You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
U.S. Missile Defense 86% Successful
2009-09-03
The success rate of a test of the missile defense system which the U.S. is building against so-called rogue states including North Korea stands at 86 percent. U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, in an interview said 39 of the last 45 tries at stopping a test missile were successful.

"In the past few years, all hit their mark, except one that had a manufacturing problem. It was fixed, and three weeks ago successfully hit its target in a test," he claimed.

"The failures were mostly at the start of the testing" and the missile defense capabilities improved significantly recently, he added.

"The Defense Department recently committed an additional US$900 million toward fielding the Army's theater high-altitude-area defense mobile missile defense system," he said. "The agency has finished seven of eight required tests of the system," and O'Reilly expects to see it in the field next year.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Um, no. 86% is not fail. It is resounding success. First, no rogue nation has 1000 ICBMs and will not for decades, if ever. If someone did launch hundreds or 1000 ICBMs at us--let's ignore MIRVs, the logic is identical with them--I imagine that we would ordinarily target at least 2 missiles on each incoming. That means that fewer 2 percent would get through. (1-0.86)^2 = 0.019.

Suppose that an enemy launches 1000 ICBMs, which case do you prefer?

case 1) No BMD. 950 warheads land. They take out 600 large population centers, using multiple warheads for the 100 or 200 largest cities. 150 million Americans die immediately, most or all of the rest starve over a period of 5 or 10 years. We retaliate and kill some similar number of the enemy. The rest of the world's population starves because of nuclear winter. Essentially, the world ends with a very loud bang and a prolonged wimper.

Case 2) We have BMD and 19 of the 1000 ICBMs get through. They destroy all or part of 15-17 large population centers. 5 or 10 million Americans die immediately. There is no nuclear winter though and almost all the rest live. We retaliate against enemy military and political targets, killing millions but leaving most of the enemy civilians alive. It is the worst event in world history but life goes one.

Which do you prefer?

86% is excellent.
Posted by: Some guy   2009-09-03 21:37  

#8  sorry my eyes are going thought that was the percent sign.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-09-03 20:03  

#7  Ummm 86$ successful is FAIL
If not 100$ effective missiles can get through

You think they'll only launch one

Hell no. you launch thousands at a time to saturate the system

then 14$ get through.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-09-03 20:02  

#6  Also, prolly better be someone looking at putting SM-2 / SM-3 launch capabilities on the next classes of US nuke subs...

Not unless passive sonar has come a long ways. I don't see a Triton redeux anytime soon.
Posted by: .5MT   2009-09-03 17:45  

#5  Unfortunately, Eastern Europe will not see the benefits.

They took too long bargaining with President Bush over a payoff for taking the things, and lost their chance. They'll be smarter next time, one hopes.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-09-03 09:32  

#4  As a responsible president, I cannot accept anything les than 115% reliability. 110% is still not enough - Barry Saetoro
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2009-09-03 09:17  

#3  Unfortunately, Eastern Europe will not see the benefits.


Missile Defense: The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us.
Posted by: Beavis   2009-09-03 08:14  

#2  Also, prolly better be someone looking at putting SM-2 / SM-3 launch capabilities on the next classes of US nuke subs...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2009-09-03 01:59  

#1  Untried... Unreliable... Looks like trouble for the donks...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2009-09-03 01:56  

00:00