Quote:


The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.


Nope. He's wrong. The current threat is groups, smaller than North Korea, with only a couple of missiles. Think Iran or or the Chechans once the Russian sell them some nuclear missiles. That's what the system is aimed at. Nobody expects to take on anyone like Russia or China who can simply saturate the defense.

Remember that Ritter has a political ax to grind, right or wrong. Also, missile tactics and strategies aren't his field.

He seems to think of boost-phase intercept as being within a few thousand feet of the launcher which is wrong - interception happens much higher if for no other reason than to let the interceptor maneuver outside of a thick atmosphere: you don't want aerodynamic forces to tear apart the interceptor during a turn.

He doesn't consider another possibility: the current contractors may simply be uncompetitive. Look at NASA, which is now the third, perhaps fourth in the space technology race. It may be time to open up the project to competition and get rid of the deadwood.

The defense scheme is "easily" doable if you're willing to use a nuclear-tipped interceptor. The challenge will be coming up with a non-nuclear method, and that may require invention - steerable X-ray lasers, targeting systems based on phase-conjugate mirrors, etc. Or it may just be a bunch of BB balls exploded into a debris cloud in front of the missile. Right now they're just trying to come up a reliable steerable vehicle.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock