Democrats were wrong yet again.

[Scout26]

Good thing Reagan had vision and that several Republican Congresses refused to let Clinton totally kill it. 

Imagine the sheissestorm if the Norks manage to loft one our way and there was nothing at Greeley (there are only four interceptors at Vandenburg) to stop them.  All those leftwing a-holes in LA and SF that want peace at any price would be so much radioactive fallout, which is a down side.

   
Anywho,
After doing this:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031612-604646-president-obama-guts-reagan-sdi-missile-defense.htm

He's probably hitting his knees every night hoping that it works.  Because, if G-d forbid, the Norks do nuke something in the US (and yes, Guam is part of the US).  He would be the most reviled president in history. 

[RoadKingLarry]

It would still be Bush's fault.

[Nick1911]

It would still be Bush's fault.

It still WILL be Bush's fault.

Public perception is malleable, objective reality doesn't matter as much as we'd like to think it does.

[AZRedhawk44]

Good thing Reagan had vision and that several Republican Congresses refused to let Clinton totally kill it. 

Imagine the sheissestorm if the Norks manage to loft one our way and there was nothing at Greeley (there are only four interceptors at Vandenburg) to stop them.  All those leftwing a-holes in LA and SF that want peace at any price would be so much radioactive fallout, which is a down side.

   
Anywho,
After doing this:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031612-604646-president-obama-guts-reagan-sdi-missile-defense.htm

He's probably hitting his knees every night hoping that it works.  Because, if G-d forbid, the Norks do nuke something in the US (and yes, Guam is part of the US).  He would be the most reviled president in history. 

By "interceptor" do you mean some sort of fighter aircraft capable of closing range with an ICBM and hitting it with an air-to-air missile?

I didn't know we had aircraft or aircraft-mounted weapons capable of that.  I thought ICBM's travelled upwards of 15,000 miles an hour, well above conventional aircraft altitude.

My understanding is that Patriot missile batteries only hit Mach 5, about 3000-3500 mph and a very short range.  Aegis destroyers have some sort of kinetic tomahawk variant capable of hitting satellites in orbit, and possibly ICBM's, right?

[MechAg94]

They don't go that fast at first.  However, I think the Navy and the anti-ballistic missile stuff the Air Force has are for the warhead coming back down.  They can only hit the booster rocket if they are close enough.  I don't know if they can hit it in low orbit or not. 

I thought they canceled that airborne laser did they not? 

[BobR]

I thought they canceled that airborne laser did they not?

It is living out in the desert now. No sense in letting a successful program continue.



http://gizmodo.com/5939593/the-awesome-5+billion-airborne-laser-is-in-the-boneyard-never-to-fire-again

http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_altb.html

bob

[HankB]

By "interceptor" do you mean some sort of fighter aircraft capable of closing range with an ICBM and hitting it with an air-to-air missile?

I didn't know we had aircraft or aircraft-mounted weapons capable of that.  I thought ICBM's travelled upwards of 15,000 miles an hour, well above conventional aircraft altitude.

My understanding is that Patriot missile batteries only hit Mach 5, about 3000-3500 mph and a very short range.  Aegis destroyers have some sort of kinetic tomahawk variant capable of hitting satellites in orbit, and possibly ICBM's, right?

Tomahawks are cruise missiles - low altitude, relatively slow. The interceptor the Navy used to knock down a satellite a few years back is a development of the Standard Missile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

The Patriot Pac 3 also has some ABM capability.

[Gewehr98]

The YAL-1 (aka, Airborne Laser) was designed to hit TBMs (smaller tactical ballistic missiles) during the boost phase, shortly after clearing their launch towers.

The laser is focused on the thin skin of the missile body, burning or weakening the structure just enough to cause a catastrophic rupture.

That's the measure of success for this program, killing a TBM from a standoff range of several hundred miles.

My agency played a big role in the development of the YAL-1, and our inside joke was that they may as well paint a big bullseye on the side of that converted 747-400F.

In the end it was $6 billion over budget when killed, nowhere near operational or even statistically successful.

There were even threats of Arms Control Treaty complaints enroute, because that big turret could be swiveled downwards to engage ground targets or upwards to engage satellites.

The Navy has picked up the ball now with their Free Electron Laser program.

  

[Fitz]

The Navy has picked up the ball now with their Free Electron Laser program.

  

:-D

[Scout26]

By "interceptor" do you mean some sort of fighter aircraft capable of closing range with an ICBM and hitting it with an air-to-air missile?

No.  The Ground Launched missiles are referred to a interceptors.