9 ms·

It reached a 50% success rate in 2005 and since then, hard data has been hard to come by. We are talking about classified military projects. It wouldn't surpris

It reached a 50% success rate in 2005 and since then, hard data has been hard to come by. We are talking about classified military projects. It wouldn't surprise me if what "everyone already knows" based on 90s news stories is wrong in 2019.

nradov 7y ago
The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has conducted 9 live fire tests since it became operational in 2005 and 6 were successful (67% success rate). The data is publicly released and easy to find. https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf
- jackpirate 7y ago
  Those tests are also highly contrived and do not match real world scenarios. Experts mostly agree that ICBM intercept capabilities remain essentially untested, and are likely to fail in the real world. The armscontrolwonk.com blog site has tons of relevant articles from defense experts explaining the limitations of current missile defense: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+missile+defense https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+m... The tl;dr is that it's all advertising.
  - nradov 7y ago
    It doesn't have to actually work reliably. It just has to present the appearance of possibly working some of the time in order to complicate an adversary's targeting plan and act as an effective deterrent.
    - phkahler 7y ago
      >> It just has to present the appearance of possibly working some of the time in order to... I though that was going to say "... ensure continued funding." Why would I think that?
  - will4274 7y ago
    From what I can see from your link, the agreement seems to be that intercept capabilities are useful for outlier adversaries like Iran and North Korea, but not for major adversaries like Russia or China. Fwiw, I tend to think that linking to a page of Google results rather than a specific article doesn't contribute much to the conversation. A specific link would be a better contribution. You might also make some argument as to why this blog and its authors are credible sources.
- nabla9 7y ago
  GMD is only against small attack with limited warheads. North Korea or Iran type scenario. It's also the official purpose of the program. Russians and Chinese have multiple ways to counter GMD. - Countermeasures that are indistinguishable from warheads during mid-course. Extremely light with same temperature as the warhead can't be distinguished from real warhead in vacuum. The number of interceptors required becomes prohibitively expensive. - R-36 has 8000 kg throw weight, it can launch 4000 kg to LEO. Reducing the number of warheads enables Russian use trajectories where GMD don't reach. Latest versions carry just one.

nradov 7y ago

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has conducted 9 live fire tests since it became operational in 2005 and 6 were successful (67% success rate). The data is publicly released and easy to find. https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf

jackpirate 7y ago
Those tests are also highly contrived and do not match real world scenarios. Experts mostly agree that ICBM intercept capabilities remain essentially untested, and are likely to fail in the real world. The armscontrolwonk.com blog site has tons of relevant articles from defense experts explaining the limitations of current missile defense: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+missile+defense https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmscontrolwonk.com+m... The tl;dr is that it's all advertising.
- nradov 7y ago
  It doesn't have to actually work reliably. It just has to present the appearance of possibly working some of the time in order to complicate an adversary's targeting plan and act as an effective deterrent.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> It just has to present the appearance of possibly working some of the time in order to... I though that was going to say "... ensure continued funding." Why would I think that?
- will4274 7y ago
  From what I can see from your link, the agreement seems to be that intercept capabilities are useful for outlier adversaries like Iran and North Korea, but not for major adversaries like Russia or China. Fwiw, I tend to think that linking to a page of Google results rather than a specific article doesn't contribute much to the conversation. A specific link would be a better contribution. You might also make some argument as to why this blog and its authors are credible sources.
nabla9 7y ago
GMD is only against small attack with limited warheads. North Korea or Iran type scenario. It's also the official purpose of the program. Russians and Chinese have multiple ways to counter GMD. - Countermeasures that are indistinguishable from warheads during mid-course. Extremely light with same temperature as the warhead can't be distinguished from real warhead in vacuum. The number of interceptors required becomes prohibitively expensive. - R-36 has 8000 kg throw weight, it can launch 4000 kg to LEO. Reducing the number of warheads enables Russian use trajectories where GMD don't reach. Latest versions carry just one.