You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stretching the bounds of scientific feasibility to their breaking point [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
ivolsky Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 11:45 AM
Original message
Stretching the bounds of scientific feasibility to their breaking point
Advertisements [?]
Star Wars missile defense is more fiction than science. The program's "boost-phase," has failed a test to target and fire at enemy missiles just after they're launched. The "boost phase," designed to be the first "layer" of defense, against North Korea and Iran, fires rockets at enemy missiles just after launch, when they are most vulnerable.

While the midcourse missile failed a test Dec. 15, the boost phase "would press the far edge of what is physically possible in an antimissile system," according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. A few weeks ago, the Pentagon said it wouldn't be able to deploy existing pieces of the $50 billion project on schedule because it hadn't been completely tested.

Philip Coyle, who headed the Pentagon's testing office during the Clinton administration, said the design of the boost-phase system was buckling under its own complexity. "The analysis confirmed that boost-phase missile defense isn't practicable," Coyle said. "You can't fool mother nature."

Today's missile defense program was inspired by Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan to shield the nation against a nuclear attack. The program languished, partly over concerns it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (which banned nationwide missile defense systems).

After Bush withdrew from the treaty in 2002, Missile Defense was re-budgeted at $50 billion over the next five years, but its construction, deployment and maintenance could cost several times that.

The system has its critics. Many experts believe that missile defense is a "needlessly costly and complicated system for a threat that could, for example, be more easily neutralized with preemptive strikes." Further, the program's technology has not yet been developed. To shoot down a missile launched from Iran for example, up to 7 interceptor batteries would be needed in Iraq, Turkmenistan and the Gulf of Oman. According to the Congressional Budget Office to intercept a missile from Iran or North Korea, interceptors would have to travel up to 22,000 mph, beyond today's technology.

Accuracy is also a problem. In the Iraq war, Patriot missiles mistakenly downed 2 coalition aircraft. For the boost phase of missile defense, an error of a couple of feet over hundreds of miles traveled to the target could land the missile in another continent.

A year ago, Northrop Grumman won a $4.5-billion contract to develop the boost-phase of missile defense. Northrop Grumman is the second-biggest U.S. defense contractor. In 2003, Northop spent $343,000 (55% to Republicans) on campaign contributions and $6.5 million on lobbying. Robert Helm, Northrop Grumman's vice president of government relations, served as assistant secretary of defense in the late 80s. Prior to that appointment, he worked as a senior defense analyst for the Senate Appropriations Committee.

more: www.politicalthought.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC