SD on NMD

The recent test of the NMD was apparantly a success. The killer vehicle was able to knock out a missile equipped with some sort of decoy system. So was this a great victory for the rocket scientists? I remember a programme on TV that showed the Reagan era NMD tests with all sorts of fancy lasers etc and it showed how some of the results were trumped up, eg a metal container that had a hole blasted in it was strapped down in such a way that any small dent or hole would cause it to collapse spectacularly. So was this recent test a spectacular result or just some sort of rigged test that didn’t prove anything except that Cold War scientists are still so very hard at work.

They had trouble verifying how well things worked because the tracking radar got overloaded by all the fragments from the hit. This bodes well for the North Korean chaff manufacturing consortium :smiley:
The tracking problem has been around for years, and it sounds like they still have a ways to go.

Like its hard hitting something when you know exactly when it’s launched, it’s exact trajectory and having the knowledge that it’s not going to hit you if you miss it.

AFAIK the test was rigged in so far as the “attacking” missile continously ascertained its position via GPS and radioed this and other crucial data to the kill vehicle carrier; if Saddam & Co. one day really attack the U.S., they will hardly be so kind to do the Americans that little favour :wink:
One could of course argue that, with a fully-installed NMD/GMD/SDI (or whatever it will be called at that time; they regularly change its project title) will be able to get these data independently; yet I think this helped the kill vehicle too much to allow the Pentagon to speak of a reality-near success. They simply needed a success after two failures, so they decided to corriger la fortune.
IIRC Reagan’s laser-eqipped and space-based supernetwork has been dumped in teh emantime; NMD is planned to be land-based rockets.

I’ll admit that this test was successful when verified by some independent agency. The military, and their contractors have faked test results before, simply to keep a project going (M1 Abrams tank?). As mentioned previously, it’s pretty simple to blow up something when you know, at all times, where it is.

Personally, I’m less concerned with ‘enemy’ missiles than with suitcase bombs, boat bombs and other types of nuclear terrorism. These are nearly impossible to defend against and the technology is well developed (probably by the US).

The concept of NMD/SDI is flawed and belongs in the 50s/60s/70s when nuclear delivery was by only by missile. We’ve gone far beyond that, unfortunately.

The idea of spending billions/trillions of dollars to protect against a threat which probably won’t materialize is absurd and the military/politicians should realize that.

I note that our allies are also suspicious of this technology.