Comments on: Missile Defense Scores … Finally

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:26:36 +0000

Defence contracts — nice work if you can get it!

By: Jaye

Jaye — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:29:19 +0000

Wrong again people! “The Patriot Act” is the best ABM defense there is. I have been living under it for years and no Missiles have hit me yet!True story!

By: Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:03:07 +0000

Correction: THAAD hit twice in 1999. Odd that I should have forgotten, given that I observed the second one.

By: Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:02:43 +0000

Oh, and regarding “finally”: THAAD hit twice back in 1998, after which they decided to move on to the objective system design.

By: david petree

david petree — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:25:21 +0000

if THADD is acousin to Patriot we all might as well dig our holes a littel deeper. Patriot could not get out the tube consistely,or go where it was to go. why should we trust THADD?

By: Jaye

Jaye — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:42:11 +0000

The movie “Spys like us” deals with the real Star Wars. So big deal, if North Korea launches a few large missiles at Japan as long as no Americans are hurt so what? We still owe Japan for our WW2 POWs and for Unit 731 in China and the Bataan Death March and my TV/VCR Combo that went bad in less then a year! Saki it up Tokyo, kind of feels like Pearl Harbor don’t it? You no likey huh?

By: Oz

Oz — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:55:29 +0000

“I would like to know how an ICBM is somehow so different a target than a medium range ballistic missile? They both do the same things, once just goes farther.“
And higher. Higher = greater reentry speed. In the order of 6 km/s (Mach 17) for ICBMs. Add full scale decoys, chaff, multiple warheads, etc. and it’s like trying to hit a needle in a haystack with another needle while the haystack is speeding towards you at 17 times the speed of sound.

By: Kaltes

Kaltes — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:18:06 +0000

“THAAD is expected to complement the PAC-3 (Patriot) interceptor in providing terminal-phase defense against short– and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. In other words, it might take out Scuds and maybe even Taepodongs, but don’t expect to knock down ICBMs.“
WHAT? The THAAD has been designed to knock down ICBMs, the only reason shorter range missile are discussed is that the MILITARY requirement for missile defense is against these short/medium range missiles and not ICBMs. Defense against ICBMs is a more controversial political subject.
I would like to know how an ICBM is somehow so different a target than a medium range ballistic missile? They both do the same things, once just goes farther. The THAAD was never designed to stop an all-out cold war style nuclear attack, it was designed to provide missile defense against the “rouge nations”, the nations who are only capable of firing a limited number of single warhead missiles.
I am glad that THAAD was not killed in its crib as many so-called “experts” have wanted. Same with the Osprey. Yet time and time again the so-called (anti) defense experts are proven wrong.

By: Evan

Evan — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:56:40 +0000

Byron, those homing devices were utilized because there was no radar integrated with the system. This test involved radar, so there was no homing device.

By: DS

DS — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:41:02 +0000

It’s just a matter of time before any accurate information about these test results will be unobtainable. Would you want the enemy knowing the limits of your homeleand defense mechanism? Who knows, the cover-ups may have already begun. Not that I have a problem with that…as long as money for that project is being spent on THAT project.