Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US general "very confident" on missile defense
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 06/22/06 | Jim Wolf

Posted on 06/23/2006 11:49:11 AM PDT by Brilliant

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Air Force general responsible for building a U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield on Friday voiced high confidence it could shoot down any U.S.-bound missile from North Korea, despite critics' doubts.

"From what I've seen from our testing from the last several years ... and what I know about the system and its capabilities, I'm very confident," Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering told reporters after a speech to a seminar.

Obering, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, declined to confirm reports that ground-based U.S. interceptor missiles had been put on alert for a possible effort to shoot down what U.S. officials say could be Pyongyang's first long-range missile firing in eight years.

But he said the array of interceptor missiles, satellites, radar stations and data relays had been moved from a test status to "operational" configuration many times since the end of 2004, when the initial elements were deployed.

A total of 11 interceptors are now in silos as part of a rudimentary, multibillion-dollar shield -- nine at Fort Greely, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The Pentagon has shot down mock warheads in five of 10 highly scripted intercept tests of the ground-based system. The United States has spent more than $92 billion on missile defense since then-President Ronald Reagan launched what critics called his "Star Wars" initiative in 1984.

'OUR REALITY NOW'

Obering's stated confidence contrasted with views of the Pentagon's own top weapons evaluator as well as those of many outside experts.

"As reported last year, there is insufficient evidence to support a confident assessment of limited defensive operations," David Duma, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, wrote in an annual report to Congress on U.S. weapons dated February 1.

Obering said Duma's staff was coming at it "from a different perspective -- how can you break the system, what are the limits?"

"I'm telling you what is our reality now," he said.

Victoria Sampson of the private Center for Defense Information, which has been critical of the program, defended Duma's assessment.

"The operational testers do come at the problem from a different angle: their focus is to test the program as realistically as possible, while that approach seems to be an anathema to the rest of the Pentagon," she said.

Richard Lehner, a Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said Obering based his confidence on four consecutive successful intercept tests in 2001 and 2002.

"The bulk of the know-how gleaned from those tests is what's deployed today, which is why we have a high confidence in our capability," he said.

Boeing Co. is the prime contractor for the ground-based system, designed to shoot down incoming warheads in the middle of their flight, as they course through space. Other big U.S. missile-defense contractors include Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Raytheon Co.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: boeing; intercept; jungil; lockheedmartin; miltech; missile; northkorea; northrupgrumman; proliferation; raytheon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2006 11:49:13 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

confidence...

with 78,85,92.5 or 95 percent confidence?


2 posted on 06/23/2006 11:53:28 AM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Reagan Addressing the Nation on National Security (SDI Speech) 03/23/1983

3 posted on 06/23/2006 11:54:06 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The Pentagon has shot down mock warheads in five of 10 highly scripted intercept tests of the ground-based system. The United States has spent more than $92 billion on missile defense since then-President Ronald Reagan launched what critics called his "Star Wars" initiative in 1984.

Don'tcha just love when journalists put on the green eyeshades and play CPA when it comes to Ballistic Missile Defense? Look at all the money that they are shoveling into New Orleans since Katrina. What if New Orleans were a smoking hole and clicking-hot with radioactive debris? Frankly, $92 Billion is a bargain if it works, and that counts DETERENCE.

4 posted on 06/23/2006 11:54:19 AM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Thank you President Ronald W. Reagan and President George W. Bush!


5 posted on 06/23/2006 11:57:33 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Former SAC Trained Killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I think I'd rather get the opinion of the Young Airman or junior officers that have to pull the trigger on that thing.


6 posted on 06/23/2006 11:59:00 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: himno hero

I think that they feel that a missile intercept that works well enough so that there is something left of the US after the first wave of missiles arrive will be sufficient. I suspect their logic is that all they've gotta do is leave doubt in the attacker's mind that they will be able to completely wipe us out. If they can't, then the counter-attack will be fatal to them--and that is a certainty.


7 posted on 06/23/2006 12:00:05 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

I compared missile defense research and spending and the criticism to it to AIDS research and spending to a liberal. He didn't get it, even after several attempts.


8 posted on 06/23/2006 12:00:10 PM PDT by Crazieman (The Democratic Party: Culture of Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I'm wondering what is the purpose of Lil Kim's trip to Russia?

Is the reason for the trip a chance to get out of the country (bugging out) during the launch? Will he give a launch signal while he's gone and not be there to save face if it's shot down?

Or is he going there by Russian request and are they going to read him the riot act? Or is it because he's actually seeking THEIR advice?

9 posted on 06/23/2006 12:01:53 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

They say it shot down 5 of 10 missiles. But I'm betting most of the misses came in the earlier tests.


10 posted on 06/23/2006 12:02:04 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

I suspect that Kim is not going to be the Great Leader for long. I think the Russians and Chinese are finally beginning to catch on that this guy is dangerous to their health.


11 posted on 06/23/2006 12:03:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I guess 50% is better than 0%.

I'd rather see them more effective tho.


12 posted on 06/23/2006 12:10:13 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Brilliant

Genreal McInerny (Ret.) said on Hugh Hewitt that if we fired two missles at it he would estimate a 100% success rate.


14 posted on 06/23/2006 12:23:31 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

so-in the case of little kim wouldn't a pre emptive strike with 100% assurity make more sense? or take a 40% probability of losing L.A.? better call the terminator on that one!

if it was a 80% system perhaps it would make senxe to wipe the first shot and then krater korea.....probably more politically correct.


15 posted on 06/23/2006 1:34:13 PM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Brilliant
Richard Lehner, a Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said Obering based his confidence on four consecutive successful intercept tests in 2001 and 2002. "The bulk of the know-how gleaned from those tests is what's deployed today, which is why we have a high confidence in our capability," he said.

I support this system, but frankly I am concerned at the, shall we say, underwhelming degree of testing. This after having gone to the political trouble of junking the ABM Treaty. At least get serious about deployment. Don't do it on a shoestring. That could have serious negative reprecussions...if in a real-world situation...it lets us down. It would do lasting damage to the idea of missile defense.

This is the one thing that bothers me. The Administration has slow-walked and prevented the go ahead of serious heavy-duty testing. And the money was there. They just wouldn't spend it. Weird.

By way of contrast, I think it is valuable compare the sheer number of tests we did for the old Sprint "last-ditch" Interceptor which was tested to the "nth" degree...

Full scale testing of the Sprint and the MSR (Missile Site Radar) began in mid-1970, and the first successful intercept of a reentry vehicle by a Sprint occurred in December 1970. A total of about 50 flight tests, the majority being successful, were conducted between this date and December 1973.


17 posted on 06/26/2006 2:36:41 PM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The most recent test did not even launch. The system shut down due to a mechanical failure in the launch mechanism. The missile itself was fine. The mechanical problem has been resolved and that particular failure will not recur.


18 posted on 06/26/2006 2:41:04 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Sprint was amazing. Zero to mach 8 in one second. Not many gun systems can do that.


19 posted on 06/26/2006 2:42:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: himno hero
Recall all the "expert" Pentagon critics on the eve of the 1st Gulf War?

"The Apache helicopters would never work because in peacetime they were "grounded" for repairs 50% of the time."

"The Abrams tanks would never make it in the desert because the engines would fill with sand and all the high-tech gizmos would fail just like they did in training."

20 posted on 06/26/2006 2:49:35 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson