Boeing had a successful test of a missile defense system. But it seems to have exceeded...errrr...expectations:

Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle intercepted the warhead and destroyed it.

Dang. As John Miller notes, talk about burying the lede.

[Update after 7 PM EDT]

Well, at least Reuters (of all people) managed to figure out the significance of the test, even if the Boeing PR people couldn't. Here's the lead of their story:

The U.S. military shot down a target ballistic missile over the Pacific Friday in the widest test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the Defense Department announced.

Damn Rand,

I thought you were going to tell us they took out the MTV satelli-te! (wonders if anyone gets this joke and puts "Soulfinger" on the playlist)

You know your filter wont allow the word satelli-te?

Only enjoyable moment of the whole movie.

You didn't find Vanessa Angel in her skivvies enjoyable?

Nah, this couldn't have happened. Missile defense is physically impossible, remember?

Wonder what Ted Postol has to say about this.

You have to deploy and constantly test a system in order to perfect it. Starting with a paper ABM system and then expecting it do shoot stuff down was a non starter. The present system had to come up to this level by trial and error. Now they can move ahead to the next step/system.

Nice shot, though...

"Nah, this couldn't have happened. Missile defense is physically impossible, remember?
Wonder what Ted Postol has to say about this."

Postol would correctly note that the test did not include any decoys nor multiple missiles--which has always been his argument about such tests.

A single success in four years, against a known and expected target not using decoys, does not prove that missile defense is viable. If they do this a half dozen times, with realistic scenarios, then you can start crowing.

" But it seems to have exceeded... errrr... expectations:

Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle intercepted the warhead and destroyed it."

This is a bit of a misnomer. The missile is DESIGNED to hit the warhead. It is, after all, a kinetic kill vehicle. It has no warhead of its own.

All this "burying the lede" nonsense simply points to the fact that this test was _not_ intended to actually hit the warhead, simply get near it. That's actually a common objective for early tests of missile interceptions--coming within a specific distance of the target.

Put another way, while hitting the warhead may have "exceeded the test objectives," it did not exceed the objectives for the missile itself.

Although the success of this test is encouraging, it is important to put it into perspective.

Previous test failures have primarily been blamed on quality control problems. A piece of software or hardware did not work as it was supposed to. With this test, it appears as if they have (for now) solved those quality control problems.

But the bigger question has always been: assuming that everything works correctly, will it still be possible to intercept an enemy warhead? There the question is not the interceptor, but _target discrimination._ If the warhead deploys six decoys, will the interceptor be able to discern which of the seven targets is the warhead? (Or, in a more likely scenario, with two missiles fired, producing a total of perhaps fourteen targets, can your interceptors detect and attack the two warheads? Ancillary question: how many interceptors do you need? Two per missile? Three? Right now we have no more than ten interceptors total.)

We are fortunate that the North Koreans are so inept. In eight years they have tested a long range missile only twice, both failures. That gives us plenty of time to work out the kinks in our system, and it also means that they have made little progress developing an operational weapon, let alone decoys.

But this is one test, performed in a test (i.e. non-realistic) environment. And before popping the champagne, people should look up the experience with the Homing Overlay Experiment in the 1980s. Years later it was revealed that the test was rigged. The only way to develop true confidence in the system is when it is tested multiple times under realistic conditions, with independent verification (for instance, by GAO).

But this is one test, performed in a test (i.e. non-realistic) environment.

We get your point. You won't be statisfied until it performs successfully in combat. Sheesh.

Lucky for you that the Left in this country is doing everything it can to bring that day closer and then we'll all get to see how it performs. (Do the Norks have decoys? Do they even have the capability of firing one missile at a time? Maybe this test was a "realistic environment".) I just hope that the Norks choose Vancouver or Portland for their demonstration target, instead of here in Seattle, just in case it doesn't work...

Tim wrote:

"The only way to develop true confidence in the system is when it is tested multiple times under realistic conditions, with independent verification (for instance, by GAO)."

True. I don't disagree with your points, but I would like to cast things in a positive light rather than Tim's tone of skepticism.

First off, Can we have a round of applause for GW Bush, and his advisors for proceeding with missile defense, abrogating the ABM treaty, and getting us to this point of having something of a deterrent against NorK, Iranian, and other possible regimes with ballistic missiles?

Second, while the existing missile defense systems don't seem to be sufficient to assure 100% effective defense from even a rouge threat, the missile shield certainly can't be discounted by rouge regimes in their calculations. If KJI has 3 missiles ( each with a significant probability of failure ) does he have confidence that even 1 will get through? Deterrence.

Third, don't discount the effect that other military systems could bring to the scenario. Preemptive strikes might disrupt some, but not all enemy missiles in a crisis; the missile defense system allows the CINC the insurance she/he needs in order to act decisively. Upcoming Sea-based or airborn defensive missile systems might be partially effective.

The administration did not abrogate the treaty. It withdrew from it, under its provisions.

TH: "A single success in four years, against a known and expected target not using decoys, does not prove that missile defense is viable."

When taken in concert with the numerous successful tests the Navy has conducted with the SM3 I would state unequivocally that missile defense has already proven a viable concept.

"When taken in concert with the numerous successful tests the Navy has conducted with the SM3 I would state unequivocally that missile defense has already proven a viable concept."

By that count, let's include the PAC-3, huh?

We're talking about different things. A single success of _this system_ does not prove that this system is viable.

As I already noted, the key issue is target discrimination, which has not been realistically tested yet. All that this test proves is that they seem to have finally solved their quality control problems.

"First off, Can we have a round of applause for GW Bush..."

Stand up and applaud if that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

I want a missile defense that works. I don't care who builds it.

"We get your point. You won't be statisfied until it performs successfully in combat. Sheesh."

No, I won't be satisfied until more testing is done, under realistic conditions. They're spending my money, I want it spent wisely.

"Lucky for you that the Left in this country is doing everything it can to bring that day closer and then we'll all get to see how it performs."

Right. I forgot--the Left is evil. They want Americans to die. Let me write that down.

"(Do the Norks have decoys? Do they even have the capability of firing one missile at a time?"

No, they don't have decoys. They don't have the capability of firing a missile yet. So, are you arguing that missile defense is unnecessary?

That sounds like a Lefty position to me. Are you a Lefty?

rand wrote:
The administration did not abrogate the treaty. It withdrew from it, under its provisions.

Fair point. I didn't mean to imply anything untoward about our withdraw from the ABM treaty -- my point it that leaving the treaty was the PROPER policy.

Tim wrote:

"Stand up and applaud if that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
I want a missile defense that works. I don't care who builds it."

Yeah, I'd haven be happy if Clinton had taken more aggressive action toward developing and deploying the system. To be fair, the program did continue at a reduced level under Clinton, although the ABM treaty was also adhered to, unfortunately.

I also have issue with both the Clinton and GW Bush policy toward aid to North Korea. Food and other aid props up this regime. As difficult as it would be to endure the outrage on CNN, we should have long ago cut off all aid to North Korea.

It's not so easy to teach your missiles to spin to cool lasers and to launch decoys, etc., etc. We are not talking about super power adversaries here. We are trying to make the warfare symmetric by raising the stakes. There is no mutually assured destruction argument about increasing the likelihood of a first strike against a nut or a group with no country to retaliate against.

Someone had to say it...

How good is this hoopy new weapon against shipping containers? Or a rented truck? Or...