Post title of the week


Defense Tech:

Missile Defense booster fails to rise to the occasion.

The Missile Defense Agency’s Integrated Flight Test (IFT)-13C was aborted “after the interceptor missile experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched.” The target, perhaps representing a North Korean ICBM hurtling toward a U.S. city, performed flawlessly.

As I wrote over a year ago,

While we’re at it, why don’t we award [the test vehicle manufacturer] the contract for the next ICBM? We’ve proven over and over again that their test vehicles can’t be shot down. Let’s put that experience to use.

Those target vehicles are untouchable. Put a big bomb on one, and we’re in business.

Seriously, though, we should all be concerned about the National Missile Defense situation. I totally 100% believe in the concept, and I am very happy to continue to funnel money into the project.

Unlike the F/A-22 fighter or the Comanche helicopter, this system could provide immediate, real-world, important results that cannot be achieved with existing systems. I don’t care if 398 trillion dollars goes down that hole. If San Diego avoids the Hiroshima treatment because of it, it will be the money best spent. Ever.

It’s just getting to the point where the damn thing works that seems to be the problem. I mean, the interceptor didn’t even miss, like it usually does. It didn’t even launch.

More commentary and links at Defense Tech. Follow the link at the top of the post.


  1. Good idea re. putting a bomb on the target missile. 😉 I want a vehicle called the ‘AMD target vehicle’ since I’d know nothing would ever run into it. BTW, scooped you again on this story (posting about it yesterday), but your source provides more details. We continue to be interested in the same things, which no doubt perpetuates the suspicion by many that MO and ACE are, in fact, the same person. Readers should ask themselves: Would a person post a comment to his own post? A normal person, that is? OK, I’ll look for proof elsewhere. ACE

  2. ACE: Actually, I did see your post on this earlier. I saw the story on some news site even before that and considered blogging it, but I’ve been short of time and let it pass. But the Defense Tech headline and the note about the performance of the target vehicle (which reminded me of my earlier post) made me touch on it anyway. And if you and I are the same guy, writing two different blogs and commenting back and forth to each other…we are one sick puppy.

  3. Murdoc states: ‘If San Diego avoids the Hiroshima treatment because of it, it will be the money best spent. Ever.’ I totally agree with that point. San Diego is worth defending no matter the cost. However, if you had referred to San Francisco I might have second thoughts.

  4. At 398 trillion dollars for the system, forget the Hiroshima treatment, we’ll be so poor that San Diego will get the Nanking treatment.