rejecting an arms treaty with NATO in July (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126843,00.html), which happened after a fallout between Bush and Putin concerning the then-development of this missile defense system. Why isn't this escalation getting more coverage?

=\

That is because the mainstream media deems it to be more unimportant and would not affect anyone at all, while Paris Hilton goes to jail or Mike Vick dog charges are of utmost importance and it will affect everyone.

They trade their soul for money.

[Simulacrum]

Because it isn't directly influencing people. The media does not cover stuff which people might be scared by, but only stuff which will make them happy, angry or sad. Once the media tries to educate people you step across an extremely difficult barrier like the BBC did in Britain.

People become very arrogant. Indeed, literate, but very arrogant. And then they get high and mighty, which is the expansion of social intelligentsia.

Also, people in general (in Europe) think of MAD as something which belongs to the past. I suppose a similar attitude exists in north America since I see no coverage of it in their media either. Only those interested in politics read about this, and you probably have a knack for comparative politics if you are interested.

Suffice to say, Europe should make its own shield, we shouldn't rely on the U.S. every fucking second when it comes to military matters, and we should be left alone.

Seriously. Half the problem is that the U.S. spoils the EU with all its military products. We don't need half of the arms we buy from them. *rants at poor person for being poor* I do think that's this the development of anti-ICBMs is an eventuality that should be embraced, since MAD is quite insane, but the way it's actually being executed (like everything else the current US presidential administration is doing) is so ridiculous and hap-hazard that it boggles my mind.

I understand why we, the US, would not want control of the system to be delegated among un-allied superpowers. If it came down to the moment when it needed to work and something as simple as the protocol between the powers caused a fatal timing error it would cause a whole lot of problems for a whole lot of people.

However, nothing has been done to ease the tensions that were aggravated by this project. Since we've already got the technology, and there's currently no war between the East and West, at the very least it would be very helpful to offer to sell the basic tools/information to Russia and China so they can develop their own defense systems which should not only cool the heated militarization, and also by not being hand-in-hand in the actual development it would allow each state to separately engineer its own defense to avoid sticky fingers from being laid on their state's secrets.

I think this is merely a simple situation that's being complicated by stupidity, largely on the part of the US government (I can't help but imagine that Bush tried to invoke the spirit of Cold War-era Reagan during his meeting with Putin, but came off as a complete asshole). The US Secretary of Defense and State are going to have a meeting with Russian officials later this month to discuss this issue, as pointed out in the OP article, but if the US administration doesn't change its tune at least a little bit then it's only going to make things worse.

Should the US care?

That's just Putin showboating. Russia can't afford to match an actual arms buildup. The fallout from Russia/NATO treaties isn't actually only the US' doing, most of the fuel for that conflict comes from the fact that NATO has expanded right up to Russia's doorstep, in violation of the tacit agreement between both sides at the end of the Cold War. We're not the cowboy kings of the world. Just like any other nation, when we do something that jeopardizes the balance of power (such as attempting to neutralize ICBMs over Europe) the other nations around the world are going to respond accordingly.

I didn't say that Putin rejected the NATO treaty due to the missile defense development, but merely that it happened at the same time. Still, even though it didn't cause the rejection, the only thing it could have done would be to aggravate the situation. Under these circumstances, I really don't think Putin's actions should be considered "showboating" since he is simply addressing the real concerns of his nation.

[xpeed]

^ No country will believe what the country will say if they're building a nuclear reactor. As long that Superpower country is stronger and can overpower any country, they will threaten a smaller country if that country is building a nuclear powerplant, that is if they use it for that sole purpose, in which I don't think Iran is planning to do. Look at N. Korea, they said they were reopening their nuclear power plants to power the nation but everyone knows that it's full on bullshit since most of the people there don't even have the resources to run electricity in their homes. Months later, they detonated a atomic bomb, it wasn't much but it was still nuclear.

So today, no country can't go unquestioned if they build nuclear reactors, even the superpowers today.

Also, if the US is attacked or goes to a full on war with a country, we're the only nation that has vast resources and military power to spread around the world. We have around 12 Aircraft Carrier fleets that are stationed all over the world. Each one enough to last through a 2 year war. Most countries either have one or none. So either way, the US can last quite a bit if the country's at war, and let's hope that a serious one won't come for another 100 years.

[AbnormallyNormal]

its bizarre that russia feels threatened by this at all.... but whatever, i guess sensitivty isnt the USA"s strong suit in the first place lately.

[That NOS Guy]

I understand how you feel. But you are looking from an American standpoint. To us, why is it so difficult for the Russians to understand that we are not aiming at them but rather at Rouge States like Iran. But to the Russians, they would never believe us.

The Russians aren't stupid, they know how to play ball. It's not difficult to understand that it's not targeted against them (and even if it was, a few dozen is actually a very good thing for relations) since they cannot be used against Russia.


Just like Iran keep telling us that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian uses and nothing more. But we don't believe a single they said aren't they?

Apples and oranges, no one trusts Iran because they keep on wanting to rattle a nuclear saber. If they really wanted a peaceful program they could just use a thorium based reactor and avoid this whole mess.


We're not the cowboy kings of the world. Just like any other nation, when we do something that jeopardizes the balance of power (such as attempting to neutralize ICBMs over Europe) the other nations around the world are going to respond accordingly.

Tell Russia to stop upograding it's ABM system around Moscow then. We're not the cowboy kings of the world, but let's not be pussies about it. Plus, the GBI program in Europe cannot hit ICBMS from Russia. The sheer placment is all wrong.


I didn't say that Putin rejected the NATO treaty due to the missile defense development, but merely that it happened at the same time.

Which is often just a sneaky way trying to infer that they were connected, excuse my confusion.


Still, even though it didn't cause the rejection, the only thing it could have done would be to aggravate the situation.

The US doing anything provides a pretext for aggravation. At this point their foreign policy is in such shambles countries really have their choice of excuse complaints against it.


Under these circumstances, I really don't think Putin's actions should be considered "showboating" since he is simply addressing the real concerns of his nation.

Ok, why can't the US address the vey real concerns of her allies then? Why is national interest only legitmate for the Russians? Especially when they're just being paranoid at best, or cynically spinning this for propaganda at worst.

[Simulacrum]

Tell Russia to stop upograding it's ABM system around Moscow then. We're not the cowboy kings of the world, but let's not be pussies about it. Plus, the GBI program in Europe cannot hit ICBMS from Russia. The sheer placment is all wrong. I never said the missile defense system was a threat against Russia but simply that it was an aggravation that builds on other problems, although Poland does actually stand directly between Russia and western Europe and the OP article spoke of testing platforms in California as well. Besides that, Russia's offer to be included in this defense development was rejected and their response to that rejection seems to indicate that no counter-offer was made then or in the previous three months since, and while that kind of behavior might be permissible for normal people it's troublesome when one militarized superpower snubs another militarized superpower. It's just bad business to be the offender a situation like this.

Which is often just a sneaky way trying to infer that they were connected, excuse my confusion.

The US doing anything provides a pretext for aggravation. At this point their foreign policy is in such shambles countries really have their choice of excuse complaints against it. It would be foolish to think that one situation wouldn't influence the other, and just because US foreign policy is terrible is not an excuse to have terrible foreign policy.

Ok, why can't the US address the vey real concerns of her allies then? Why is national interest only legitmate for the Russians? Especially when they're just being paranoid at best, or cynically spinning this for propaganda at worst. You're trying to put words in my mouth, which seems to be a habit for you that I've chosen to ignore up until now. I did not say or even imply that Russia is the one who who can have legitimate claims of national security. If you weren't cherry-picking lines out of my posts you might have noticed that I did admit that the development of an anti-ICBM system was not only inevitable but also necessary to progress beyond the insanity of MAD, and that in this political climate it would be troublesome for Russia to be involved in the West's defense plans, but the way that the current US government administrations are executing their plans while utterly disregarding all non-allied nations is begging for trouble in a cowboy-kings-of-the-world kind of way.

[That NOS Guy]

I never said the missile defense system was a threat against Russia but simply that it was an aggravation that builds on other problems, although Poland does actually stand directly between Russia and western Europe and the OP article spoke of testing platforms in California as well.

I know you know the system isn't a threat, I'm simply underlining that point because we have a shitload of morons running around this thread claiming otherwise. What I am curious about however, is that how is something an aggravation if it's not a threat?

