Comments on: Thursday’s Roll-up of Missile Defense News http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/07/19/thursdays-roll-up-of-missile-defense-news Looking for clues at the scene of the crime Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:25:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Steeljawscribe http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/07/19/thursdays-roll-up-of-missile-defense-news/comment-page-1#comment-249 Steeljawscribe Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:32:00 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/07/19/thursdays-roll-up-of-missile-defense-news/#comment-249 Well, in DC one is continually girding one's loins for the budget wars - current and future (especially if my in boxes today are any indication :shock: ), but I would submit that the fundamental difference between the BMDS of 2007 and the SDI of 1987 (I hated the 'Star Wars' moniker BTW) is that it is continuing to lay a foundation of proof for viability and capabilty across a range of coverage - boost, mid-course and terminal phases (though more so in the later two). The other factor is SDI was sold as a shield against the Soviets - with 10,000+ warheads in their inventory alone at the time, that was unrealistic. The BMDS of today is not being sold as a shield against Russian ICBM's - there remain too many missiles and the system would be overwhelmed. What has substantially changed in the last 20-years is the 2nd- and 3rd tier threats as manifested by China, North Korea and Iran (and if Hugo, "Don't Call Me 'Hewgo' Chavez gets his hands on some Sahab-II's from his Iranian buds, we'd be facing an additional threat from the south...) with a smaller attacking force going after a few targets, now we're looking at a real capability which will grow more robust in terms of sensors and shooters in over the course of the FYDP. Surprisingly, one finds tacit support for the program even among certain Democrats whom one wouldn't normally attribute support to - to a large degree because of the demonstrated capabilities with 28 out of 36 tests successful (and some of the delta of 8 are because of failure of the target). -SJS Well, in DC one is continually girding one’s loins for the budget wars – current and future (especially if my in boxes today are any indication :shock: ), but I would submit that the fundamental difference between the BMDS of 2007 and the SDI of 1987 (I hated the ‘Star Wars’ moniker BTW) is that it is continuing to lay a foundation of proof for viability and capabilty across a range of coverage – boost, mid-course and terminal phases (though more so in the later two). The other factor is SDI was sold as a shield against the Soviets – with 10,000+ warheads in their inventory alone at the time, that was unrealistic. The BMDS of today is not being sold as a shield against Russian ICBM’s – there remain too many missiles and the system would be overwhelmed. What has substantially changed in the last 20-years is the 2nd- and 3rd tier threats as manifested by China, North Korea and Iran (and if Hugo, “Don’t Call Me ‘Hewgo’ Chavez gets his hands on some Sahab-II’s from his Iranian buds, we’d be facing an additional threat from the south…) with a smaller attacking force going after a few targets, now we’re looking at a real capability which will grow more robust in terms of sensors and shooters in over the course of the FYDP. Surprisingly, one finds tacit support for the program even among certain Democrats whom one wouldn’t normally attribute support to – to a large degree because of the demonstrated capabilities with 28 out of 36 tests successful (and some of the delta of 8 are because of failure of the target).
-SJS

]]> By: styler http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/07/19/thursdays-roll-up-of-missile-defense-news/comment-page-1#comment-248 styler Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:03:54 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/07/19/thursdays-roll-up-of-missile-defense-news/#comment-248 [Deborah wrote:] "...but I can’t help thinking that until such a weapon system, aircraft, or anything new for the Military is in actual use then the public doesn’t need to know." Remember what a hard sell "Star Wars" was to a previous Congress? I suspect some of this is prep for a future budget war. [Deborah wrote:] “…but I can’t help thinking that until such a weapon system, aircraft, or anything new for the Military is in actual use then the public doesn’t need to know.”

Remember what a hard sell “Star Wars” was to a previous Congress? I suspect some of this is prep for a future budget war.

]]>