Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Top generals have been insisting for years that if North Korea launched a missile at the United States, the U.S military would be able to shoot it down.

But that is a highly questionable assertion, according to independent scientists and government investigators.

In making it, the generals fail to acknowledge huge questions about the effectiveness of the $40 billion missile defense system they rely on to stop a potential nuclear-armed ballistic missile fired by North Korean or Iran, according to a series of outside reviews.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"They are leading political leaders to believe that they have a military capability that they don't, in fact, have," says physicist David Wright, who has studied the program for years as co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The missile defense system relies on 60-foot-tall, three-stage rockets of its own to knock the enemy projectiles out of space, a task that has been compared to shooting a bullet with a bullet. The system is known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD.

But even though the system has been fielded, it hasn't been proven to work.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the agency that runs the missile defense system "has not demonstrated through flight testing that it can defend the U.S. homeland."

In nine simulated attacks since the system was deployed in 2004, interceptors have failed to take out their targets six times, even though the flight tests were far less challenging than an actual attack, according to The Los Angeles Times, which published an investigation of the missile defense system last year that uncovered a previously unknown test failure.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Our resident fearmonger wants new missile tech. so does Trump.

When will the "Four More Years!" campaign begin?

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-19 01:10 PM | Reply

This makes a good case for taking out their nuke program now, before it's too late. Thanks, Corky.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 01:39 PM | Reply

Wow, two Trump Pets in a row. Nice catch today.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 01:51 PM | Reply

This is bad reporting. The 6 failures were during the 1995 to 1999 test period.

In 2005 Lockheed began developing the actual production system. Test flights began in late 2005. From 2005 to 2012, the only time the intercept was missed is when the target missile failed. It made 11 successful interceptions during this period, and the 3 failures were not THAAD, but the failures of the target missile. Testing worked up to multiple targets and integrated, multi-thread scenarios in a tiered defense system mixed with PAC-3 missiles and Aegis radar platforms. These successes have led to Lockheed to push for THAAD-ER development (expected to be funded by 2018) to intercept hypersonic glide vehicles.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--This is bad reporting.

No surprise there. It comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of alarmist frauds.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.gao.gov

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 02:28 PM | Reply

#5

from Union of Unconcerned Nihilists

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 02:32 PM | Reply

www.gao.gov
#6 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-04-19 02:28 PM | REPLY

Yeah, they want more money for more missiles so they can salvo fire them, money to improve the steering thrusters, etc, so they can increase the pK.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 02:46 PM | Reply

They's prolly like them to werk as advertised.

"Last year, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the agency that runs the missile defense system "has not demonstrated through flight testing that it can defend the U.S. homeland."

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 02:57 PM | Reply

Let's drum up MORE fear to justify the further feeding of the IMC.

Great, thanks CORK.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-19 02:58 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

And why bother shooting them down when you can blow them up from the inside immediately after launch?

That seems to be a pretty successful method.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-19 02:59 PM | Reply

#10

If facts bother you so much that you have to assign motivations for the postage... well, take a bong hit.

My take on it is that the Military has been conning Congress all along on Star Wars, Jr., and it's best we know that.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--concluded that the agency that runs the missile defense system "has not demonstrated through flight testing that it can defend the U.S. homeland."

Which is an argument for a preemptive strike to take them out before they get anywhere near launch-capability.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-04-19 03:10 PM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-04-19 02:57 PM | FLAG:

That line is correct. It can't defend the US homeland against China or Russia. Even if the very early testing was a 100% success it's irrelevant, they can just overwhelm it. It only has 44 interceptors, and you're going to need at least 2 per inbound missile since you'll never get better than a 99% pK.

The odds are much better against a thread like North Korea, where the only rocket they've demonstrated with intercontinental range takes a week or more to get on the pad and fuel, has to be launched in perfect weather conditions, etc.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 03:13 PM | Reply

- Which is an argument for a preemptive strike

Only to rwingers like yourself.

My take on it is that the Military has been conning Congress all along on Star Wars, Jr., and it's best we know that.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 03:22 PM | Reply

#12 and #15

Oh I get it, if you say it twice it must be true.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-04-19 07:46 PM | Reply

#4

Great. So now the US can occasionally defend against a very small missiles when their flight trajectory and qualities are known in advance, no efforts are made to fool overhelm or disable the ABM systems, and the missiles themselves are launched from the great state of California. How comforting.

Meanwhile, even massive Hiroshima era bombs are small enough to be put on a boat and sailed into an enemy harbor, smuggled in by truck, dropped from a bomber, flown over a city in a cargo plane and detonated etc. Basic, long established principle of nuclear strategy kids: deterrence is easy, disarming strikes are hard.

#17 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-19 08:06 PM | Reply

they are so reliable Obama took us from 30 to 44 interceptors. don't know about you but that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 08:16 PM | Reply

they are so reliable Obama took us from 30 to 44 interceptors.

#18 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-04-19 08:16 PM | FLAG:

Well those things do cost money, you know. Also, do you get to use the world "reliable" for a system that hasn't seen any use?

#19 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-19 08:23 PM | Reply

This makes a good case for taking out their nuke program now, before it's too late. Thanks, Corky.

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

So nulli has been hacking through the brush of the great cynic's wilderness between the left and the right for so long he's emerged onto the right.

Blink the sunshine out of your eyes quicker, nulli, you'll find you might be better off back in that brushy wilderness.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2017-04-19 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well those things do cost money, you know. Also, do you get to use the world "reliable" for a system that hasn't seen any use?

#19 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2017-04-19 08:23 PM | FLAG:

When you light the fuse, the rocket flies. What's not to like?

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 09:03 PM | Reply

The odds are much better against a thread like North Korea, where the only rocket they've demonstrated with intercontinental range takes a week or more to get on the pad and fuel, has to be launched in perfect weather conditions, etc.

I would think it has less to do with advanced warning (we'd have some idea of an incoming missile from Russia or China unless someone really went rogue...) than the simple fact that NK can't successfully launch more than a small number at a given time.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2017-04-19 09:04 PM | Reply

1. They can launch 1 long range missile at a time, and they have never demonstrated the ability to make a warhead that can survive re-entry.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 09:15 PM | Reply

Oh I get it

#16 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Guess there's a first time for everything.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 10:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#24

He's bluffing.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 10:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When you light the fuse, the rocket flies. What's not to like?

LOL. Love that... if you built it right, it flies. If you didn't, it's still entertaining.

#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-04-19 10:15 PM | Reply

... well, take a bong hit.

Done and done. Cheers!

*Spark*...pull..."Ahhhhhhhhh!"

#27 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-20 12:37 AM | Reply

As was pointed out...crappy reporting. They cherry picked a single BMD system and then used old data to deride it. There's a reason they chose not to address the Navy's Aegis SM3 system which has been used not only to shoot down ballistic missiles, but have also been used to shoot down a satellite prior to re-entry.

#28 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-04-20 08:08 AM | Reply

SM3 also made it's first combat interception of an anti-ship cruise missile off the coast of Yemen.

#29 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-20 10:42 AM | Reply

"They are leading political leaders to believe that they have a military capability that they don't, in fact, have,"

We had this for rockets in Afghanistan. It protected us from rockets shot at us from Kandahar.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 03:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort