May 25, 200620 yr here Can someone enlighten me as to why shooting down a ballistic missile in its "final seconds of flight" versus further away is a good thing? I can see as a last defense against missiles which have gotten through the longer range defenses, but any type of "weapons of mass effects - WME" warhead such as chemical or biological agents would still be dispersed over a wide area by the destruction of the missile.
May 25, 200620 yr Pete, I don't think its "better" per se. That part just sounds like media spin. More likely it's a function of the performance of the SM-2 Block IV against ballistic missiles, i.e. interception is only possible in the final seconds of flight. As for effect against WMD, that's a real technical question (one for which I am probably not qualified), but three considerations come to mind: (1) its better than no interception at all (2) the interception still occurs at high enough altitude that a chemical or biological agent would be destroyed or neutralized in the atmosphere (3) the interception would occur at sea, so that any dispersed chemical or biological agent should fall "harmlessly" into the ocean Make sense ? (I should add that, afaik, the Block IV entered service in August 1999, and had already intercepted a ballistic missile (a Lance) during testing in 1997).
May 25, 200620 yr Author As for effect against WMD, that's a real technical question (one for which I am probably not qualified), but three considerations come to mind: (1) its better than no interception at all (2) the interception still occurs at high enough altitude that a chemical or biological agent would be destroyed or neutralized in the atmosphere (3) the interception would occur at sea, so that any dispersed chemical or biological agent should fall "harmlessly" into the ocean A completely unqualified, but whole-hearted AGREED. Just don't see the reason for all the hoopla, "Gee this is great!"
Create an account or sign in to comment