backtop

Print 55 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 10:33 AM

Missile launches from California coast  (Source: UPI/U.S. Navy)
USAF test launches Minuteman III ICBM, sending it from California near Australia

The United States Air Force successfully sent an unarmed ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to several targets located in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, government officials said.

On Sunday at 9:01 a.m., the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic re-entry vehicle was sent more than 4,000 miles during the latest round of testing, which saw the missile approach speeds of 15,000 mph.  Military officials didn't say if the most recent test impacted targets in the water or on land.  Tracking and telemetry equipment was installed on the rocket by the 576th Flight Test Squadron, which was in control of the missile launch for the U.S. Air Force.

"Our team is dedicated to ensuring a credible, safe and combat-ready ICBM force that convinces potential adversaries of our unwavering commitment to defend our nation, its allies and friends," AF Col. Carl DeKemper said to reporters.  "This dedication will continue as the ICBM mission transfers to Air Force Global Strike Command.

The U.S. military has up to 450 Minutemen III missile in missile silos located around the country, any of them capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with the current system expected to be in use until 2040.  The Air Force recently transitioned its ICBMs from Air Force Space Command towards the Air Force Global Strike Command,

The test was the second of three scheduled launches, as the U.S. military wants to ensure its weapon system's reliability, with Russia, China, and North Korea also showing off their wares.  Each launch tests a different component of the missile, with the United States Strategic Command and Department of Energy expected to use some of the test data in their labs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The concept of M.A.D. Still keeping the peace...
By Golgatha on 8/25/2009 8:52:36 AM , Rating: 5
Basically this was a statement saying, "we can place our missles wherever we need to, we have enough H-bomb warheads to attach one to each, and there are 450 of them". Now, please let us know yours are unarmed before launching towards US soil next time, kthxbye.




By MozeeToby on 8/25/2009 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 5
Correction, we have enough H-bombs to put several on each Minuteman (MIRV warheads). Oh, and we also have about a half dozen other deployment options and a small, but real chance of being able to take out your missile before it gets here.

In short, there's a decent chance that your attack won't do any damage at all to the US. And, if the US wanted to, we could turn every government building in your country into a glass crater. We could do more damage than that obviously; but that level of retaliation is probably what the international community is willing to bear.


By Dribble on 8/25/2009 10:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the likest aggressor does affiliate to any country and will not use a ICBM. They will just acquire a warhead on the black market, ship it to the US, drive it into the US city of their choice, find a nice vantage point and press the button.


By kaoken on 8/25/2009 12:40:12 PM , Rating: 4
And then the CIA tells us Iran has WMDs.


By Golgatha on 8/25/2009 12:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Forget the vantage point and the button. The enemy has made it crystal clear they are more than willing to waltz in and just blow themselves, along with everyone in the vicinity, to kingdom come.


By ajfink on 8/25/2009 10:42:51 PM , Rating: 3
As an American, I wouldn't want the US to retaliate against North Korea with nuclear weapons, even in the event of a potential nuclear attack. Conventional attacks would be more than enough, and it would distinctly minimize civilian casualties.

If a five-year-old kicks a 230lb MMA fighter in the shin, the fighter should not knock the kids head off, especially when the kid has been ideologically indoctrinated from birth to hate the guy.

I feel bad for the DPRK's populace, but not its government. It would be the poor, starving, brainwashed individuals I would be thinking of.


ICBM Missile?
By BurnItDwn on 8/25/2009 11:40:13 AM , Rating: 5
ATM Machine
PIN Number
UPC Code
ABS System
DC Current
RAS Syndrome is suck!




RE: ICBM Missile?
By kaoken on 8/25/2009 12:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
LOL


By Murloc on 8/25/2009 2:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
ZOMFG they could throw a nuclear warhead!

we must sanction them!

the evil american imperialist country shall not be allowed to do this.




A contest of manhood?
By Icehearted on 8/27/2009 1:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
Dub-yuh MDs are impractical, expensive, and unpopular. I think it's a flipping joke that our generation is unwilling to admit the mistakes of our predecessors an work to totally abolish these devices once and for all.

