Missile Defense Part 2

On that cheery note, thread closed!

At least I am not rude, arrogant and pig headed sir. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is simply that….opinion.

I have cited multiple statements from reputable sources like the agency developing the actual system under debate (the US Missile Defense Agency)that state that there has not been enough operationally realistic testing. I have cited government reports and congressional testimony that state that significant quantities of the technology already deployed are not mature and will not be so for a number of years. That you have consistently shown no interest in even addressing them speaks to your lack of understanding of the arguments those on the other side of the article are making.

And all you can come back with are insults and statements that you cannot prove. It works you say. it has worked you say. it will work you say. The North Korea example you cite proves that you can read but not comprehend what you read as well as you claim.

But at the end of the day you will lose this argument. Obama will do the sensible thing and kill this boondoggle. You and the NeoCons can cry all you want but it is a flawed technology that does not work as advertised.

I would hit the ignore button, I tried debating him, including him, waving an olive branch and all I got was insults. Closed mind with an “I’m always right complex”!

Actually as far as I am aware even the test missiles that the land based BMD system intercepted was only on a technicality.

It actually kept on missing until the parameters of the test program was changed to class a miss as a hit … go figure.

The USN Standard based system recently performed a successful hit from above (the weapon overshot and attacked the satellite from above so any debris would re enter safely).

If I was choosing where to put my money it would be the Laser system and the sea based intercept system.

When it comes to Nukes, a defense 25% of the time is always better than no defense at all……..Might not win the game, but all in all someone/something will be saved…

In war, no one ever deals in “definites”…….

Talking about the GBU-28 if i remember correctly they pulled old 8 inch cannon barrels out from a local DOD depot near me in PA…….quite frankly, as rushed and “screwed up” im sure the process was, they worked. And, I will say I was happy to see some old school yankee engineering come through in the end, it was and still is about time the guys on the ground have a say….

“Necessity is the mother of all Invention”

Developmental programs and operational systems are two vastly different things.

Didn’t stop an SM-3 from knocking down a satellite. Didn’t stop GBU-28s from being successful at the end of Desert Storm (THAT program would likely horrify you). Didn’t stop the F-15E from being successful in Desert Storm. It sounds like you equate “developemental program” with “experimental program”. Experimental programs and testing programs are “vastly different”. GBI is undergoing testing and is being deployed. Why is it being deployed before it’s completely tested? Because even at this stage it offers a previously NONEXISTENT capability. Same with SM-3.

I’d stop wasting your time. This guy obviously has no clue about developmental programs. He’d demand a full assault of SS-18s be successfully repelled before he’d agree it was “proven” and if one out of the hundreds of warheads made it through he’d declare the system “unreliable”.

Developmental programs and operational systems are two vastly different things.

Again, it has intercepted numerable targets, it works, only your ignorance is blinding your from those facts.

I’d stop wasting your time. This guy obviously has no clue about developmental programs. He’d demand a full assault of SS-18s be successfully repelled before he’d agree it was “proven” and if one out of the hundreds of warheads made it through he’d declare the system “unreliable”.

At least I am not rude, arrogant and pig headed sir. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is simply that….opinion.

I have cited multiple statements from reputable sources like the agency developing the actual system under debate (the US Missile Defense Agency)that state that there has not been enough operationally realistic testing. I have cited government reports and congressional testimony that state that significant quantities of the technology already deployed are not mature and will not be so for a number of years. That you have consistently shown no interest in even addressing them speaks to your lack of understanding of the arguments those on the other side of the article are making.

And all you can come back with are insults and statements that you cannot prove. It works you say. it has worked you say. it will work you say. The North Korea example you cite proves that you can read but not comprehend what you read as well as you claim.

But at the end of the day you will lose this argument. Obama will do the sensible thing and kill this boondoggle. You and the NeoCons can cry all you want but it is a flawed technology that does not work as advertised.

Again, it has intercepted numerable targets, it works, only your ignorance is blinding your from those facts.

Again you produce lots of word and no actual evidence. Of course more testing is required its a continually developing system.

