"Not to deploy a system that does not work"
 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...473848,00.html

Interesting remarks from someone who should >insert: KNOW< some bits about it.

Say what?

It's probably easier for us to translate your German with Babelfish than to read your english. :p

Thats how things are done nowadays for multi-billion dollar systems. You put the contract out for a system you want, choose one that's close to what you want then pump money into it till it works.

Well, what should I say? :lol: Me and my manic passion for speed-typing...

Maybe it will, maybe not. but it will never be a protection against states that can afford to build as many ICBMs needed to simply overflood such a system, and i think this will be an easy task for the next many decades. Whereas a terror group will not spend money on developing ICBMs, but to transport a nuclear bomb into the target country via smuggle or ordinary goods transport (if it wants to strike by using a nuke device, of course - I could imagine alternative not less horrific scenarios). Seen that way that pörogram sounds like a dollar-grave to me, but it is profitable for the US defense industry - and probably that is where the real focus of interest is. Such a defense makes sense only towards rogue states that only have an extremely limited stock of missiles. But where there has a state one missile, it usually has many more.

Its pretty much publically available info that these systems are completely and totally inadequate. In a congressional hearing, the program director publically admitted to congress that there is a 0% chance of it actually intercepting a real missile...

watch section 6
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../missile/view/

What's happened is that Washington politicians (mostly Bush and his cronies) are using this program and that fact that JQ Public is uninformed and ignorant of the facts to try to ingender votes. "Vote for me, I support ballistic missile defense."... knowing that most people have no clue that the system is full of bunk.

I guess that is why the Soviets and the US ABM treaty was signed. Neither side thought it could be accomplished. Or, both sides knew it could be accomplished and would leave the other side vulnerable.

It's the former. It's almost impossible to stop a SINGLE nuclear warhead, let alone hundreds, maybe thousands if launched by a capable nation.

Impossible is a big word my friend. On December 16, 1903 human flight was impossible. By the next day it was not impossible.

I've always thought that ABM was there to keep a kind of stability. A crazy, twisted stability.

I don't think it's wrong to want a system to destroy ICBMs. You have to make the technology to do it, it isn't just their and I could see where it is a money pit but just so long as it's spent responsibly.:shifty:

Oh, a single intercept should certainly be doable given the proper equipment, such as what the old system had (1MT neutron bombs are supposedly rather effective). Of course, if you have multiple incoming missiles, the background clutter caused by all those nuclear explosions in space may make the next intercept a bit harder.

How so?

Well, for one, warheads travel at over 15,000 miles per hour. Even if you launched ANOTHER nuclear warhead at an incoming one, chances are, the nuke would just drop past the incoming one, it wouldn't have enough time to explode, or do it at the right time. It's just an amazingly difficult thing to do.

Not that there IS any reason to develop a anti-missile defense, I think. The reason that nobody has been nuked in the past 50 years is mostly because nobody has any defense against retaliation. MAD. It's a beautiful concept.:up:

Modern Missiles (Such as the THAAD and the SM-2ABM) now have the capability to destroy incoming missiles. They've already done the THAAD tests and every one (I think) was a success.