Or just bloody use them so we can finally move on past the stupid ages.




By on 8/27/2009 9:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com
(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




By on 8/30/2009 10:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




What's all the fuss
By Nobleman00 on 8/25/09, Rating: 0
Yet...
By danobrega on 8/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yet...
By Ordr on 8/25/2009 8:37:13 AM , Rating: 5
...national relativism for the lose.


RE: Yet...
By CollegeTechGuy on 8/25/2009 8:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the fuss is about how North Korea Launches their missiles over the top of Japan, and straight at us. They aren't shy about who their target is. Although you do have a point for the most part.


RE: Yet...
By mcnabney on 8/25/2009 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 3
Two points to make here.

They just don't make them like they used to.

Pax-Americana FTW


RE: Yet...
By MatthiasF on 8/25/2009 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 5
Then there's the fact we're not developing ours to fire at Spain with the intention to invade Mexico. As well as the fact our nuclear program doesn't take up a quarter of our country's GNP to produce.

No one sane expends that much to develop a deterrent for such a small country.

Kim Jong-il thinks nukes will keep the world out of the Korean peninsula if he decides to send the largest standing army on the planet south.

Hence why we tried to trump him with the missile shield.


RE: Yet...
By Hyperion1400 on 8/25/2009 8:43:56 AM , Rating: 5
The difference is that we told everyone we were doing it, got permission, assured everyone that it was unarmed, and, undoubtedly, provided Australia(the nation in the area) with a detailed plan of action.

North Korea basically did the exact opposite.


RE: Yet...
By StevoLincolnite on 8/25/2009 9:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
It also helps that Australia is also a good ally to the USA, where we already buy Military weapons/Aircraft/Tanks etc'.

Odd thing was, that this wasn't even shown on our News Channels it was going to happen, the Media here usually jumps all over stuff like this. (Perhaps tomorrow night).

Then you Military strength, the United States, Britain, Australia and all the other European countries all-together make Korea look like an Ant.


RE: Yet...
By stirfry213 on 8/25/2009 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 3
Something makes me think that an ant launching a nuclear weapon would inflict the same damage as a behemoth launching the same weapon.

It will only take one nut job to spark a global catastrophy.


RE: Yet...
By delphinus100 on 8/25/2009 2:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on who's involved. If, God forbid, India and Pakistan get into it, there is zero reason to believe the US and Russia would also be drawn in, or any other nuclear power. (though rest assured, both would be watching *extremely* closely)


RE: Yet...
By ajfink on 8/25/2009 10:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, India and Pakistan engaging in a nuclear war would be bad enough. If they launched a full-scale nuclear attack on each other, it would cause global weather distortions that would cause planetary cooling for a 2-3 year period, and over 15 million people would die in the initial attacks alone. Their combined nuclear stockpiles are capable of doing this, that is. Millions more would die due to radiation and starvation. The global economy would crap in its pants without India's contributions (as minor as they are relative to certain other nations).

India and Pakistan have had their "Cuban Missile Crisis" moments before, and thankfully cooler heads prevailed. Hopefully that trend continues, though most intelligence and nuclear experts agree that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is the most loosely guarded and volatile in the world.


RE: Yet...
By glennc on 8/27/2009 12:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
planetary cooling wohoo. thats what we want


RE: Yet...
By ajfink on 8/27/2009 2:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
Not when it destroys a year's worth of global harvests. Tens of millions would die of starvation and it would take several more years for agriculture to regain its former output.


RE: Yet...
By Justin Time on 8/25/2009 4:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Australia? - that's a bit of a stretch.

USA maintains a base at Marshall Islands (much to the detriment of the locals) for the express purpose of being the target for their missile tests... and this happens a number of times per year.

Marshall Islands is roughly halfway between Hawaii and Australia, and a missile would need to travel a good deal further than planned to reach Australia, and pass over a few more nations along the way.


RE: Yet...
By mdogs444 on 8/25/2009 9:10:15 AM , Rating: 3
We work with other countries to ensure safe tests, and include them on all decisions regarding launch. Other countries, such as Iran and N. Korea, decide they can launch them over and toward whatever country they want without including them in on the plan.


