Interceptor Missile Passes Key Test

Destroys Mock Warhead In 'Most Operationally Realistic' U.S. Test Yet

(AP)  An interceptor missile destroyed a mock warhead over the Pacific Ocean on Friday in a key test of the nation's missile defense system, U.S. military officials said.

It was the most realistic test of the systems that would be used against an attack, said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner.

The 54-foot interceptor shot out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast at 10:39 a.m., 17 minutes after the mock warhead was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, Lehner said.

The interceptor carried a refrigerator-sized “kill vehicle” that locked on to the approaching mock enemy missile and flew into the 4-foot-long warhead at 18,000 mph.

Lehner said both disintegrated more than 100 miles above the Earth and a few hundred miles west of Vandenberg. The interceptor's flight lasted 13 minutes.

The $85 million test was designed to see whether the “kill vehicle” could get close to the warhead to test the tracking and sensor systems which would be used in an actual missile attack.

“It gave us a good chance to measure overall system performance. It was the most operationally realistic test we've had,” Lehner said.

The interceptor was launched by remote control from a command center in Colorado. The test also was the first use of an early warning radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., to provide the data required to put the interceptor on a proper path toward its target.

The test was a “total success,” Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, the agency director, told a Pentagon news conference.

“What we did today is a huge step in terms of our systematic approach to continuing to field, continuing to deploy and continuing to develop a missile defense system for the United States, for our allies, our friends, our deployed forces around the world,” Obering said.

Data from the test will take several weeks to review, Lehner said.

Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, said the demonstration was still far from replicating an actual missile attack, he said.

“They know the when, the where, the what (of the target missile) ... where it's coming from, the size of the warhead,” he said by phone from Maryland.

The launch was postponed from Thursday after fog socked in Kodiak Island. There was also fog over Vandenberg Friday morning but it burned off.

More than $100 billion has been spent on America's missile-defense system since 1983 and it has been the subject of criticism by those who call it a costly boondoggle. There also have been allegations that early tests were rigged or their success exaggerated. The Pentagon says the technology used in those tests is not part of the current research program.

Critics also argued early on that the end of the Cold War made a full-scale missile attack on the U.S. unlikely. Supporters say the U.S. still is vulnerable to missiles from rogue states.

In July, North Korea unsuccessfully test-fired a missile that was believed capable of reaching the northwestern U.S. coast.

When asked the odds of a U.S. interceptor being able to shoot down a North Korean missile using the existing missile defense system, Obering said the estimate is classified secret.

“But what I will tell you is that this test validated the confidence that I've expressed in the past with the performance of the system,” he said.

Asked whether he would rate the chances, broadly speaking, as excellent, good, fair or poor, Obering said, “I think we have a good chance. And it's one that I feel a lot safer and sleep a lot better at night.”

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in a statement that he was pleased but would leave it to the experts to characterize the details.

“While today's test was a success, the test program is by no means complete,” he said. “Tests will continue, some of which will be successful and some will not. This was a challenging test, and the tests will become even more challenging in the period ahead.”

There have been nine intercept tests since 1999, and five were successful in hitting the target, Lehner said. An actual intercept test was scheduled for the end of this year or in early 2007, he said.

Although Obering described the test as realistic, the target missile did not deploy decoys or other devices that might be aboard an actual long-range ballistic missile fired by an attacking country. Obering said decoys or other countermeasures might be added to the next test, scheduled for December.

[DBdweeb]

These demonstrations and the reports on them are merely a public relations exercise to get the public warmed up to the technology we already have. A great deal of the system is already in place and fully functional. In the vastness of the Nevada desert I personally witnessed the successful interception of a missle launched from Vandenberg 19 years ago.

[alphaa10-2009]

jdicecco-- As grazinggoat says, "doing nothing" is not what critics of the ABM system advise. Instead, they counsel-- (1) save money by not wasting tax dollars for no security gain (or even a net loss) and (2) spend the money where it can help create humanitarian good will for the US. Under Kennedy, America balanced both reasonable armed defense and the peaceful, humanitarian approaches, and began work to limit nuclear proliferation.

Under the Bush era, in contrast, America spends nearly a $1 trillion yearly on "defense"-- seven times what the PRC spends-- yet gets little respect. Nuclear proliferation gets scant attention from Bush, and is concidered a dead-letter area by Iran, Egypt, North Korea and others.

American prestige is at a historic low not seen since Vietnam, and not by coincidence, we do less international, humanitarian work than ever. This country was "least among the last" of wealthy nations to help with the Tsunami (Bush initially offered $400,000-- later boosted considerably under scathing criticism.

[grazinggoat]

This is simply looting the cashier. Why do we still need all this? Billion dollars spent into ineffective system? Why do we have so much fear from others? We are the most powerful in the world. Why do we have to protect again and again? The foes that we create by our foreign policy actions, will never stop to defeat our system and we're then obliged again to perform for improved, costier versions... we are falling into the same trap the superpowers were falling into, at times of nuclear armement buildup during the cold war. Why don't we stick to United Nations rules and laws and everybody will be happy?

Life could be nicier if peace could hold for a moment without having to oppress the others. Contributing to the well-being of humanity, instead of spending on those futile toys for serious colonels and generals, who need to impose on others their way of viewing life because they lack self-esteem, personnality and self-confidence.

[jdicecco]

The issues to be overcome are great as well as the costs. The alternative is to do nothing. We were lucky MAD worked with China and Russia. I would not bet again with North Korea and Iran.

[trgroupltd-2009]

This system will go the way of Nike Zeus and Sprint - expensive systems without worth. Anyone that understands the dynamics of a shotgun will understand that a MIRV'd warhead will easily defeat this expensive folly. (Not to mention 10 missiles carrying 10 decoys apiece, since reportedly there are only 11 "kill vehicles" available!) Even a warhead, as suggested by another reader, would be ineffective (a) against a MIRV'd bus platform since each of the warheads would be released at different points along the trajectory path and, (b) explosions in the vacuum of space do not have the same effect as explosions in the air of the atmosphere (little or no compression effects).

Probably the worst point about the deployed system is that it has some people believing that there really is a Santa Claus and they can factually run around trying to convince ordinary Americans that the nation is protected from ICBM threats.

[skywords]

This missile system is a boondogle it is dependant on a direct hit. It uses no warhead and yes maybe they have had some sucess but to consistantly relying on a pin point collision without a warhead is a folly. If even one gets by then a hundred thousand will die. A warhead is paramount in insuring sucess. We have been led astray with this multi billion dollar project. An 18,000 miles per hour head on collision in a four foot area is a lot to ask from any computer. I don't know about you but I preffer a much bigger safety margain. A near miss with a warhead would still get the job done. What are they thinking?

[alphaa10-2009]

<b>" ' It was the most realistic test of the systems that would be used against an attack,' said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner."</b>

Because missile defense is an ultra-serious matter, "most realistic" is not realistic enough. Unfortunately, the MDA statement becomes another deceitful attempt by Bush to steer public opinion with simplistic, relativistic notions.

The question remains, was the test all that realistic? The MDA statement tells us exactly nothing. In similar fashion, Bush wants to sell an ABM system without even a persuasive, standards-based proof-of-concept. His "Son of Star Wars" proposal is only that-- light-years removed from the kind of defense called into action on literally a moment's notice, with a fail-safe rate exceeding normal best-effort standards anywhere else. "Better" is simply not good enough, and the way to such a system is unknown.

And also clearly unwise. Previous administrations stopped development, realizing it made little sense to spend more money for less security. If everyone else has a shield or even claims to have a shield, Mutual Assured Destruction no longer applies. And instantly, the grim old nuclear arms race resumes all over the world, the worst of many awful legacies left by Bush and his Dr. Strangelovian neocon mentors.