- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Gordon Chang - America's Anti Missile Defense System has a 56% failure rate
Posted on 3/12/17 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 2:59 pm
Gordon Chang author of "Nuclear Showdown" said that we have anti missile defense systems in California and Alaska that have a 56% failure rate and that North Korea will be able to hold America ransom once it attaches nuclear warheads to their ICBMs.
This cant be accurate can it?
This cant be accurate can it?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:03 pm to ChexMix
I wouldn't be surprised. Hitting a missile with a missile is doable. It's like shooting down an enemy fighter - the plane can try to evade the missile but the missile can change direction and follow it.
The big problem is ICBMs travel at an extremely high speed.
The big problem is ICBMs travel at an extremely high speed.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:03 pm to ChexMix
So we've failed to stop incoming missiles 56% of the time?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:06 pm to Jrv2damac
quote:i would assume that our missile defense testing failed 56% of the time or at least thats what Chang said.
So we've failed to stop incoming missiles 56% of the time?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:07 pm to ChexMix
quote:
North Korea will be able to hold America ransom
What?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:07 pm to ChexMix
Sounds like fear mongering to get more govt money. Just go in and kill tater tot and most senior officials
If they get that capability.
If they get that capability.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:11 pm to ChexMix
How does he know?
Seems like this would be classified data in the first place.
Seems like this would be classified data in the first place.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:14 pm to ChexMix
Wouldn't be shocked. Just as a physics problem its absurdly tough even pre MIRV.
Most of the publicized successful tests were pretty hilariously rigged.
Most of the publicized successful tests were pretty hilariously rigged.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:14 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:thats exactly what i thought. I was listening to that guy thinking, "why the frick is he saying this on TV?"
Seems like this would be classified data in the first place.
Plus, i have been led to believe that we have laser guided technology that can shoot any missile down before it even gets close to our soil.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:16 pm to MrLarson
Well, there are tests. In 2016, the LA times reported:
LINK
quote:
The GMD system, which was declared operational in 2004, is designed to thwart a sneak nuclear attack by North Korea or Iran. It has performed poorly in test flights, failing to destroy mock enemy warheads about half the time — prompting many government and independent analysts to conclude that it cannot be relied on.
quote:
The nation’s missile-defense system has serious flaws. So why is the Pentagon moving to expand it? Despite a spotty test record, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system has kept its funding and is poised to grow. A key reason: Rust Belt jobs.
By DAVID WILLMAN
DEC. 13, 2016 3:00 AM | REPORTING FROM WEST CARTHAGE, N.Y.
LINK
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:17 pm to ChexMix
quote:
56% failure rate
Doubt it. Everything public is usually low balled when it comes to classified military capabilities.
Not sure what the land based defense system is but Navy BMD destroyers have a higher rate than that.
Anti ballistic missles are cheaper and smaller than the ballistic missles that carry more fuel and larger payloads. You won't shoot one at an ICBM, you'd shoot a volley at X% per missle. Then a second volley, and a third if necessary
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:18 pm to ChexMix
quote:
Plus, i have been led to believe that we have laser guided technology that can shoot any missile down before it even gets close to our soil.
Yes you have.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:22 pm to ChexMix
Hell, I'm happy it's as high as 56%.
It beats the shite out of the 0% chance we had of shooting down icbm's in the Cold War days.
We can and should get better at this. I think we should invest bigtime in this technology.
It beats the shite out of the 0% chance we had of shooting down icbm's in the Cold War days.
We can and should get better at this. I think we should invest bigtime in this technology.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:24 pm to SpqrTiger
The one world gubment folks don't want us to have the capability to defend ourselves.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:25 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Hitting a missile with a missile is doable. It's like shooting down an enemy fighter
Missles explode in the path near the ICBM, shrapnel/debris hitting an ICBM moving 6-7k mph is a lot more devastating than a fighter moving 700-1500mph.
quote:
The big problem is ICBMs travel at an extremely high speed.
No faster than our anti ballistic missles.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:27 pm to ChexMix
quote:
Gordon Chang author of "Nuclear Showdown" said that we have anti missile defense systems in California and Alaska that have a 56% failure rate and that North Korea will be able to hold America ransom once it attaches nuclear warheads to their ICBMs.
This cant be accurate can it?
Good enough for government work
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:30 pm to ChexMix
quote:
North Korea will be able to hold America ransom
North Korea already has a delivery system that can hit any coastal city in the world. Its large merchant fleet. They know it would be suicide to use one. I'm more worried about them selling one to a nonstate entity.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:31 pm to ChexMix
Well, during Gulf War 1 against Saddam, the Patriot system had only tested as something like 40-50%. It did better when actually needed though.
A quick Google shows 70% in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel.
That's against a slow moving SCUD. I would not expect much better results for another system against much faster ICBM's. But, that's one of the reasons for a huge military budget.
How much spending till we do get a missile defense system that can ensure we as a nation don't get hit by ANY enemy? Where do we cut that off?
A quick Google shows 70% in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel.
That's against a slow moving SCUD. I would not expect much better results for another system against much faster ICBM's. But, that's one of the reasons for a huge military budget.
How much spending till we do get a missile defense system that can ensure we as a nation don't get hit by ANY enemy? Where do we cut that off?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:31 pm to Lsuchs
quote:
Not sure what the land based defense system is but Navy BMD destroyers have a higher rate than that.
The BMD focuses on a much easier to target stage of Ballistic Missile flight an American Land Based system would presumably focus on either the space phase (think top of the bell) or the terminal phase (re-entry, etc)-- that's much, much harder to hit.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News