- 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 3:07 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 3:17 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 3:22 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 3:27 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 3:48 pm to ChexMix
EMP device would be more likely and harder to trace if fired from a sub.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:25 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.
So why don't we shoot 2-3 missiles at an inbound warhead.. mathematically that should be a guarantee..
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:29 pm to ChexMix
Everybody Gordon Chang tonight.
You know you thought it.
You know you thought it.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:30 pm to ChexMix
quote:
This cant be accurate can it?
It is accurate if we are to believe NYT who wrote a long piece about this a while back. They quoted a similar figure if memory serves. Yeah, just found it:
quote:
The decision to intensify the cyber and electronic strikes, in early 2014, came after Mr. Obama concluded that the $300 billion spent since the Eisenhower era on traditional antimissile systems, often compared to hitting “a bullet with a bullet,” had failed the core purpose of protecting the continental United States. Flight tests of interceptors based in Alaska and California had an overall failure rate of 56 percent, under near-perfect conditions. Privately, many experts warned the system would fare worse in real combat.
I recommend reading the entire article. We are in some serious shite with NK: LINK
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:42 pm to ChexMix
its a hard task, I would think 56% may even be too high
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:45 pm to ChexMix
What I do know was the air defense artillery used to take down mortar rounds that were fired on a fob I was at only worked about 45-50% of the time. That was on 2013
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:44 pm to ChexMix
Here's our primary missile defense...
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:46 pm to ChexMix
44% is better than nothing. Shooting fast missile can't be easy.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News