You are so desperate and pathetic that you seem to be suggesting that the US start a war with North Korea to prove to you that a system that has already intercepted ballistic missiles can intercept ballistic missiles.

At least I am not rude, arrogant and pig headed sir. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is simply that….opinion.

I have cited multiple statements from reputable sources like the agency developing the actual system under debate (the US Missile Defense Agency)that state that there has not been enough operationally realistic testing. I have cited government reports and congressional testimony that state that significant quantities of the technology already deployed are not mature and will not be so for a number of years. That you have consistently shown no interest in even addressing them speaks to your lack of understanding of the arguments those on the other side of the article are making.

And all you can come back with are insults and statements that you cannot prove. It works you say. it has worked you say. it will work you say. The North Korea example you cite proves that you can read but not comprehend what you read as well as you claim.

But at the end of the day you will lose this argument. Obama will do the sensible thing and kill this boondoggle. You and the NeoCons can cry all you want but it is a flawed technology that does not work as advertised.

That is insulting and out of line. I disagree with you but I do not think you are a liar. All I am stating is that feasability and effectiveness are two very different things.

Were interceptors launched to hit these weapons launched by North Korea? No they were not. Tracking a warhead and running a few simulations are not enough to show the feasability of this scheme. The head of the MDA says as much.

Again insults are the refuge of persons unwilling to engage in debating the facts. I understand “Clausewitzian friction” sir and I understand how it applies to modern conflict studies and how it can be applied to potential future conflicts. I also understand that of course 100% effectiveness is not within the realm of possibility. But you state that it “works”. How well does it work? 20% maybe??? How about 50-50??? You do not know and I submit neither does the US Missile Defense Agency. You cite an example of North Korea and a few interceptors hitting some targets to date. You state with no lack of conviction (and vitriol I might add for anybody who dares question your opinions) based on this example and a few other definitive statments without attribution, that this system works.

Already produced a working system…You just do not get it sir. There has yet to be a rigorous operational testing regime for this technology. The MDA says it needs more operational testing. Congress says it needs more operational testing. The SecDef says it needs more operational testing. The GAO says it needs more operational testing, but because sealordlawrence says it is not so, we must all believe him over all of them.

Grow up and stop insulting fellow posters. Agreeing or in this case disagreeing with a fellow poster is not enough reason to be hateful and spiteful. And I submit it is you sir who is denying reality. Experts who will know more about this technology than outside observers such as ourselves ever can, have already made the determination that you are wrong and that this technology can not be considered as operational by any conventional standards.

Until it is a deployment of these weapons to Eastern Europe is not wise. The American taxpayer would be as well served by Congress wheeling $150 Billion out to the front of the Capitol Building and having a bonfire with it.

Again you produce lots of word and no actual evidence. Of course more testing is required its a continually developing system. You do not understand clausewitzian friction as shown by the rather bizzare phrase you attached to it. But then you have repeatedly shown that you have no knowledge of this subject.

You are so desperate and pathetic that you seem to be suggesting that the US start a war with North Korea to prove to you that a system that has already intercepted ballistic missiles can intercept ballistic missiles.

Yes you have, now you are a liar as well.

That is insulting and out of line. I disagree with you but I do not think you are a liar. All I am stating is that feasability and effectiveness are two very different things.

The system has already been used to track North Korean Missile tests not to mention yet again the numerable successful tests.

Were interceptors launched to hit these weapons launched by North Korea? No they were not. Tracking a warhead and running a few simulations are not enough to show the feasability of this scheme. The head of the MDA says as much.

Now you are talking about Clausewitzian friction (clearly you have insufficient education to understand that), it effects all weapon systems but it does not effect all. One can never expect 100% effectiveness from anything but if it works the majority of the time it is sufficient. Will a rifle achieve 1MOA? Will an AShM aquire its target? will a AT missile motor fail? etc etc etc.