RE: Yet...
By Nfarce on 8/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yet...
By knutjb on 8/25/2009 9:29:16 AM , Rating: 5
Be careful with careless use of moral relativism through false analogies, i.e. one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If the terrorist or dictator's stated goal is oppression of others, by definition, they cannot be freedom fighters. If the North Koreans are viewed as legitimate and given credit as such, you are not only condoning and enabling their brutal behavior, you will communicate to other countries that NK's behavior is OK and they will go down the same path.

The USA has flawed in it's actions towards other countries and we have made some pretty big mistakes. However, we are less flawed in our approach than other countries. We go in, suppress the problem, and return the country back to it's people. Perfect, no, but who do you expect to stop such behavior, the UN?


RE: Yet...
By AEvangel on 8/25/2009 10:59:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Be careful with careless use of moral relativism through false analogies, i.e. one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If the terrorist or dictator's stated goal is oppression of others, by definition, they cannot be freedom fighters.


Then by your definition there is no such thing as a freedom fighter at all since any fight to stop someone else is repressing there freedoms.

Last I check NK is a legitimate Govt. Their people allow it therefore it is legitimate, when their people want to change they can do so.


RE: Yet...
By Nfarce on 8/25/2009 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Last I check NK is a legitimate Govt.


Not in the eyes of the US. Further, is the DPRK a member of the UN? But Bill Clinton saved the day a few weeks ago and helped legitimize it.

quote:
Their people allow it therefore it is legitimate, when their people want to change they can do so.


Are you serious? Their people "allow" it because they are indoctrinated from birth to pledge their lives to the "Dear Leader." From a very early age they are taught that the West and especially the US are responsible for any ailing they have and food shortages. If you think their people can change that government when their will mandates it, then you are very misinformed on the culture of North Korea.


RE: Yet...
By Nfarce on 8/25/2009 11:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, needed to clarify this:

"Not in the eyes of the US. Further, is the DPRK a member of the UN? Of course. So why does it continue violate UN international rulings?"


RE: Yet...
By samoya22 on 8/25/2009 11:38:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you serious? Their people "allow" it because they are indoctrinated from birth to pledge their lives to the "Dear Leader." From a very early age they are taught that the West and especially the US are responsible for any ailing they have and food shortages. If you think their people can change that government when their will mandates it, then you are very misinformed on the culture of North Korea.


I think your view is an incredibly condescending one, and you need to stop treating people from different nations and cultures like they are children. The person you responded to is correct to point out that the people have allowed this to happen. It's not a matter of cultural difference; it's a matter of how much repression their society can bare. When society can no longer bare it, the status quo will change, power will be exchanged, and someone else will rise up to herd the masses back into line.

Now, go back to your Xbox and your cubicle and exercise those freedoms of yours.


RE: Yet...
By mcnabney on 8/25/2009 12:48:43 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, that is nowhere close to true.

For example - American Indians and African slaves in the US. Neither group had the power to shake-off their oppressor. The same is true in DPRK and Myanmar. That is not the case in China or Iran. The people there are capable of changing their government, but are not yet sufficiently motivated.


RE: Yet...
By Nfarce on 8/25/2009 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for making sense, as I tried to do but got flamed for it. Reality supercedes emotions, and why people here are apparently apologizing for North Korea's dictatorial and oppressive rule is just flabbergasting.


RE: Yet...
By kaoken on 8/25/2009 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wow are we the ignorant one. How can there be an uprising when the people are being sent to death camps for even mentioning anything bad about the government. How can there be an uprising when most of the people are too busy trying to find food. How can there be an uprising when the people are brainwashed to believing the rest of the world is even worst off than they are.


RE: Yet...
By DotNetGuru on 8/25/2009 3:18:58 PM , Rating: 1
Revolutions aren't easy. If the people are too weak to overthrow the dictator/warlord then they will continue to be slaves. When the people realize that they are the ones that actually provide the power behind the goverment, they may see there is yet hope for change. One dictator among millions of free men and women has no power.

quote:
How can there be an uprising when the people are brainwashed to believing the rest of the world is even worst off than they are.

