| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Science & Technology | |
| $100bn later, Star Wars hits its first missile | |
| 2006-09-02 | |
Military chiefs hailed the test as a "total success" for the defence system, originally known as Star Wars, which has been plagued by political opposition and technical troubles since it began in 1983. A real interceptor missile has never before successfully destroyed a target missile. In the previous such attempts, in 2004 and 2005, the rockets jammed in their silos. "What we did today is a huge step in terms of our systematic approach to continuing to ... develop a missile defence system for the United States, for our allies, our friends, our deployed forces around the world," said Lieutenant General Henry Oberling, the Pentagon's missile defence chief. He said the system now had a "good chance" of shooting down a real enemy long-range missile. "I feel a lot safer and sleep a lot better at night," he said. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #30 Due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as of January 2005, insurance companies and the federal government paid out more than $38 billion dollars in claims to victims and their families. All the damage was incurred within a space of four hours, no nukes involved. The state of NY estimates that more than $100 billion in lost production resulted from the two plane attacks on the World Trade Center. RAND Report Summation |
| Posted by: mrp 2006-09-02 22:03 |
| #29 Pretty clear cut. Our German scientists have developed a hit to kill interceptor that their German scientists didn't think of because the Brits Germans scientists were keeping mum about the Argentine connection. /P McGo |
| Posted by: 6 2006-09-02 18:19 |
| #28 Next problem: After we shoot down an Iranian or Nork missile headed for San Francisco from west bumphuck, how long of a U.N. debate will insue before we are allowed a "proportional" response (i.e."sanctions)? It could be argued that a nuked San Francisco would be no great loss. |
| Posted by: Leonidas 2006-09-02 17:43 |
| #27 What's interesting is that this was an operational interceptor fired from a ready silo, not a developmental test. The developmental intercepts had about a 50% intercept success rate (more success latter). Crank up the numbers. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-09-02 16:11 |
| #26 Notice - Power Curve. They are behind. We are ahead. We have better Well put, Shinenter Angomoque2229. Our constitutional liberties, specifically including freedom of religion, are what has made America into the world's greatest superpower. Our "poor" own more televisions and cars than the rest of the world put together has had hot lunches. Our pets eat better than most third world people and that's just fine, because when they come knocking we'll have healthy critters to chase and bite their @sses! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-02 15:16 |
| #25 The left likes to point at wasteful defense programs and go on about how this proves defense is wasteful, but it doesn't change the basic fact that we need defense, or that a lot of _why_ the stuff has a high waste level has causes that go back to, well, left-wing presidents. Like Clinton's "Last Supper," where Aspin got all the defense contractor heads in a room and said they were all going to merge. (Yah, turning things into a monopoly was going to make things "more efficient." And I'll tell you another thing... when I was growing up, the US's main fighter planes were the F-16 (General Dynamics), F-15 (Mcdonnel-Douglas), F-14 (Grumman), and the F-18 (McD, Northrop). All these companies that made the successful _last_ generation of fighter aircraft before this one were taken over and merged into the management structures of the companies that didn't make them. And we're standing around wondering why the planes are getting more expensive). |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-09-02 14:37 |
| #24 Actually, I'd agree with the general idea that a _lot_ of the money spent on strategic defense has been spent poorly... I would think you'd need some sort of space-based kinetic-energy system would be needed, rather than a ground-based system that could be overwhelmed by more than a dozen missiles... and that Clinton moving all of the DoD's RLV work to NASA where it was quietly strangled probably set things back twenty years... but I doubt the Guardian would be interested in hearing that. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-09-02 14:32 |
| #23 The sea-launched component already had kills on it's record. yup |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-02 14:22 |
| #22 $100bn? Thats cheap at twice the price! What would it cost to replace NYC or Washington DC or even San Francisco? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-09-02 13:57 |
| #21 First hard kill by the land-based component, folks. The sea-launched component already had kills on it's record. |
| Posted by: Unavique Elmuque7159 2006-09-02 13:54 |
| #20 "Maybe this is a lame-ass shorthand attempt at being 'balanced' and presenting 'both sides' of the issue..." No, I think it's plain old, garden-variety, manipulative leftist dishonesty. These people don't report news: they write propaganda, and their job is to shoehorn selected facts into their predetermined political narrative. "...but this pattern is really starting to chap my caboose." Welcome to the club. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-09-02 12:25 |
| #19 Another thing: $100B is less than 1% of our GDP. The spending was spread over 20 years or so. For 1/20 of 1% of GDP per year we have a fighting chance of saving a city from nuclear destruction. How can we NOT do this? You're a cold calculating SOB. And deserve a YES YES YES! |
| Posted by: 6 2006-09-02 11:48 |
| #18 But experts cautioned... Maybe I've become overly sensitive to media duplicity and weaseldom but I kept noticing this news pattern where a fact or event is reported followed by a big-ass BUT with some dire consequence or negative opinion from unnamed 'experts'. Like this: Today, at his ranch in Crawford, President Bush played with the presidential dog for an hour. But animal welfare activists expressed concern that the presidential cat was not receiving sufficient attention. Maybe this is a lame-ass shorthand attempt at being 'balanced' and presenting 'both sides' of the issue but this pattern is really starting to chap my caboose. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-09-02 11:11 |
| #17 Trillions of dollars later, welfare programs have caused large segments of the population to opt for lives of indolence. But this is the kind of result the Guardian would applaud, since the use of public funds for expensive policy failures is fine, as long as it's for welfare state purposes. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-09-02 11:10 |
| #16 Another thing: $100B is less than 1% of our GDP. The spending was spread over 20 years or so. For 1/20 of 1% of GDP per year we have a fighting chance of saving a city from nuclear destruction. How can we NOT do this? If criticism is in order it should be for pulling out of the ABM treaty too late and mismanaging some of the BMD initiatives. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-09-02 11:08 |
| #15 Experts? Where would the journos be with unnamed experts |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-02 11:00 |
| #14 In this scenario, we will also spend a few $100MM sending a handful of ICBMs back their way. I doubt Kimmie's BMD program is going as well as ours. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-09-02 10:21 |
| #13 And the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier cost $4.3 billion dollars before it even set sail! |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-02 10:10 |
| #12 But experts cautioned that the test lacked some real-world conditions, such as enemy efforts to defeat the missile defense system, a surprise attack and an attack involving multiple missiles. Hey, idiots. They rogues haven't even gotten to the stage of getting even one dummy warhead on a workable ICBM and landing it anywhere near a supposed aiming point. Why not create even more stupid commentary like 'but it hasn't demonstrated it can intercept incoming asteroids'? Notice - Power Curve. They are behind. We are ahead. We have better ItÂ’s an engineering race. We are ahead and they really donÂ’t have the resources to compete and far less than the Soviets. So bugger off old bags. |
| Posted by: Shinenter Angomoque2229 2006-09-02 09:30 |
| #11 WaPo worries - But experts cautioned that the test lacked some real-world conditions, such as enemy efforts to defeat the missile defense system, a surprise attack and an attack involving multiple missiles. They said it does not indicate that the nation is secure from a missile attack .... Experts said, however, that the test was not decisive because it was the first time the improved interceptor was successful. It will take several such results to prove any level of reliability, they said. Oh. So there will be more tests? Was this test more successful than the Nork's? All you folks who made fun of Reagan's Star Wars program over the years having any second thoughts? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-02 08:37 |
| #10 and we will rent one to the Brits for only $98B. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-09-02 08:35 |
| #9 I just hope we don't waste that $100bn+ on shooting down an Iranian missile headed for London or Paris. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-09-02 08:14 |
| #8 Can you just smell the envy coming out of the Guardian, it smells like victory.:) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-09-02 07:42 |
| #7 Hit one for the Gipper! |
| Posted by: Glomong Floluse5379 2006-09-02 06:21 |
| #6 LOL, 6! |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-02 05:30 |
| #5 It's fun being rich and dangerous. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-09-02 03:45 |
| #4 Sucks to be the al-Gardian & the Transnational Progressive Y'urp-peon set. LOL! They don't even bother to report on the impressive new software developments and hardware advances utilized by OUR missile defence systems. We are integrating layers of ever more tested capability to our missle defence and all the Socialist A$$Hats can do is hate America and bash GWB!! LOL! heh it works for us.. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-09-02 02:56 |
| #3 In the future, America will more likely face a threat from rogue regimes armed with only a few ICBMs. That $100 billion will look like a sound investment when it successfully shoots down incoming warheads. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-02 01:11 |
| #2 hmmmm the Guardian is not our ally - guess they aren't covered. Too bad. So sad |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-02 01:10 |
| #1 And a 100,000 lives cost? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-02 00:39 |