Gaps in US Missile Defenses

[Spring Onion]

Report: Gaps in US Missile Defenses

Voice of America News
Tue, 11 Jul 2006, 01:07

A newly-released independent report has criticized the United States missile defense network, saying it does not do enough to protect Americans from attack.

The four-year study was released Friday by former Ambassador Henry Cooper, who headed the U.S. missile defense program in the 1990s.

Published by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, the report, entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship & the Twenty-First Century, highlights vulnerabilities in the nation's defenses and the increasing threat posed by other nations.

During a conference in the southeastern U.S. state of South Carolina, Cooper criticized current U.S. defense efforts for concentrating mainly on long-range ballistic missiles. He said the greater threat comes from shorter-ranged missiles that can be sold to third parties and fired from ships off the American coastline.

He also argues that defense officials should shift the missile defense focus away from land-based systems to sea- and space-based systems.

The current U.S. missile defense system is partly activated and has about a 50 per cent success rate in tests. Based in Alaska and California, the system is designed to intercept long-range missiles like the Taepodong-2 recently launched by North Korea.

Officials say shorter range missiles which Pyongyang also launched would be intercepted - if necessary - by regionally-based systems.

 

[Spring Onion]

My geography is not good can anybody tell me who those nation off the American coastline that can pose threat to her by launching short range missiles??

do the copper's reservations have weight Officer ?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

He's a dumbass. He's thinking of putting a SCUD on a freighter and then launching it from the sea close to the American shoreline.

Firing off water is one of the hardest things to do. Strictly from the thrust alone, the rocket can shift positions by at least 10 metres before it leaves the launch pad. This kind of shift will throw the rocket off by 10-20 miles.

And the extremely stupid thing about this is that the rocket is easily identifiable - as to who made it and who bought it; meaning you've just invited a full retallitory American strike that would make Hiroshima look like a cherry bomb - without hitting your target.

 

[sigatoka]

He's a dumbass. He's thinking of putting a SCUD on a freighter and then launching it from the sea close to the American shoreline.

Firing off water is one of the hardest things to do. Strictly from the thrust alone, the rocket can shift positions by at least 10 metres before it leaves the launch pad. This kind of shift will throw the rocket off by 10-20 miles.

How do Sub. launched ICBM's work then? Doesthn that shift the boat?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

They're thrust into the air via an air bubble from under the surface. After they break the surface of the water is when they ignite their engines; not before; avoiding the shifting effect.

 

[sigatoka]

They're thrust into the air via an air bubble from under the surface. After they break the surface of the water is when they ignite their engines; not before; avoiding the shifting effect.

Oh ok, so cant the same thing be done with a ICBM on a surface ship?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Will you at least get your terminology right? If you have an Inter-Continental Ballastic Missile, why the hell do you need to launch it off a ship? SCUDs are Short Range Ballastic Missiles and needs an anchoring point to lift off.

SLBMs are designed to be ignited in the air. SCUDs are not. If you want to do that, you will have to redesign the whole friggin thing which defeats what this article is trying to say.

You know, you try to show off that you know alot but in reality, you know extremely little, especially military affairs. Mistaking ICBMs for generic Ballatic Missile terminology is one of the most basic and most idiotic mistakes one can make, especially when you're trying to impress people with your supposed knowledge.

 

[sigatoka]

Will you at least get your terminology right? If you have an Inter-Continental Ballastic Missile, why the hell do you need to launch it off a ship? SCUDs are Short Range Ballastic Missiles and needs an anchoring point to lift off.

SLBMs are designed to be ignited in the air. SCUDs are not. If you want to do that, you will have to redesign the whole friggin thing which defeats what this article is trying to say.

You know, you try to show off that you know alot but in reality, you know extremely little, especially military affairs. Mistaking ICBMs for generic Ballatic Missile terminology is one of the most basic and most idiotic mistakes one can make, especially when you're trying to impress people with your supposed knowledge.