<sarcasm>Yeah, it's a good thing we don't have to worry about that here in the States. I guess we're just really lucky to live in the richest nation on earth. Heck even though we're trillions in debt and the value of our currency is plummeting at an alarming rate, we're still so rich we can afford to wage an endless war on multiple fronts.
USA FTW</sarcasm>


RE: Yet...
By Nfarce on 8/25/2009 7:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One dictator among millions of free men and women has no power.


Do you not see the absolute contradiction there? If people were "free" there would be no dictator to begin with and it would be some sort of representative government. Conversely, if there were a dictator, the people aren't "free" and forced to succumb - either by early indoctrination or other means - to whatever reign said dictator feels fit to do unchallenged. In the latter, you have North Korea.


RE: Yet...
By knutjb on 8/25/2009 11:17:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Then by your definition there is no such thing as a freedom fighter at all since any fight to stop someone else is repressing there freedoms.


NK is a blatantly OPPRESSIVE regime, if the people of NK rose up and tried to stop further oppression then they would qualify as freedom fighters. The US revolution didn't happen because the King was a swell guy, he was tyrannical in his actions towards the colonies. BTW the freedom fighter label doesn't apply to Al Qeda, Taliban, etc... because they have clearly expressed their intent to put woman in their place, covered, illiterate, barefoot and pregnant. Those fighting against them, however are so long as they are bring freedom and not more oppression under a different label.

quote:
Last I check NK is a legitimate Govt. Their people allow it therefore it is legitimate, when their people want to change they can do so.

Time to smell the coffee, NK's legitimacy is extended through China and the people would be slaughtered for merely expressing a thought of freedom to their "Dear Leader" let alone doing it.


RE: Yet...
By 91TTZ on 8/25/2009 10:21:53 AM , Rating: 3
I never remembered a fuss when Russia or France tested theirs. The only fuss I've seen is when countries prohibited by international law test theirs.


RE: Yet...
By danobrega on 8/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yet...
By Suntan on 8/25/2009 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
The fuss has to do with the reputation of the country. The USA, France and the USSR (prior to falling apart) were known internationally to not use nukes on a whim. Even at the height of the cold war, the world at large new that the USSR and the USA were capable of restraint even though they had the ability to fire off missiles at each other. Further, everyone knew that these states would not find it beneficial to “give” nukes to radical groups for them to create the carnage while offering the giver plausible deniability.

In short, the established nuclear countries have shown over time that they can be responsible with their arms. Has Kim shown the same in his actions?

-Suntan


erm, testing?
By MadMan007 on 8/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: erm, testing?
By knutjb on 8/25/2009 9:04:15 AM , Rating: 5
Any delivery system that carries special weapons must be verified for reliability to ensure they function properly. These are old missiles with components that age and the program was set up in such a way to detect any problems that could make them unreliable so they could be fixed. What good is a deterrent if you're unsure if it will work as advertised. Some things can't be left to chance.


RE: erm, testing?
By MozeeToby on 8/25/2009 10:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the missile is only half the problem. We haven't performed any nuclear tests on our weapons in more than 15 years, and we haven't re-tested the old designs for an even longer time.

The old designs weren't meant to sit on the shelf for 30 or 40 years, it was assumed that they would be either used (God help us if that was the assumption) or replaced with new models in that time frame. Many of the materials used were both unstable over long periods of time, and extremely hazardous to the people that work on them.

There is, in fact, a small chance that a large portion of our arsenal won't detonate if it is ever used because the high explosives are degraded. In another 50 years, its even possible the the Pu pits themselves will have decayed to the point where they will no longer detonate.

There have even been instances of the high explosives being found cracked when bombs have been opened up. If the explosives were to detonate, it almost definitely wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion, but it would certainly spread a ton of radioactive and highly poisonous materials around.

That's why they started designing the Reliable Replacement Warhead a few years ago. The end goal being to replace many of the current warheads with a safer, more stable, and more reliable alternative.


RE: erm, testing?
By MadMan007 on 8/25/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, I misread this to make it sound like a 'test' as in a functional testing test not a 'does it still work' test. I don't know why I got downrated for asking a question, I guess that's DT for ya lol.

Anyhow it does beg the question that if there is a possibility that the missles will have problems functioning what does one launch show? Surely they inspected this missile before the test and all missiles have routine maintenance and subsystems testing. I guess what I'm saying is what does testing one missile prove about the whole arsenal if they already knew the design in general works? Just seems like a waste of money and materiel.


RE: erm, testing?
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 8/25/2009 9:11:10 AM , Rating: 3
it's like your car, if you let it sit there for a few years, then go out to start it when you really need to use it, will it work? Testing is part of the upkeep operation.


RE: erm, testing?
By Scabies on 8/25/2009 9:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia saves!
quote:
Minuteman III missiles are regularly tested with launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The most recent launch, successfully targeting the Kwajalein Atoll 4,200 miles downrange with three unarmed re-entry vehicles, was conducted 2009-06-29.

Now out-of-date information, but it seems they do a spot check for functionality every so often. Would add insult to injury if the policy of mutual annihilation failed in our silos or at some point up to the target. Also the article indicates at least one upgrade to the Minuteman III since it was adopted (1993, radiation-resistant semiconductor RAM in the guidance package) so who knows if this round has anything new to show.

tl;dr- not news, merely a reporting


RE: erm, testing?
By Scabies on 8/25/2009 9:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
From the article:
quote:
Military officials didn't say if the most recent test impacted targets in the water or on land.

in response:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads


RE: erm, testing?
By PitViper007 on 8/25/2009 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how this relates. This was a test of the delivery system, the Minuteman III ICBM, not the warheads. The type of tests you link to here have been outlawed for decades.


RE: erm, testing?
By Scabies on 8/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: erm, testing?
By rcc on 8/25/2009 3:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should read that again.

The airburst was only moderately effective, while the underwater burst was quite effective. Also bear in mind that as nukes go, those were babies.


RE: erm, testing?
By rippleyaliens on 8/25/2009 1:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.. so you dont have a car? IE every now and then, even if you dont drive, or your hobbie car.. i am sure every now and then you start it up, just to make sure it still works..
GUNS are the same way, You spent your $150 for a CCW class, $600 for a Glock, $50 for some ammo.. YET if ya never actually test fired the weapon, how sure are you that the weapon will work as intended???

Yes we have 450 MM missiles.. AND A WHOLE!!!! lot of Subs, with icbm's, B52's with ALCM's (air launched cruise missiles), yet one begs to realllly know, will what ya got really work when needed, hence we have this thing called TESTING!!!!..

Why do we not want Iran, Korea or any other country having the capabilities.. EASY, it isnt that the US doesnt want them to have it.. MORE so, that if they get it, and IF they actually get it, or when.. IS the said country gonna SELL IT TO SOMEONE?? That is the problem. The USA isnt too afraid of the country that has 10, we are petrified of the one that only has 1..

60 years ago we laughed at the guy who said that something that can fly faster than the speed of sound.. YET today we have a missile that goes 22+ times faster than sound. the thought of a Helicopter actually working, YET boom we have it in the form of a plane that rotates engines that can do that.
THE THOUGHT of a computer at someones house was just insane... YET we have arm chair warriors with computers that just 10 years ago, were thought to be impossible..

Testing, testing, analyzing the test.. making improvements.. testing testing, - rinse repeat.. hence is why we have all these fancy gadgets,, and tomorrow, we will have even more..


RE: erm, testing?
By MadMan007 on 8/25/2009 3:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Please, step away from the keyboard...slowly.

I understand the car analogy but it doesn't quite work. I would only be testing my individual car. What you're saying is that if I had 450 cars and tested one of them I could assume that all of them are fine? I mean if this test had some other purpose than 'does this stuff still work the way it's designed and been tested before' I'd get it but as it is *meh* seems like a way for the missile boys to have something to do :p


RE: erm, testing?
By PitViper007 on 8/25/2009 4:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, when you are talking about a "one use" item like an ICBM, you can't really test each one individually can you? So you test one, picking it based on other criteria (overall condition, etc.) and fire it off. That one test can be considered representative of the group assuming the conditions of the rest of the group are equal to or better than the one tested.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki