Missile Defense System Earns Putin's Ire

By popsci Posted 06.04.2007 at 4:49 pm 9 Comments

A GMD interceptor rocket on the launch pad.
Photo: Missile Defense Agency

Protesters in Europe are rallying today against Bush Administration plans to build missile-defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his nation will take “retaliatory steps” if the U.S. proceeds with these plans. But would such a system even work?

In theory, the system would destroy an incoming missile by intercepting it mid-course with a rocket carrying a “kill vehicle.” But critics have likened this method to hitting a bullet with a bullet—no easy task.

The Pentagon’s most recent test of the technology, originally scheduled for last year but delayed until May 25, was an embarrassment. The “attack” missile, carrying a dummy warhead, fell so far short of its target that the interceptor missile was never launched.

There has been only one successful intercept test since 2002. Last September, an interceptor fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California took down a dummy missile over the South Pacific. Critics say these tests aren’t realistic because they are carefully scripted, leaving little chance for the interceptor to be fooled by a decoy.

Even if the missile-defense system planned for eastern Europe works perfectly, it may not protect eastern Europe from missiles. Such a system is designed for high-altitude interceptions, so it works best when positioned between the launch site and the target, rather than near the target. That’s why U.S. missile-defense facilities are located on the California and Alaska coasts rather than inland.

The eastern European missile-defense system is intended to serve as a shield for the U.S., not Europe. So why would Poland and the Czech Republic want such a system? Because a U.S. military base on their soil may be the best protection of all. —Dawn Stover

Previous Article: Rocket Racing League Hitting the Skids?

Next Article: One Step Forward, One Step Back

9 Comments

link to this comment

popsci

06/09/07 at 5:28 pm

It is painfull that America expents a lot of money insuflating conflicts instead of promoting peace. Is this Busch administration creating any future for the americans? or Is he building the path for more conflicts and sufferings?
Please, think on that.

link to this comment

popsci

06/10/07 at 5:47 pm

Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex.

This missile defence shield will never really work. It a is useless waste of american taxpayers money, especially if you fire 5-10 missiles all at the same target.

Sitting down, talking, making peace, building and forging strong strong aliances is much cheaper than arming and going to war. We are already $600 billion deep in Iraq... all for nothing.

But Defence contractors stand to make HUGE profits. This is exactly what Eisenhower was talking about!!!

Do a YouTube search for Eisenhower.

link to this comment

popsci

06/11/07 at 11:03 am

We have to deal with a missile threat in some way. Negotiations are by far the best way to go, but it’s hard to negotiate with a radical group bent on western annihilation.

It would irresponsible of our government not to deal with the problem, but the way they are headed now it just plain dumb.

They need to find a better system, that much is certain.

link to this comment

popsci

06/11/07 at 6:55 pm

The missile defense system is not a threat to Russia and they know it. They are saying this so they can start building more ballistic missiles and sell them to people that will use them. besides oil and gas Russia’s only other exports are weapons.

this also allows Putin to APPOINT the Defense secretary as the next President of Russia

link to this comment

popsci

06/12/07 at 4:25 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU

I mean, we need missles for what?

link to this comment

popsci

06/12/07 at 10:36 pm

The whole business is just nasty. Russia can outlaunch missile defense systems if they want to. If we had every anti-missile in the world pointed at Russia, they just have too many. It's a lose-lose situation. the only viable solution is getting rid of the problem. I'm thinking a massive buyout of Russian Nukes.

link to this comment

popsci

06/13/07 at 3:44 pm

Why must we keep on repeating history? This sounds just like the Cuban missile crises before you know it some one is going to put missiles near us and the cold war starts all over again. The missiles are not ready yet for the United States to be setting them up all over the world. I sure that after a while they will get all the bugs out of the system and it will work fine, but it going to take time, a lot of time.

link to this comment

popsci

06/14/07 at 5:07 pm

Why does my country need missile defense system in eastern europe, and ever so close to Russia. By the way, Russia and the U.S. aren't allies or even friends, we only tolerate each other for the time being.
For every action, there is an opposite but completely equal reaction. Now why can't our leaders keep this in mind when they to each other, or do they really "talk" as they say they do.
This missile shield malarkey, what is the true intent behind it? Could it be another veil, another illusion to hide what our "leaders" are really doing. War is business after all. Eisenhower did warn us of the "Military Industrial Complex", and doesn't business translate directly to. . . Industry!

link to this comment

popsci

07/08/07 at 7:31 pm

First off, i agree with everyone who decries the missiles. A biti said-and-done now, but still, the principle. I already posted, so I'll trynot to waste to many KB. And come on! Damocles? SOMEONE has been reading a little too much Orson scott card.