GMD Intercept Success

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

- Ed Kyle

On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Heh. It looks like they are trying *way* too hard to minimize
expectations.

- Ed Kyle

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html
"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Heh. It looks like they are trying *way* too hard to minimize
expectations.

Well, given the history of public (and more importantly Congressional)
reactions to missle defense tests, it is understandable that they are
trying to spin it this way.

Still, it is amusing, yes.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Indeed, a "missile defense system" which _failed_ to at least
"intercept the warhead and destroy it" would not be the most useful one
imaginable ...

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 13:38:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Today's 9-1-06 Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) test appears to
have succeeded.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/us_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc"
"http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html"

A good day for Orbital Science's Pegasus-based Orbital Boost Vehicle
(OBV) Ground Based Interceptor (GBI).

What's amusing is that the Boeing press release buried the lede.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...60901a_nr.html

"Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle
intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

Yes, just an inadvertent side effect of a test of a *missile defense
system*.

Indeed, a "missile defense system" which _failed_ to at least
"intercept the warhead and destroy it" would not be the most useful one
imaginable ...

- Jordan

This was the first test involving an operational interceptor fired
from an operational GMD silo, with the interceptor performing its
own tracking and using tracking by the upgraded radar at Beale
AFB, controlled by the mission-control center in Colorado Springs.
That's a lot of stuff working together for the first time. It is no
wonder that an actual intercept was not deemed to be a primary
objective. Icing on the cake that a hit was achieved.

This system has a lot of testing ahead of it, and a lot left to
prove in those tests, before it can be considered truly
operational. Even then, it will only provide a limited capability.
Its main use will be to provide a brief interval of "cover" while
the U.S. nuke arsenal returns fire.

Once operational, the greatest rouge threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Once operational, the greatest rogue threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

First of all, if any Power chose to launch a "rain of missiles" at
American cities, we would certainly respond at least with a
counterattack on the enemy's strategic targets including their missile
launchers; we might respond with unrestricted conventional bombardment
of their cities, if sufficiently provoked.

Secondly, I don't believe that it _would_ be "politically impossible"
to respond to such an attack with nuclear weapons. Israel can't do so
because they don't want to lose American backing; America _has no_
"America" whose backing she needs.
We are not externally restrained as is Israel.

Given repeated scenes of dead American civilians, the political
pressure on any American President would be quite in the other
direction: to end the enemy attack as rapidly as possible, using
whatever weapons did the job fastest. This might well mean a nuclear
counterattack, especially if we didn't have enough conventional weapons
in range and the attacks were continuous.

You are _seriously_ overestimating the extent to which the American
government, and _particularly_ the American people, care about "world
opinion." In fact, in such a situation, any other countries which
openly protested the American action might do well to be cautious:
their words might be remembered on some future occasion when they
needed our assistance.

After all, the Palestinian Authority paid for their impromptu 9/11
street fair with a strong US tilt against Arafat, and a cutoff in aid
which has caused severe suffering amongst the Palestinian population.
Hope they had a lot of fun on 9-11-2001, and hope the memory of that
fun sustains them as their children die of contagious diseases because
there's no money for the local hospitals

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Once operational, the greatest rogue threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

First of all, if any Power chose to launch a "rain of missiles" at
American cities, we would certainly respond at least with a
counterattack on the enemy's strategic targets including their missile
launchers; we might respond with unrestricted conventional bombardment
of their cities, if sufficiently provoked.

I would only point out that Israel was unable to stop the attacks,
despite total control of the air, just as the U.S. was unable to
stop the Scud attacks during the first "Gulf War". The use of
mobile launchers to perform "shoot and scoot" attacks makes
it nearly impossible to stop such attacks. Even if the launcher
positions are known, it may prove impossible to take them
out. The U.S. was, for example, never able to "take out"
(or even locate) the mortar and rocket positions that pounded
Khe Sanh for weeks during the Vietnam War even though the
positions were all within relatively short range of the base.

Secondly, I don't believe that it _would_ be "politically impossible"
to respond to such an attack with nuclear weapons.

It depends on the circumstances. A nuke-armed China or Iran
threatening retaliation might limit the response options, for
example. I sincerely hope we never have to find out for sure.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Once operational, the greatest rouge threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

ICBMs cost a lot of money - apparently much more than their warheads.
Even the US can't justify putting conventional warheads on them because
it's too damn expensive. Who else is going to be able to afford to do
it. And in a world where ICBMs are only used to carry nuclear
warheads, who is going to take the risk of launching a bunch of them at
the US, hoping that we sit and take it?

Then, avoiding the issue of what parts of the US one could threaten
with 50-mile-range artillery rockets, we certainly wouldn't use the NMD
against them.

And finally, artillery rockets are easy and cheap to make and hard to
trace. ICBMs (or even IRBMs) get made in expensive factories and are
pretty simple to identify. Launching a bunch of them at the US would
certainly justify having said expensive ICBM factory blown to bits, and
probably a bunch of other military production facilities as well.

-jake

Jake McGuire wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Once operational, the greatest rouge threat might be the use
of conventionally-armed missiles against the U.S., something
like the rain of missiles that fell on Israel recently. Such an
attack would quickly deplete an anit-missile system and it
would be politically impossible to respond to it with nuclear
weapons.

ICBMs cost a lot of money - apparently much more than their warheads.
Even the US can't justify putting conventional warheads on them because
it's too damn expensive. Who else is going to be able to afford to do
it. And in a world where ICBMs are only used to carry nuclear
warheads, who is going to take the risk of launching a bunch of them at
the US, hoping that we sit and take it?

This is the biggest problem with the strategy ... the image of a last
gasp of "We wuz only kidding" coming out of the smoking ruins of a
command bunker as mushroom clouds rose over every city of the aggressor
state.

This might not deter a Terrorist State, though, which is why we must
make sure not to let Iran acquire atomic weapons.

Then, avoiding the issue of what parts of the US one could threaten
with 50-mile-range artillery rockets, we certainly wouldn't use the NMD
against them.

No, instead we would advance and seize the territory from which the
rockets were being fired from. And, unlike Israel, we would probably
keep it.

And finally, artillery rockets are easy and cheap to make and hard to
trace. ICBMs (or even IRBMs) get made in expensive factories and are
pretty simple to identify. Launching a bunch of them at the US would
certainly justify having said expensive ICBM factory blown to bits, and
probably a bunch of other military production facilities as well.

Based on our Cold War doctrine, possibly the aggressor state's
_cities_, too.

- Jordan