Intercept fails in Hawaii missile defense test

• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-04 04:12

  The Associated Press
  Posted : Thursday Sep 1, 2011 16:50:05 EDT
  
  HONOLULU — The military says an interceptor missile failed to shoot down its intended target during a test off Hawaii.
  
  The Missile Defense Agency said Thursday a SM-3 missile fired from the guided-missile cruiser Lake Erie off Kauai failed to shoot down a short-range ballistic missile that had been launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island.
  
  The test took place just before 4 a.m. local time Thursday.
  
  The agency said in a statement that officials would conduct an “extensive investigation” to determine the cause of the failure.
  
  The test was the first of a new version of the SM-3 interceptor missile called Block 1B. It has small rockets that adjust the interceptor depending on where the target is, enabling it to more precisely hone in on its target.

  
  
  More missile defence interceptor fail. It's surprising that they failed to shoot down a short range ballistic missile. And these are generally considered to be easier to hit than long range ICBMs due to their slower speeds. :S
  
  The missile shield development program is extremely expensive and extremely ineffective. ;( Sadly, it's a necessary avenue to pursue regardless.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-09-04 05:43
  Why is it a necessary avenue to pursue anyways?
• Yamsoup wrote on 2011-09-04 05:52

  Quote from EndlessDreams;577140:

  Why is it a necessary avenue to pursue anyways?

  
  
  In case some random country just decides to start war with the USA. =/
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-09-04 05:54

  more precisely hone in on its target

  
  Sweet.
• paladin wrote on 2011-09-04 05:58

  Quote from Yamsoup;577162:

  In case some random country just decides to start nuclear war with the USA. =/

  
  
  fixed
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-04 06:05

  Quote from EndlessDreams;577140:

  Why is it a necessary avenue to pursue anyways?

  
  
  Because it's the new leading edge weapon, essentially. Technology has progressed to the point where more and more potential enemies have access to nuclear armed ICBMs and it's no longer that amazing of an achievement. This puts two sides at a stalemate.
  
  The amount of R&D required to build an effective shield, however, is astronomically higher, meaning this is an area where a technologically advanced nation such as the US has an advantage over everyone else. Basically, you can nuke someone and then block any of their attempts to retaliate. Even if no nukes are fired, this improves your position in negotiations. x)
  
  Protection from the occasional North Korea-like whack job could help, too.
  
  One could argue that there are more pressing security threats at the moment, like terrorism. But you have to keep in mind that in order to build an effective missile defence shield, it is required to invest heavily into R&D over a prolonged period of time, so it's something you can't do at the last moment if you get yourself into a situation where you need it. This makes it easy to criticize the program as a massive waste of money, however.
• paladin wrote on 2011-09-04 06:10
  As the saying goes better safe then sorry
  Id rather waste cash then be the target of a nuclear,bio,or normal missle
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-09-05 15:56
  Hmm, keep at it Department of Defense. It would be nice if we could take money away from pointless wars and apply it more to missile defense systems.
  
  Don't forget Iran btw Yoorah, they are also a problem with their nukes.
  
  I'd like to feel safe knowing that the US has a nice missile defense shield to protect us.
  
  Reminds me of Regan's "Star Wars" presentation he had about building a missile defense system.