October 9, 2004
DEATH OF A SALESMAN'S DOUBTERS:
U.S. intercept system successfully downs cruise missile in test (WORLD TRIBUNE.COM, October 8, 2004)
A U.S. system that integrates existing missile and radar assets has succeeded in intercepting a simulated cruise missile similar to ones obtained by Iran from China.The Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System, or CLAWS, was said to have successfully intercepted a BQM-74 surrogate cruise missile target through the integration of assets common to a range of U.S. allies in the Middle East. The cruise missile target, flying at low altitude, was intercepted during a test this week at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
In 2003, the U.S. PAC-2 and PAC-3 missile defense systems failed to intercept Iraqi cruise missiles fired toward Kuwait during the war against Saddam Hussein, Middle East Newsline reported.
Thought Saddam didn't have any WMD and Star Wars would never work? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 9, 2004 12:58 PM
This isn't Star Wars, Orrin.
Trumpeting the ability of this new system to accomplish what the Aegis system was trumpeting to be able to do 20 years ago is -- at a minimum -- a hoax.
You fell for it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 9, 2004 5:37 PMHarry:
It's precisely what Reagan envisioned, ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY (Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983)
Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of the century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of efforts on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our non-nuclear capabilities.
America does possess -- now -- the technologies to attain very significant improvements in the effectiveness of our conventional, non-nuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United States or its allies.
As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose -- one all people share -- is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you.
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2004 5:45 PMYou're confused. Wrong kind of missile.
We supposedly already had a cruise missile defense system -- Aegis -- although in its three combat tests so far, it has failed each time.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 10, 2004 4:32 PMMissile defense isn't missile defense?
Posted by: oj at October 10, 2004 4:42 PMNo.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 11, 2004 4:02 PMOh yeah, Harry's Law, unless you're there to see it it doesn't happen.
Posted by: oj at October 11, 2004 7:44 PMTell me what kind of missile you're defending against, and where.
The US close-in defense against cruise missiles is a Gatling gun. Try using that against a ballistic missile.
Target acquisition is still the first step. Nothing else matters till that is solved. It isn't solved.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 12, 2004 1:26 PMWho cares--we've begun to defend against missiles exactly as Reagan envisioned, the rest will come.
Posted by: oj at October 12, 2004 1:34 PMI care.
We've begun all right.
Now it's a race. We might easily lose it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 12, 2004 9:57 PMStalin's dead.
Posted by: oj at October 12, 2004 11:39 PM