The GBI stations in Poland are actually poorly suited for intercept. It's one of those situations of actually being too close for mid-course missiles to really be effective. That's why their primary bases for CONUS defense are at Vandenburg (California) or Alaska, not forward deployed.


Besides that, Russia's offer to be included in this defense development was rejected and their response to that rejection seems to indicate that no counter-offer was made then or in the previous three months since, and while that kind of behavior might be permissible for normal people it's troublesome when one militarized superpower snubs another militarized superpower. It's just bad business to be the offender a situation like this.

Russia offered an old early warning radar that didn't offer the same capability as the Czech based X-band radar will, that's why it was rejected (well that and NATO support).

NY times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/world/europe/15gates.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


It would be foolish to think that one situation wouldn't influence the other, and just because US foreign policy is terrible is not an excuse to have terrible foreign policy.

Russia's rejection of the NATO treaty is far more deep rooted then any mere scuffle over ABM which is being made largely for cheap politial points.


You're trying to put words in my mouth, which seems to be a habit for you that I've chosen to ignore up until now. I did not say or even imply that Russia is the one who who can have legitimate claims of national security. If you weren't cherry-picking lines out of my posts you might have noticed that I did admit that the development of an anti-ICBM system was not only inevitable but also necessary to progress beyond the insanity of MAD, and that in this political climate it would be troublesome for Russia to be involved in the West's defense plans, but the way that the current US government administrations are executing their plans while utterly disregarding all non-allied nations is begging for trouble in a cowboy-kings-of-the-world kind of way.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but your position is very strange. You acknowledge that the system isn't a threat, that Russia being involved with this is highly problematic if not impossible, but the US can't proceed with executing it's very pressing national interests because it may be seen as disregarding non-allies?

I'm honestly curious what you think are the ramifications here. What's Russia going to do, test another mega-FAE?

[Hi Im God]

Says who? US ABM is multi-layered, so let's run through a basic systems check.

Boost-phase: ABL (airborne laser) and KEI (Kenetic Energy Interceptor) are due for testing in the 2010 timeframe and are already mature programs.

Mid-course intercept: The GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) made a successful test not more then 2 weeks ago. The SM-3 has made repeated successful intercepts.

Terminal intercept: THAAD is at operational capacity, PAC-3 upgrades are on course, the only question there is if the new SM-6 is going to take on the terminal defense option for sea-based assets.

It's working quite well or on it's way to working. So I don't know whose telling you what, but you're sorely misinformed.

That said, the Russians are pissing and moaning over nothing. The GBIs cannot hit Russian ICBMs. They're simply not suited to it in that position. They're not starting an arms race as much as they're just being the Russians.



No need to start foaming at the mouth when some one has a diffrent view of your choice of war related fapping material.

Canada did turn down the missle defence sheild and at the time it was not working.

U.S. faces fallout from missile flop
Defence plan fails first test in 2 years
Setback could ease pressure on PM

TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON A much-anticipated test of George W. Bush's missile defence system ended in embarrassing failure yesterday, spurring critics to predict the multi-billion-dollar program could be set back for years.

The Pentagon, calling the problem an "anomaly," said it would take as long as needed to determine why an interceptor missile shut itself down and never left its silo at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

Yesterday's test came after two years of preparation.

The Republican president made a bold appeal for full Canadian participation in the continental defence program during his visit to Ottawa two weeks ago, but any pressure on Prime Minister Paul Martin may have abated after yesterday's failure.

"I am told there are some in Canada who worry about being left behind," said Philip Coyle, the former chief weapons inspector in the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton.

"This thing has so far to go, there is nothing to worry about."

Yesterday's $85 million (U.S.) test, known as a "fly by," was designed to gauge the capability of the interceptor booster.

If it hit its target, that would have been considered a bonus. Instead the incoming missile crashed into the ocean.

Yesterday's failure could be costly because another nine of the same boosters are already in place in Alaska and California silos. If a Pentagon investigation finds a major problem, all the others may need to be replaced.

David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the Pentagon had erred by spending billions of dollars on interceptors and putting them in the silos without properly testing them.

Some $80 billion (U.S.) or more has already been spent on the system, with a further $50 billion earmarked over the next five years.

"I don't see why Canada would want to get involved with this thing," Wright said. "The public relations and politics are far ahead of the technical realities."

A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched from Kodiak, Alaska, just after midnight yesterday, but as the interceptor missile prepared to launch 16 minutes later from its Marshall Islands site, it automatically shut down.

Rick Lehner, a spokesperson for the U.S. Missile Defence Agency, said the Pentagon will follow a standard procedure and study all data before determining the problem. He offered no timeframe for the probe.

"Obviously we would have liked to have had a complete exercise, but we had a good target launch," he said.

Two previous tests were shut down because of bad weather, but Lehner said yesterday's weather was not a factor.

The last test in December, 2002, also failed.

The last successful test was in October, 2002. There have been nine tests in all, five of which have been deemed successful.

But none has been launched in anything but ideal weather, and none has worked at night.

In all the tests, the target was highly scripted with a meticulously studied trajectory, nothing remotely replicating the evasive path that would be taken by a missile launched from North Korea.

In a series of interviews Martin granted in the hours before the failed test, he further distanced himself from full Canadian participation in the program, tossing doubt on whether the system would be able to shoot down incoming missiles.

The Prime Minister, facing increasing Canadian opposition to joining the scheme, including dissent from within his own Liberal party, has said Ottawa would not put any money into building the shield, would not allow Washington to deploy interceptors on Canadian soil and would not join any system that led to the weaponization of space.

An amendment to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) agreement that Ottawa signed last summer allows the joint continental defence program to act as the early warning network for the missile program.

Coyle said with another 20 to 30 tests scheduled, it could conceivably be 50 years before the missile system is ready to deploy. "If they are ever going to finish the testing process, they will have to pick up the pace," he said. "It could certainly be many years or a decade before this could be ready in any condition."

But other experts suggested critics were overreacting to a failure that could just be a minor problem, easily remedied.

"That's why they have tests," said David Jones, a former foreign affairs adviser to the chief of the U.S. Army.

Jones said over the course of the history of major weapons systems, initial failures are the norm, not the exception.

Baker Spring, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the failure a "non-test" and certainly not a major setback. He said the fact the system shut down instead of misfiring means it will be easier to pinpoint the problem.

He said previous missile systems developed by the Pentagon have been highly successful and he said this should have no effect on the debate in Canada.

"The U.S. policy from the get-go in this administration was that it would welcome friends and allies to help in the facilitation of this program to allow them to defend themselves," he said.

"The U.S. has never tried to push this program on friends and allies who are not interested in it, but by the same token, the U.S. would never allow an ally to exercise a veto over any attempt to upgrade U.S. security."

For that reason, he said, the NORAD amendment signed in August is sufficient for Washington to proceed as planned.

In Ottawa, MP Alexa McDonough, the NDP's foreign affairs critic, said the failed test buys Canada "breathing room" to avoid joining the controversial program, the Toronto Star's Bruce Campion-Smith reports.

"It is clear as the evidence mounts that this whole thing is lunacy," said McDonough (Halifax). "This all adds to the many, many people who have given testimony that the thing would never work."

But after getting a briefing from defence and foreign affairs officials yesterday, McDonough said it's "absolutely clear" that Canada is moving ahead to join with the United States.

"We didn't get any presentation that said here are the pros, here are the cons," she said. "They just simply were rationalizing their way to supporting Canada's participation."

Even in the face of critics who said the program was far over budget and nowhere near ready, Bush spoke during the U.S. election campaign as if it was up and running.

He had pledged to have the first stage of the system ready to go by the end of this year.

"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world you fire, we're going to shoot it down," he said during a stop in Pennsylvania last August.

An old Toronto Star artical.

Another artical... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm
I have others with MIT professers and physics people slaming the whole program but of course since it's goes against your love of phallic missiles and other war related things i'm sure you'll find away to dissagree with them too.



Anyway I don't really care about this subject since my fear of actually being bombed on a scale of 1-10 is minus 7. here comes the 'cause America protects Canada rhetoric.

[Jetstorm]

This doesn't do much to ease concern about arms races....

Seriously. :apathy

As if the world needed more weapons.

[Gaawa-chan]

Yeah, that's not good.

[That NOS Guy]

No need to start foaming at the mouth when some one has a diffrent view of your choice of war related fapping material.

I simply pointed out the system does work or is in mature pre-operational stage at this point. Your opinion on ABM flies in the face of what is actually occuring.


