[CNN] Decoy fails to deploy, but missile test called 'success'

Even if we sent missiles with little people inside to tell whether the targets were decoys or not, the ebildooers could put their own little people inside the decoys and actuals to counter it. But mostly, all they have to do is discover how we distinguish real from fake and make a cheap answer for it.

Definitely a mad mad waste of time and resources.

 

Obviously, boost phase is the only good way to do these intercepts... in the mean time we have a hand full of interceptors positioned in Alaska and Poland to deter rogue states from trying a launch. Why? Because a rogue state won't be able to flood the skies with MIRV's and decoys any time soon and if you launch a WMD at the United States and fail you're F@#!d.

I know all the experts in here know exactly how well these systems perform... and I know you have top secret security clearance so you can testify if need be, but perhaps the mere presence of these systems serves a purpose. Does anyone remember the psychological impact the Patriot system had on the Israelis during the first gulf war.... when they wanted to retaliate against Saddam and tear the Coalition apart?

That said... with a few missiles in place, there are better places to spend money going forward.

 

The 100 Billion dollar missile to nowhere.

 

Well we are in a financial bind, everyone has to sacrifice. We just can't afford to mess with the missile to nowhere. Sorry, military industrial complex and neo-cons we know you will be very upset, but we just can't afford it.

 

The Patriot anti-missile system's efficacy was severely overblown in the first Gulf war, propaganda, providing only psychological comfort to American media and our allies.

Fred Kaplan, Slate:

Similarly, the vast majority of publicly available tests about Star Wars missile shields show them to be a colossal joke, technologically without of our reach. If this was meant just to provide an ode to Reagan's dream of a "Twilight Zone" Kanamit hermetic seal around the US, fine. If this was meant only to further astronomically lucrative payoffs to weapons manufacturers, fine.

But the actual result of the present administration continuing these colossal failures and placing them on Russia's borders, while at the same time withdrawing from nuclear treaties, is only to antagonize Russia, creating a new weapons race and increasing the likelihood of actual nuclear war. Which, if it comes to that, I'm not too sure I'm willing to trust my life to these defensive measures to win.

"Putin Urges Obama To Halt Missile Shield Plan"

 

I don't know if its that hard to flood the air with decoys. It just takes a little bit of mylar, etc.

The technical hurdles to building a decoy probably aren't any higher than that of building an ICBM in the first place - there are many far less traceable ways to deploy a nuclear warhead on US soil . So to pitch this piece of crap as useful because it is able to stop primitive nuclear warheads is kind of silly. We might as well start designing some good horse-killing guns to stop enemy dragoons and cavalry from raiding our borders.

 

This is all so ridiculous -- the chances of a 'rogue' state launching a nuclear attack on the US with an ICBM delivery system are zero.

 

You must admit, however, that the shared Czech and Polish borders with Iran/North Korea make them the ideal sites for US defense systems designed to prevent only "rogue" states from launching.

We all remember that historic day when Iranian tanks first went rolling through the streets of Warsaw.

I agree: this is all transparently absurd. (And the blasted things don't even work.)

 

Also, obvious though again worth pointing out, if you launch one WMD at the United States and succeed you're F@#!d.

No "rogue" state would ever launch a nuclear missile at the US. Radar gives a missile a return address. A suitcase radiological device detonated in Manhattan would be significantly harder to track than a North Korea firing one of its four-six nukes at us in an actual missile.

Thankfully, there is a reason that mutually assured destruction has worked so well over the years. The hypothetical "rogue" state oft-mentioned would only have a handful of nukes at its disposal. Once that limited payload is launched, the US response would be (has been, is, and always will be) total and complete annihilation of the host nation. Which is always why this particular weapons shield is such mad folly.

 

This is a system that hasn't proven to work outside of completely rigged test, it costs a lot of money and also needlessly antagonizes other countries at a time of global uncertainty regarding a lot of things.

Given all of the other things we need to pay for do we really need to continue with this program?

 

The bailout is a better use of tax money than this crap