backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Tavoc.. on Oct 21 at 4:34 PM


A Northrop-Grummond built DSP satellite. These current satellites only detect ballistic missile launches, rather than shoot them down.
New $5M study is first allocated since work was halted 15 years ago.

Congress recently approved a $5 million grant to begin study of space-based missile defenses. This marks the first time money has been allocated to the program since work on space-based systems was canceled in the 1990s by President Clinton. Two years ago, Congress rejected a similar proposal.

According to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the threat of missile proliferation has grown rapidly since the 1990s. A total of 120 nations now have ballistic missile technology, he said, and nations like North Korea and Iran are not only developing the technology, but selling it on the open market. Missile defense systems are growing as well; 27 nations now have some form of missile defense.

The most recent annual report from the Pentagon highlighted the growing threat of accidental or intentional launch of ballistic missiles, as well as the vulnerability of U.S. satellites to attack, as evidenced by China's 2007 missile test, which destroyed a satellite in orbit.

A defense official commenting on the proposal told the Washington Times that space-based ABM systems are necessary for global, rapid defense, "It's really the only way to defend the U.S. and its allies from anywhere on the planet". The official said such defenses were last considered during the late 1980s, as part of the Global Protection Against Limited Strike, or GPALS, a multi-prong system which used ground and sea-based interceptors, along with space-based platforms. The plan was cancelled by the Clinton Administration, which focused all work on short-range missiles only.

The U.S. announced last year that its ground-based Star Wars' missile defense system was operational and ready for use, though capable at present of covering only parts of the U.S. Plans to expand the system in Europe are under way.

Despite claims to the contrary, China is also apparently working on similar proposals, says China military affairs specialist Richard Fisher. The program, which China says it halted in the 1960s, has apparently been restarted with such systems as the SC-19 anti-satellite missile. According to Fisher, China is also trying to deploy space-warfare weapons, aircraft carrier groups, and a much larger MIRV'ed version of its nuclear ballistic missile arsenal.

Fisher, author of the new book, "China's Military Modernization: Building for Regional and Global Reach", says that by 2020, China "will be well on their way to assembling all the elements of global power that [the U.S.] has today".



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Sounds great but...
By B3an on 10/17/2008 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah because the US really won in Vietnam didn't it... just like with Iraq, how long was that meant to last again, a year? i also see that they have found Bin Laden and these imaginary Nukes. You couldn't even invade Canada in the 1800's.
WW2 is pretty much the only clear win the US has had in a war, and even then you missed atleast half of it, and were far away on a separate bit of land so were not bombed. The US military doesn't exactly have the best of records. But for some odd reason you yanks seem to think you're so great and will win easy... maybe thats why you get into so many wars and lose many.


RE: Sounds great but...
By bhieb on 10/17/2008 5:13:28 PM , Rating: 3
Wow really.

Assuming for a moment that your British (judging by Yanks). How dare you of all people claim we are arrogant and cocky. If I don't recall there was this shithole of a island in North West Europe that stroked its Naval penis for centuries around the globe. Dominating and killing thousands for Queen and country. If I'm not mistaken there was this little dispute with some colony in 1776 or so that you used the lame "they're too far away" excuse for as well.

All I'm saying is Like Father Like Son, where do you think we learned it from. Don't site back on your now high morals and pretend to be innocent in the matters of war.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Chaser on 10/17/2008 7:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Great Britain could not have survived without U.S. aid and without the specter of the US joining the conflict of WW2 outright. I'd say for your sake you should be very grateful for that record.

But it's short term memory, a complete lack of context from younger generation, anti-war, often anti-American euro historical revisionists that has replaced gratitude with contempt for the U.S.


RE: Sounds great but...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2008 7:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Very true, for both the previous posters. As stellar as the US military's record is, Great Britain's naval reputation during the Age of Sail was even more incredible.

I recall one battle where a British admiral attacked a substantially larger French fleet, won the fight, sinking, burning, or capturing a majority of the enemy forces -- yet was court-martialled upon returning home, for allowing several of French forces to escape.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Guttersnipe on 10/18/2008 1:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
bingo, just something to remember next time some european begs us to vote for obama so we can be "loved" again.

hundreds of thousands of americans died keeping europe and the uk free in the last century.

and now they all whine when they suffer a few losses in their half assed efforts in afganistan. there are cries to pull out, and that its hopeless. thats the love hundreds of thousands dead for their freedom buys. just remember that.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Dove2Three on 10/18/2008 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 1
The Europeans whine because they've been protected free of charge so long by the American military that they now think a military isn't needed. God help them when history reminds them otherwise.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Sandok on 10/18/2008 1:40:29 PM , Rating: 1
And the US has forgotten that without the French, they wouldn't be independant right now

And the French forgot that without barbarian invasions from the East, they wouldn't exist.

And the barbarians forgot that without blablalblabla.

Things go round and round people, stop being so embarrasingly stuckup on little facts.

Oh and Europe currently isn't really attracting any attention, the US is. And I'm just talking terrorism here, let's not go into the economy or such.


RE: Sounds great but...
By straycat74 on 10/18/2008 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Do a little research on the terror attacks in Europe.

Then look at the muslims essentially taking over European countries by simply moving in and multiplying. Check out the birthrates between muslims and citizens.

The muslims are woring their way in there, just like the socialists have been working there way and pushing their agenda here. Worst thing about the socialists/communists is they told us they were going to do it.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Note #'s 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24-32, 36, 39-42.

Notice how they need more and more people to give control to the government. Turn needs into rights. Housing, health care, food, shelter, "education" (my son (10) recently told me Columbus came here to steal gold from the Indians, which he learned from his teacher. You can say what you want about the events following his introduction on the Americas to the world, but you need to look at it through the eyes of the time in which it happened.)


RE: Sounds great but...
By tehbiz on 10/18/2008 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
except that the French monarchy that supported the independence of America was quickly overthrown during our country's birth and early development. Those people to whom we do owe gratitude were all beheaded long ago, only to turn France into what it is now.


RE: Sounds great but...
By theendofallsongs on 10/20/2008 12:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the French monarchy that supported the independence of America was quickly overthrown. Those people to whom we do owe gratitude were all beheaded long ago, only to turn France into what it is now.

Yessir. And don't forget the French were only helping to try to revenge themselves on the British, not because they were interested in spreading freedom or democracy.


RE: Sounds great but...
By Guttersnipe on 10/18/2008 1:32:43 AM , Rating: 3
not really, the military was achieving victories after suffering some propaganda losses. the vietcong were recieving unsustainable losses, but they basically won because they convinced the anti war crowd that the couldn't be beaten. their bluff worked. a people unwilling to fight cannot win, esp with a massive amount of folk basically pushing propaganda for the other side.

if the anti war movement were as strong and active during ww2 we would have lost that as well.


RE: Sounds great but...
By 1078feba on 10/20/2008 2:06:29 PM , Rating: 3
Bravo.

Well said.

In 'Nam, we won all the battles, yet we somehow "lost" the war. The only real problem with how we waged that war was that the Commanders on the ground had to phone D.C. to get permission to go to the head.

We learned our lessons on that. With over 10 years in the Marine Corps, believe me, those lessons were shoved down our throats. Unity of Command, Commander's Intent and the felxibility to make decisions on the fly as events on the ground require.

"An adequate decision made in a timely manner is far better than a great decision made too late."
Fleet Marine Force Manual 1.1 - Warfighting

The only thing really asked in return is that you learn from your mistakes. No more flushing a good man and his career down the john for simple failure. And no more Monday morning quaterbacking.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki