* Massive battle in Najaf
* Another U.S. copter down
* G.I.s in last week’s crash, remembered
* Audio: Reporter’s Iraq heartbreak
* Tehran closes in
* 770 contractors dead since invasion
* Pentagon’s trash = cops’ treasure
* China hits target… on 43rd street
* Remote pilot crashes Predator
* THAAD hits again
* “Homebrew AT-ST walker teaches itself“
* Israeli military blocked missile-finder?
* USAF chief protects his purse
(Big ups: RC, AMP, Haninah)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Re: China hits target… on 43rd street
I’m not sure if I would consider the Standard article to have anything to do with either Defense or Tech. The article- which you need a membership to read, strangely enough- is just a complaint about the New York Times, and contains no new information.
So far, DefenseTech’s Rapid Fire page has been fat on fact and lean on gassy pundits. I hope that this article is not an indication of a trend to the contrary
re: China hitting its target
I was under the impression that nuclear weapon treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union were mostly honored by both sides. Can’t we expect a similar amount of bilateral compliance for an an anti-satellite weapon treaty? If so, then why shouldn’t we seek such a treaty?
THAAD
Ya know, every time a missile interceptor program has a bad day, we’re treated to a DefenseTech writeup absolutely ridiculing the notion of a missile defense shield. But those same voices are oddly absent when missile defense technology has a good day.
It does not go unnoticed.
J:
That would be sooooo true. As long as you don’t count posts like this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002733.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002579.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002690.html
…and this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001409.html
nms
John – You may see a lot of criticism lobbed at the constantly over-sold ground-based missile interceptors, but I think DT.org has been pretty quick to laud theater missile defense and sea-based interceptors.