North Korea: Yes we do have nuclear weapons

[Phoenix]

It's not my word. There's 20 years of failure associated with the project.

Perhaps in the eyes of a pessimist. But the fact is there have been plenty of incremental gains (see Patriot missile, tests over the Pacific) and as technology and science continue to advance so does the eventual reality of this program. And when one considers the risk/reward of this initiative it is clear that it can be a multi-billion proposition. I'm thankful that it appears unlikely that the President and the Congress will ever take your narrow view of the program.

[M2]

Perhaps in the eyes of a pessimist. But the fact is there have been plenty of incremental gains (see Patriot missile, tests over the Pacific) and as technology and science continue to advance so does the eventual reality of this program. And when one considers the risk/reward of this initiative it is clear that it can be a multi-billion proposition. I'm thankful that it appears unlikely that the President and the Congress will ever take your narrow view of the program.

No, there's 20 years of failure associated with program according to anyone who understand the fundamentals of how calendars work. Once upon a time you could have taken the woe-unto-unbelievers approach, but the window for that closed a decade ago. You'd have said the above five, ten or fifteen years ago too.

The fundamental problem with the program is they're trying to drive a tank to the moon. They need something that can acquire a missile early, get behind it and then quickly overtake it. That something looks nothing like a Patriot missile (which attempts to intersect the oncoming missile, something that any high school physics student could tell you has lousy odds from the outset).

Anyway, I look forward to having this same conversation in five years when SDI's still a pipe dream.

[RBA]

Missile shield test fizzles out
Interceptor fails to launch, Pentagon says

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:18 a.m. ET Feb. 14, 2005


WASHINGTON - A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

Target missile fired, but not interceptor
In Monday’s test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. ET Monday without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches.

Before the Dec. 15 launch, it had been two years since a test. The program had gone five-for-eight in previous attempts to intercept a target.

Impact unclear
No date for the next test has been announced. It is unclear how continued test failures would affect two experimental interceptor bases in Alaska and California.

Those two bases, Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., are positioned to oppose the threat of attack from North Korea. Both are still classified as experimental but, officials say, they could fire interceptors in an emergency.

The Pentagon has not declared those bases “operational,” but officials say they would work anyway once certain mechanical blocks are removed from the interceptors themselves. Six interceptors are at the Alaska site, with two more in California as a backup. Up to 10 more will go into silos in Alaska this year, officials say.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968453/

[flyer85]

They have to have nuclear weapons. That is the only explanantion for the state of the hair of Kim Jong-Il.

Hair

[Phoenix]

No, there's 20 years of failure associated with program according to anyone who understand the fundamentals of how calendars work. Once upon a time you could have taken the woe-unto-unbelievers approach, but the window for that closed a decade ago. You'd have said the above five, ten or fifteen years ago too.

The fundamental problem with the program is they're trying to drive a tank to the moon. They need something that can acquire a missile early, get behind it and then quickly overtake it. That something looks nothing like a Patriot missile (which attempts to intersect the oncoming missile, something that any high school physics student could tell you has lousy odds from the outset).

Anyway, I look forward to having this same conversation in five years when SDI's still a pipe dream.

And perhaps we'll still be having this conversation in five years. But for something this important you don't give up. Especially not with a growing list of nations getting nukes.

[M2]

And perhaps we'll still be having this conversation in five years. But for something this important you don't give up. Especially not with a growing list of nations getting nukes.

Then find the Oppenheimers, Fermis and Einsteins and put them in charge instead of corporate gladhanders.

[Phoenix]

Then find the Oppenheimers, Fermis and Einsteins and put them in charge instead of corporate gladhanders.

Neither of us knows the quality of the scientists working the project.

[M2]

Neither of us knows the quality of the scientists working the project.

Sure we do. It's 20 years in and they're still in the conceptual phase. The U.S. government has been trying to buy something that doesn't exist from people who can't build it.

At some point it comes time to recognize failure and get better people on the job.

[Phoenix]

Sure we do. It's 20 years in and they're still in the conceptual phase. The U.S. government has been trying to buy something that doesn't exist from people who can't build it.

At some point it comes time to recognize failure and get better people on the job.

No way can you pretend to know the inner workings of this project. Unless you have some security clearance I'm unaware of. For all you know they ARE rotating top scientists and engineers through the program.

[M2]

No way can you pretend to know the inner workings of this project. Unless you have some security clearance I'm unaware of. For all you know they ARE rotating top scientists and engineers through the program.

We know the results -- bupkiss. Try as you might to defend it, failure is failure. What you've got here is shiny bright red herring.

Plus, if the absolute best and brightest minds available to our government have been put on this and they still can't come up with a proof of concept after two decades, then it's time to break out the chloroform. I'm leaving the door open that different, brighter minds might be able to solve the puzzle. If you want to close that avenue then what are you left with but hundreds of billions (quite possibly trillions) of dollars getting tossed at a project that's gone nowhere for 20 years?

[Phoenix]

We know the results -- bupkiss.

Huh?

How are you to know what scientists and engineers are on the job? So how can you claim that new blood be brought in? If you have insight into personnel problems on the project then by all means contact the appropriate leaders at the DOD. Otherwise, keep your chloroform. There is no time limit on the effort to protect this country against long-range nuclear missiles. Be glad we got started when we did. Who knows how many countries will have the capability to strike the US in another 20 years.

[GAC]

Anyone want to bet that he doesn't have any serviceable nucs yet? This isn't the first time that he has claimed to have nucs. He has made that claim a few times over the last few years. I still think he is simply trying to scare/muscle the US into bilateral talks, rather then the six nation negotiations, because that is where he ahs the best chance of trying to extort more aid from us.

And I hope this administration continues to stay the course (and I think they will).

Let him sit over there and "huff and puff". He's frustrated and desperate.