Canada did turn down the missle defence sheild and at the time it was not working.

Why do people always confuse this? Systems integrations tests fail all the time. That's why we have more then a few tests. The Gabriel ASM & TOW failed in the double digits in their pre-production phases, yet they turned out to be world-class weapons.

You can point to failures from 2004 all you like, that doesn't change the fact that multiple tests since then (including one two weeks ago) were successful and the system for GBIs has most of the bugs worked out of it.

PROTIP: GBIs may not have always had a successful record, but it's compliment in the SM-3 is 8/10 and operational in early 2009.


Another artical... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm
I have others with MIT professers and physics people slaming the whole program but of course since it's goes against your love of phallic missiles and other war related things i'm sure you'll find away to dissagree with them too.

You mean the one by Postol? Oh fuck, don't make me die laughing. That man is so incredibly dishonest it hurts the mind. MDA's response to his insane claim US GBIs in Poland can be used against Russian Missiles:

27 September 2007
MDA Response to “Physicists Challenge U.S. Missile Claims”
The Missile Defense Agency is encouraged by Dr. Theodore Postol’s recent characterization which implies an effective missile defense against very advanced weapons. However, MDA stands by its figures, which are real, not hypothetical and are derived from actual hardware and software performance data from actual flight tests. Dr. Postol’s calculations are overly optimistic and do not accurately reflect detection, tracking and fire control solution times; acceleration profiles from our flight tests, with actual payload weights and propellant performance; minimum delta velocities required to destroy the targets; and what we know about Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).

PDF (http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/07fyi0101.pdf)


Anyway I don't really care about this subject since my fear of actually being bombed on a scale of 1-10 is minus 7. here comes the 'cause America protects Canada rhetoric.

facepalm.jpg

You do realize ABM systems, especially in their current form, prevent accidental nuclear war too right? This is a bad thing?

[banzai_kid]

Bomb Kim Jong!

[Hi Im God]

Whatever, you probably think the patriot missile was a success too. :D

[raisin-gun]

Because it isn't directly influencing people. The media does not cover stuff which people might be scared by, but only stuff which will make them happy, angry or sad. *

not happy, just sad and angry

[Sky is Over]

Whatever, you probably think the patriot missile was a success too. :D

well, they weren't sucessful in the first Gulf War, but due to the improvements/upgrades they made up for their short comings in the 2003 invasion.

[That NOS Guy]

Whatever, you probably think the patriot missile was a success too. :D

It managed to consistantly hit the target, the problem was with it's warhead. You see you need a real skin to skin warhead contact to effectively kill missiles, the problem with the patriot was that it was designed as an anti-aircraft missile first and foremost with some point-defense ABM capability left over.

These problems have long since been rectified, so much that there were several successful intercepts during the invasion of Iraq.

That aside, you're just being a douchebag now. Can't actually attack your opponents evidence? Don't concede like an honest person! Leave in a huff while trying to salvage your pride!

[Toby]

not happy, just sad and angry

No need to be emo. This is why we see the small-village hero stories at the end of each news broadcast, so that people won't go around in their homes all sad all night long after having watched the news. Negative reinforcement causes people to become focused on negative things, and the news corporations don't want it to go that far. Hence, by concluding with something positive, the human being watching the TV will return to their passive state of mind as positive feedback translates to the "subconscious" part of the brain as "you don't have to change anything".

This is part of what causes routines, and the illusion of a "society" in human beings perception of what is said to be real.

[maximilyan]

:pek , how useless.. if they can only stop around 12, then i guess the defence system is only useful against minor opposition

[AbnormallyNormal]

:pek , how useless.. if they can only stop around 12, then i guess the defence system is only useful against minor opposition

useless???? are you on crack. the whole threat to USA is from north korea and/or iran. these nations would barely have the ability to shoot even 12 at once, probably much less, towards USA. the fact that we can only shoot down that many proves our system is no threat to russia/china whatsoever. its only to guard against the insane "rogue states" like north korea or iran.

[That NOS Guy]

:pek , how useless.. if they can only stop around 12, then i guess the defence system is only useful against minor opposition

That's the point

Basing around 10 GBIs in Poland is only meant to protect against states like Iran which don't have a lot of throw weight.