backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 322 comment(s) - last by howtochooseaus.. on Oct 12 at 2:09 PM


The architecture of the U.S. missile defense program

A hit-to-kill sequence of an EKV colliding with a ballistic missile.  (Source: Raytheon)
Capable of protecting parts of North America from surprise attack, the U.S. finally realizes "Star Wars"

It took nearly 25 years, but President Reagan's vision of a ballistic missile defense to safeguard the U.S. has finally come to fruition. After a final successful test last week, the system's tracking radars and interceptor rockets are now ready for use and capable of responding to an unannounced attack on North America.

General Victor Renuart Jr., senior commander for defense of United States territory, said that while the system is still being upgraded with additional radars and interceptors, it can already guard the U.S. West Coast against a limited attack from Asia. 

As more components come online in California and Alaska, the system will be able to protect larger areas from more complex attacks.

When first proposed, critics originally called the system "Star Wars" and derided "Ronnie Raygun's" scheme as scientifically impossible. Despite repeated criticism, research development that began shortly after Reagan's 1983 speech continued.

Early work focused on exotic beam weapons to knock out incoming missiles. But the development of ultra-high-speed electronics soon enabled the approach used today- - the EKV, or Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. The EKV collides directly with incoming missiles, using its own kinetic energy to destroy the target, an approach described as "hitting a bullet with another bullet."

Renuart claims the system, while operational, still has not received the military's claim of "fully operational." He claims in July 2006 parts of the system were tested as North Korea staged missile testing around that time. 

Raytheon reported successful test interceptions on five separate occasions since October 1999.

The most recent test was held last Friday.  A target missile was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and tracked by radar at Beale Air Force Base, outside of Sacramento. The interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, near Santa Barbara, California, and scored a direct hit.

Shortly after the testing, Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said, "Does the system work? The answer is yes to that."

Plans for European expansion of the system call for missile interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic to defend against the threat of Middle Eastern ballistic missiles.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

M.A.D anyone?
By Combatcolin on 10/3/2007 4:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
The simple but brutally effective concept of your nuke us we nuke you has now been altered.

Russia now have to do something to re-even the balance.




RE: M.A.D anyone?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/3/2007 4:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Who said anything about Russia?


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By Polynikes on 10/3/2007 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 5
I saw a program on TV sometime in the past several months about how young Russians are being indoctrinated to hate the US. They worship Putin, an ex-KGB slimebag. Sounds to me like Russia really wants another Cold War. With some of the stuff Putin's been doing, trying to stay in power and such, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't establish another dictatorship.


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By Amiga500 on 10/3/2007 5:32:18 PM , Rating: 4
Try looking in as well as out. Both sides are pretty much as bad as each other in their manipulation of both their own public, and the rest of the world.

(I'll probably get voted down for this by people either too stupid, or too "patriotic" to open their eyes)


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By mdogs444 on 10/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By Le Québécois on 10/3/2007 8:18:35 PM , Rating: 3
Is there something wrong with Canada?


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By mdogs444 on 10/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By erikejw on 10/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By mdogs444 on 10/3/2007 9:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
All citizens do have access to healthcare. No one is turned down from emergency room treatment, not even illegal aliens.

Everyone in Canada loves the healthcare system - when they aren't sick. But when they do get sick and find out they have to wait 6 weeks to see a doctor, they come to the US.

Hmmm.


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By siberus on 10/3/2007 10:12:07 PM , Rating: 4
Vicious circle?

Americans coming to Canada for drugs and Canadians going to the US for MRI's.


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By mdogs444 on 10/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By psychmike on 10/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/4/2007 1:09:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Drug companies spend far more on advertising in the US than they do on research
Where do people dream up this stuff? The two largest pharmaceutical-only companies in the US are Pfizer and Merck. In 2006, Pfizer spent $7.6B on R&D, and $1.1B on advertising. Merck spent $4.8B on R&D, and $1B on advertising.


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By psychmike on 10/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: M.A.D anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/4/2007 1:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
Show your own statistics then. But don't expect us to accept statements like that on faith.


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By psychmike on 10/4/2007 2:18:58 AM , Rating: 3
Good on you for calling me out. It's easy to get lazy but let's try to keep the standard of discourse high.

OK, here goes, the September 2003 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, a peer-reviewed publication discusses how direct to consumer advertising costs (cited as comparable to what you stated) do not include sample costs, educational materials for physicians, drug representatives' salaries, or sponsored conference costs.

Paranthetically, the line between advertising and education is really blurry. I point you to the current issue of General Psychiatry (Volume 42, Number 18), hardly a fringe publication, in which Dr. Stone describes how drug research is currently being disseminated in the medical community. Basically, the drug companies produce a paper (with cherry picked subjects and measures, non-responding subjects excluded, and non-significant findings buried), give it to a prestigious researcher who attaches his or her name without involvement, and gets it published in a peer reviewed journal. The drug company gets to cite favorable research, the researchers gets to add a publication credit to his or her CV, and everyone's happy. Oh, except possibly the patient. I kid you not, the good psychiatrists in the bunch are calling the current process nothing less than fraudulent.

The Indiana University's HR Services HR website has less detailed, but more accessible information "http://www.indiana.edu/~uhrs/benefits/bulletin/200..." on drug costs. They say that total marketing and administration costs (I don't know how much is admin but this likely includes marketing surveys and physician usage tracking) are 3x research costs.

Mike


RE: M.A.D anyone?
By Kanti on 10/4/07, Rating: 0