If you have an ICBM, why the hell do u need to launch it off a sub? I know Scuds are short range missiles. Take a chill pill man.

I didnt realise SLBM's ignited in the air, thanks for the info.

Im trying to learn, and i do know the difference between ICBMs and short range ball. missile, take it easy. Its not as if there is a huge difference in physics between the two, an ICBM is jus two or three stacked on top of each other. (though it does require a lot of technical competence)

 

[Jay_]

If you have an ICBM, why the hell do u need to launch it off a sub? I know Scuds are short range missiles. Take a chill pill man.

ICBM silos can be neutralized by a massive nuclear first attack. Thats why they have SLBM, which can be a medium range or inter continental range, they offer a second strike capability and so the whole idea of putting BM's in to Sub's.

Thats why

 

[sigatoka]

ICBM silos can be neutralized by a massive nuclear first attack. Thats why they have SLBM, which can be a medium range or inter continental range, they offer a second strike capability and so the whole idea of putting BM's in to Sub's.

Thats why

I know that you ****, i just said it because Officer was goin on after me why ICBM's would be put on ships. It was just a reply to that.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

If you have an ICBM, why the hell do u need to launch it off a sub? I know Scuds are short range missiles. Take a chill pill man.

For all intents and purposes, the TRIDENT D5 is an ICBM. Land based ICBMs are extremely accurate to the point of being used for counter-force missions. TRIDENT D5, though approaching PEACEKEEPER accuracy are reserved for the softer targets such as the Kremlin, a 2nd retallitory strike system where they go for the kill and not just to disarm.

I didnt realise SLBM's ignited in the air, thanks for the info.

See how easy just to ask.

Its not as if there is a huge difference in physics between the two, an ICBM is jus two or three stacked on top of each other. (though it does require a lot of technical competence)

*** rolling my eyes *** Here you go again, trying to show off. There is a hell of alot of difference between a SRBM, IRBM, and an ICBM and it's not just stacking stages on top of each other. Not only are the trajectory completely different, you're also talking about compensating for the curvature of the earth and the earth is NOT a perfect shape. And in the case of IRBMs and ICBMs which goes well into the ionic sphere, the re-entry vehicles must be precise and the further you go, the more precise it has to be or you bounce off the atmosphere and into space.

 

[sigatoka]

*** rolling my eyes *** Here you go again, trying to show off. There is a hell of alot of difference between a SRBM, IRBM, and an ICBM and it's not just stacking stages on top of each other. Not only are the trajectory completely different, you're also talking about compensating for the curvature of the earth and the earth is NOT a perfect shape. And in the case of IRBMs and ICBMs which goes well into the ionic sphere, the re-entry vehicles must be precise and the further you go, the more precise it has to be or you bounce off the atmosphere and into space.

lol, i guess getting a high distinction in phyics high school just doesnt cut it anymore.

 

[TexasJohn]

ICBM silos can be neutralized by a massive nuclear first attack. Thats why they have SLBM, which can be a medium range or inter continental range, they offer a second strike capability and so the whole idea of putting BM's in to Sub's.

Thats why

Thank you for explaining the concept of triad to the dude!

For decades during the cold war, MAD was dependant on this concept working. You don't put ICBMs on surface ships ( even setting aside all the technical issues as OOE pointed out) simply because if you can be seen, you can be sunk. That would be cool though - launching a Minuteman from the deck of the Nimitz!!

 

[sigatoka]

You don't put ICBMs on surface ships ( even setting aside all the technical issues as OOE pointed out) simply because if you can be seen, you can be sunk. That would be cool though - launching a Minuteman from the deck of the Nimitz!!

The attack on pearl harbour was by a few aircraft carriers along with their support ships. This armada was not spotted by the U.S. untill the bombs started falling, why would a single ship in the middle of the ocean be very easy to spot now?

 

[Jay_]

I know that you ****, i just said it because Officer was goin on after me why ICBM's would be put on ships. It was just a reply to that.

Easy there, I wasnt the one who said about putting ICBM's on Surface fleet