Again insults are the refuge of persons unwilling to engage in debating the facts. I understand “Clausewitzian friction” sir and I understand how it applies to modern conflict studies and how it can be applied to potential future conflicts. I also understand that of course 100% effectiveness is not within the realm of possibility. But you state that it “works”. How well does it work? 20% maybe??? How about 50-50??? You do not know and I submit neither does the US Missile Defense Agency. You cite an example of North Korea and a few interceptors hitting some targets to date. You state with no lack of conviction (and vitriol I might add for anybody who dares question your opinions) based on this example and a few other definitive statments without attribution, that this system works.

ABM is undergoing a constant process of testing and development that has already produced a working system yet you continue to deny reality.

Already produced a working system…You just do not get it sir. There has yet to be a rigorous operational testing regime for this technology. The MDA says it needs more operational testing. Congress says it needs more operational testing. The SecDef says it needs more operational testing. The GAO says it needs more operational testing, but because sealordlawrence says it is not so, we must all believe him over all of them.

Grow up and stop insulting fellow posters. Agreeing or in this case disagreeing with a fellow poster is not enough reason to be hateful and spiteful. And I submit it is you sir who is denying reality. Experts who will know more about this technology than outside observers such as ourselves ever can, have already made the determination that you are wrong and that this technology can not be considered as operational by any conventional standards.

Until it is a deployment of these weapons to Eastern Europe is not wise. The American taxpayer would be as well served by Congress wheeling $150 Billion out to the front of the Capitol Building and having a bonfire with it.

The technology is feasable. I have never disputed that. Read closer.

Yes you have, now you are a liar as well.

But feasable and operationally effective are two completely seperate and two vastly different things. Somebody of your apparent knowledge about this topic should see the difference between possible and practical.

The system has already been used to track North Korean Missile tests not to mention yet again the numerable successful tests.

Saying that the technology is feasable is like saying that Minuteman’s warhead WILL hit within 100 metres of a target versus saying it has a circular error probable of 100 meters, where it has a probability of hitting within said distance. The first claim is a wild boast. Sure you might get lucky and hit the bullseye so to speak. The second example comes from rigorous independent testing proven under operational conditions using representative kit. The Director of the MDA himself states that they still need to do this kind of testing in order to confirm that this whole thing will work.

Now you are talking about clausewitzian friction (clearly you have insufficient education to understand that), it effects all weapon systems but it does not effect all. One can never expect 100% effectiveness from anything but if it works the majority of the time it is sufficient. Will a rifle achieve 1MOA? Will an AShM aquire its target? will a AT missile motor fail? etc etc etc.

ABM is undergoing a constant process of testing and development that has already produced a working system yet you continue to deny reality.

The technology is feasable. I have never disputed that. Read closer. But feasable and operationally effective are two completely seperate and two vastly different things. Somebody of your apparent knowledge about this topic should see the difference between possible and practical.

Saying that the technology is feasable is like saying that Minuteman’s warhead WILL hit within 100 metres of a target versus saying it has a circular error probable of 100 meters, where it has a probability of hitting within said distance. The first claim is a wild boast. Sure you might get lucky and hit the bullseye so to speak. The second example comes from rigorous independent testing proven under operational conditions using representative kit. The Director of the MDA himself states that they still need to do this kind of testing in order to confirm that this whole thing will work.

Great comeback. Articulate analysis of the issues.

Shall I continue???

…Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important part of maturing the system. We have been fielding test assets in increasingly operational configurations in order to conduct increasingly complex and end-to-end tests of the system. Comprehensive ground tests of the elements and components precede each flight test. Our flight tests increasingly introduce operational realism, limited by environmental and safety concerns….

Testimony of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III, USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, April 30, 2008

Acknowledgement by the director of the program that it has had not enough operational testing.

None of your boasting about this , using your words here, “proven technology” assure anybody that it will work. How about adressing that question?

You can carry on until you are blue in the face but it is completely meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a technology that has already intercepted ballistic missile targets does not work. And you can not do that, hence why you make posts that state that testing is important………well duh.

Great comeback. Articulate analysis of the issues.

Shall I continue???

…Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important part of maturing the system. We have been fielding test assets in increasingly operational configurations in order to conduct increasingly complex and end-to-end tests of the system. Comprehensive ground tests of the elements and components precede each flight test. Our flight tests increasingly introduce operational realism, limited by environmental and safety concerns….

Testimony of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III, USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, April 30, 2008

Acknowledgement by the director of the program that it has had not enough operational testing.

None of your boasting about this , using your words here, “proven technology” assure anybody that it will work. How about adressing that question?

American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2008 – Anticipated budget constraints and the growing threat posed by rogue nations make it more important than ever that future U.S. missile defense tests be operationally focused, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, General Renuart said today.

This implies previous tests were not operationally focused….from the horses mouth.

Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, which publishes the monthly journal Arms Control Today.

He states in the Washington Times on November 20th 2008:

“…The interceptors since 1999 have only scored seven hits against targets in 12 highly scripted tests; only two of those successes have occurred since the initial deployment of the three stage inteceptors…”

and he goes on to state:”… A decision on new deployments of strategic missile interceptors can be deferred until the system is proven effective through realistic tests and has the full support of U.S. allies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration should engage in serious talks with Russia’s leaders to explore alternatives or, at a minimum, achieve a mutual understanding on the eventual size and capability of U.S. strategic missile defenses. The two sides also should launch a joint diplomatic strategy to curb global missile proliferation. A more balanced, nonideological approach to U.S. missile defense policy is long overdue….”

The Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-467 SP, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” was released on March 31, 2008.

It stated that only 1 of the 16 KKV critical technologies is mature.

And in Government Accountability Office Report Number GAO-08-506T, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of DOD Efforts to Enhance Missile Defense Capabilities and Oversight” was released on February 26, 2008, it was stated that:

In the past year, MDA has fielded additional and new assets, enhanced the capability of some existing assets, and achieved most test objectives. However, MDA did not meet the goals it originally set for the block. Ultimately, MDA fielded fewer assets, increased costs by about $1 billion and conducted fewer tests. Even with the cost increase, MDA deferred work to keep costs from increasing further, as some contractors overran their fiscal year 2007 budgets. Deferring work obscures the cost of the block because such work is no longer counted as part of Block 2006. The cost of the block may have been further obscured by a way of planning work used by several contractors that could underestimate the actual work completed. If more work has to be done, MDA could incur additional costs that are not yet recognized. MDA also sets goals for determining the overall performance of the BMDS. Similar to other DOD programs, MDA uses models and simulations to predict BMDS performance. We were unable to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance. Moreover, the tests done to date have been developmental in nature, and do not provide sufficient realism for DOD’s test and evaluation Director to determine whether BMDS is suitable and effective for battle. GAO has previously reported that MDA has been given unprecedented funding and decision-making flexibility. While this flexibility has expedited BMDS fielding, it has also made MDA less accountable and transparent in its decisions than other major programs, making oversight more challenging.

Numerable successful tests you say? Your own government states that they are too few in number and the General in charge of the program overtly states that many of the tests to date have not been reasonably realistic and need to be more so going forward.

At the end of the day it is America’s money, security and credibility. If you wish to deploy something that has not been operationally certified to any significant degree admitted to by even the General in charge of the program, it’s all good.

And none of that says the technology does not work.:rolleyes:

Your rubbish has been debunked by multiple members of this forum. The technology is proven as is shown by the numerable successful tests.:rolleyes:

Silly troll.

American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2008 – Anticipated budget constraints and the growing threat posed by rogue nations make it more important than ever that future U.S. missile defense tests be operationally focused, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, General Renuart said today.

This implies previous tests were not operationally focused….from the horses mouth.

Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, which publishes the monthly journal Arms Control Today.

He states in the Washington Times on November 20th 2008:

“…The interceptors since 1999 have only scored seven hits against targets in 12 highly scripted tests; only two of those successes have occurred since the initial deployment of the three stage inteceptors…”

and he goes on to state:”… A decision on new deployments of strategic missile interceptors can be deferred until the system is proven effective through realistic tests and has the full support of U.S. allies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration should engage in serious talks with Russia’s leaders to explore alternatives or, at a minimum, achieve a mutual understanding on the eventual size and capability of U.S. strategic missile defenses. The two sides also should launch a joint diplomatic strategy to curb global missile proliferation. A more balanced, nonideological approach to U.S. missile defense policy is long overdue….”

The Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-467 SP, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” was released on March 31, 2008.

It stated that only 1 of the 16 KKV critical technologies is mature.

And in Government Accountability Office Report Number GAO-08-506T, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of DOD Efforts to Enhance Missile Defense Capabilities and Oversight” was released on February 26, 2008, it was stated that:

In the past year, MDA has fielded additional and new assets, enhanced the capability of some existing assets, and achieved most test objectives. However, MDA did not meet the goals it originally set for the block. Ultimately, MDA fielded fewer assets, increased costs by about $1 billion and conducted fewer tests. Even with the cost increase, MDA deferred work to keep costs from increasing further, as some contractors overran their fiscal year 2007 budgets. Deferring work obscures the cost of the block because such work is no longer counted as part of Block 2006. The cost of the block may have been further obscured by a way of planning work used by several contractors that could underestimate the actual work completed. If more work has to be done, MDA could incur additional costs that are not yet recognized. MDA also sets goals for determining the overall performance of the BMDS. Similar to other DOD programs, MDA uses models and simulations to predict BMDS performance. We were unable to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance. Moreover, the tests done to date have been developmental in nature, and do not provide sufficient realism for DOD’s test and evaluation Director to determine whether BMDS is suitable and effective for battle. GAO has previously reported that MDA has been given unprecedented funding and decision-making flexibility. While this flexibility has expedited BMDS fielding, it has also made MDA less accountable and transparent in its decisions than other major programs, making oversight more challenging.

Numerable successful tests you say? Your own government states that they are too few in number and the General in charge of the program overtly states that many of the tests to date have not been reasonably realistic and need to be more so going forward.

At the end of the day it is America’s money, security and credibility. If you wish to deploy something that has not been operationally certified to any significant degree admitted to by even the General in charge of the program, it’s all good.

Debunked by whom??? You??? Spare me…..

Two stages from three and integrating new radars for a start are not a “…relatively minor change…”. And when have the Fort Greeley missiles suddenly become “…already proven technology…”??? Proven because they are deployed? You simply do not get where the skeptics are coming from. The original technology was deployed in lieu of proper testing and threat assessments for ideological reasons. Try as you might it can’t be spun any other way. This is the least tested and proven significant weapons system to be deployed by the American military in a generation. And because you so love the last word sealordlawrence I await your slagging with baited breath.

Your rubbish has been debunked by multiple members of this forum. The technology is proven as is shown by the numerable successful tests.:rolleyes:

Silly troll.

Because you have yet to make any reasonable suggestion why a relatively minor change to already proven technology will fail. All you have is your own repeatedly debunked nonsense.

Debunked by whom??? You??? Spare me…..

Two stages from three and integrating new radars for a start are not a “…relatively minor change…”. And when have the Fort Greeley missiles suddenly become “…already proven technology…”??? Proven because they are deployed? You simply do not get where the skeptics are coming from. The original technology was deployed in lieu of proper testing and threat assessments for ideological reasons. Try as you might it can’t be spun any other way. This is the least tested and proven significant weapons system to be deployed by the American military in a generation. And because you so love the last word sealordlawrence I await your slagging with baited breath.

Second the motion on this one.

I understand philosophical differences between people when it comes to the need for this system, the threat assessment and whether the deployment will or will not help the US become safer.

But I do not understand how people on either side of this contentions issue would be against adequate testing of exceedingly expensive & technologically challenging kit. Putting aside everything else, without proper testing how can the American taxpayer be able to understand if they are being sold a bill of goods by an unscrupulous contractor or not? It has certainly happened before and the testing regime is there to at least provide some oversight to the work of the contractors. I would submit that right now every other argument for and against this deployment is moot until the testing issue is addressed.

Because you have yet to make any reasonable suggestion why a relatively minor change to already proven technology will fail. All you have is your own repeatedly debunked nonsense.