Physics Group (APS) Refutes Boost Phase Missile Defense Scheme

[Dudley_DUright]

File this story under "you can't change the laws of physics man". Of course this almost guarantees that this approach will be adopted by the faith based, spaced based bone heads in the whitehouse, since they always do the opposite of any type of competent scientific advice.

Intercepting missiles while their rockets are still burning would not be an effective approach for defending the U.S. against attacks by an important type of enemy missile. This conclusion comes from an independent study by the American Physical Society into the scientific and technical feasibility of boost-phase defense, focusing on potential missile threats from North Korea and Iran.

Boost-phase defense (disabling ballistic missiles while they are still under power) has recently received much attention as one possible element of a National Missile Defense system. However, the report shows that issues of timing severely limit the feasibility of this approach. The short time window available for disabling an enemy missile means that interceptor rockets would have to be based close to enemy territory to have a chance of intercepting the missile in time, if it is possible at all.

The study found that defending the United States against solid-propellant ICBMs would be impractical in many cases, because of their short burn times. According to the U.S. intelligence community, countries of concern could deploy such ICBMs within 10 to 15 years, about the same time the study judged would be required for the United States to field a boost-phase defense against ICBMs. Even against the longer burning liquid-propellant ICBMs that North Korea or Iran might initially deploy, a boost-phase defense would have limited use due to the requirement that interceptors be based close to potential missile flight paths.

"Only two to three minutes would be available to achieve a boost-phase intercept, even assuming substantial improvements in systems for detecting and tracking missiles," said Study Group co-chair Frederick Lamb. "Consequently, even fast interceptors could have difficulty catching liquid-propellant ICBMs and would be unable to catch solid-propellant ICBMs in time. In the most optimistic scenarios, the defense would have only seconds to decide whether to fire interceptors and could be required to make this decision before knowing whether a rocket launch were a space mission or a missile attack."

more...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030716090538.htm

[DrGonzoLives]

1. Good article

but we all know that the Bush administration doesn't let real science get in the way of their political goals.

[ramapo]

3. Payoff time

SDI/Missile defense is just a payoff to the defense industry. Never mind there's no logic to these initiatives. Even if something worked there are so many ways around such a defense. Simply fire more missiles or lots of decoys.

But I guess it paysoff politically as a defense against terrorism.

Imagine these scientific resources (and the enormous sums of money) being used for something productive.

[DrGonzoLives]

4. Exactly

It is nothing more than political favors to defense contractors, especially when it comes to Cheney's old contacts in the industry.

If that science were put to use on something productive, then certain people might not make huge profit; hence it is not done.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Additional info in this Washington Post story

An extensive study by a national group of scientists raised serious doubts yesterday about the likely effectiveness of some weapons that President Bush is pursuing in his drive to develop a system for defending the United States against ballistic missile attack.

The study, by a 12-member group under the American Physical Society, the largest U.S. association of physicists, focused on a category of weapons intended to knock down enemy missiles soon after launch in their "boost phase."

It concluded that while the boost-phase approach might provide some defense against longer-burning liquid-fueled missiles, such a system would push the limits of what is technically possible. Even more critically, the study found, boost-phase weapons would likely prove entirely ineffective against faster, solid-fueled missiles that potential adversaries -- notably, North Korea and Iran -- are projected by U.S. intelligence analysts to possess within the next 10 to 15 years.

The study did not deal with the central part of Bush's program -- a plan to install land-based interceptors in Alaska and California that would soar into space and obliterate enemy warheads arcing through their "midcourse phase" of flight. But Pentagon officials have acknowledged limitations to this scheme and spoken of the need to supplement it eventually with boost-phase weapons.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61235-2003Jul15.html