U.S. Ballistic Missile Shield Incapable to Defend Against a Real Attack

[Larry Dighera]

The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said. A
technical analysis found "no basis for believing the system will
have any capability to defend against a real attack," the Union
of Concerned Scientists said in a 76-page report titled
"Technical Realities." The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency
rejected the report. "It will provide a defense against
incoming missiles for the first time in this country's
history," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman. BOEING CO.
is assembling the shield, which would use the interceptors to
launch "kill vehicles" meant to pulverize targets in the
midcourse of their flight paths, outside the Earth's
atmosphere. Using infrared sensors, the vehicles would search
the chill of space for the warheads. So far, the interceptors
have scored hits five times in eight highly controlled tests.
(Reuters 10:00 AM ET 05/13/2004)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=960711&m=1006240a3fac905026034a&s=rb040513

================================================== ==============

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
>start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
>any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said.


Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
report.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
> >start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
> >any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said.
>
>
> Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
> report.

The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed
to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come
out with a report like this.

I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical
solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the
typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and
never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:07:23 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:56:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
>> >start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
>> >any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said.
>>
>>
>> Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
>> report.
>
>The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed
>to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come
>out with a report like this.

Here's the web page:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1403

>I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical
>solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the
>typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and
>never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take?

You can examine the full report here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1403#Top
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:07:23 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >The so-called "Union of Concerned Scientists " has been politically opposed
> >to the missile shield since day one. It's no surprise that they would come
> >out with a report like this.
>
> Here's the web page:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1403
>
> >I wonder, if they're so 'concerned', did they also provide any technical
> >solutions to the problems they supposedly found, or did they take the
> >typical defeatist "It's impossible and will never work so just give up and
> >never try again" attitude that most opponents of the missile shield take?
>
> You can examine the full report here:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1403#Top

The *really* funny part is that they keep unfavorably comparing the new
missile defense system to the one the Clinton administration was working
on (that the UCS also didn't like when it was on the boards, but which
is apparently now the "gold standard").

There's a lot of handwaving in the UCS report, most of which is "we're
not sure they can ever fix the US BMD system, but we are sure that
places like North Korea will easily handle the similar technical
problems inherent in making useful decoys without significant research
efforts, and it won't impact their missile payloads, even though nobody
else has demonstrated such countermeasures without a lot of missile
flights."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Cub Driver]

>>The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
>>start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
>>any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said.
>
>
>Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
>report.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> >Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
> >report.
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps?

Yup. The same folks who have been telling us to listen to them for most
of the Cold War, and who have been wrong for almost the whole time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:48:46 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>>The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to
>>>start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down
>>>any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said.
>>
>>
>>Which only goes to show you the quality of "scientists" writing the
>>report.
>
>The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps?

Oh I don't doubt they are scientists but they are scientists with an
agenda. Would you consider a scientist that is incapable of being
objective a *good* scientist?