Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gravy said:
I forgot to say, "Did the Pentagon have a missile defense system? Over."
Click to expand...


Of course. They had to have had one. A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?
 
SBrown said:
Of course. They had to have had one. A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?
Click to expand...
Let us know what you find out, okay?
 
SBrown said:
Of course. They had to have had one. A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?
Click to expand...
Reagan National Airport is about two miles SSW of the Pentagon.

Google Maps is your friend

Lots of planes, lots of potential threats, it wouldn't look good if a commercial airliner accidentally got shot down by an automated air defense system, now would it?

On the balance of risk during peacetime, an operational automated air defense system at the Pentagon is probably, err, "overkill".
 
OK
So I found this reported by CNN:
of course I cannot post links......:jaw-dropp
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said its sixth test of its missile defense system Friday was a success, meaning it intercepted an intercontinental ballistic missile in space about 30 minutes after it was launched.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system was formerly known as the National Missile Defense system. Pentagon officials called Friday night's test a "major step" in the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's test program.

They said this test was similar to a December 3 test, which resulted in a successful missile intercept. But in this case, the latest ballistic missile carried three decoy balloons designed to confuse the "exoatmospheric kill vehicle," the device that seeks out the ballistic missile. In the December test, only one decoy was deployed.

"The test successfully demonstrated EKV flight performance and 'hit to kill' technology to intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target," a Pentagon statement said.

Pentagon officials said the performance of all systems involved -- including ground and space-based radars, sensors and the interceptor itself -- will be examined in the coming day
Click to expand...

So I guess if they were testing one in 2002, they didnt have one in 2001....right?
 
SBrown said:
OK
So I found this reported by CNN:
of course I cannot post links......:jaw-dropp


So I guess if they were testing one in 2002, they didnt have one in 2001....right?
Click to expand...
Those weren't fired from the Pentagon, and it's not meant to protect the Pentagon from attack. It's just a project funded by the Pentagon.
 
This is probabbly just BS then:

DATE=7/12/01

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE=PENTAGON/MISSILE DEFENSE (L-O)

NUMBER=2-278161

BYLINE=ALEX BELIDA

DATELINE=PENTAGON

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: The Pentagon is planning to move ahead with new missile-defense construction that senior officials acknowledge could soon breach the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. More from Correspondent Alex Belida at the Pentagon.

TEXT: The Bush administration has made no secret of its intention to either revise the A-B-M treaty by negotiation or to withdraw from it altogether.

Now a senior Pentagon official has made clear to Congress the administration's new and more aggressive missile-defense testing plans could lead to an early conflict with the pact.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the Pentagon's request for substantial new funding for missile defense research.

/// WOLFOWITZ ACT ///

As the program develops and the various testing activities mature, one or more of those will inevitably bump up against treaty restrictions and limitations. Such an event is likely to occur in months, rather than in years.

/// END ACT ///

But Mr. Wolfowitz says it is not possible to know with certainty how soon a conflict will occur, because of both research and legal uncertainties.

The ambitious U-S missile defense test plan includes the construction of new facilities in Alaska, where defense planners envision eventual deployment of an operational ground-based missile interceptor system.

The administration effort is described as limited, intended to protect the United States against possible missile attack by a rogue state such as North Korea or Iraq.

Nevertheless, it has drawn criticism from Russia, China and some NATO allies who fear a new arms race. Some members of Congress have also voiced concerns about the missile-defense program.

One complaint by Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dealt with the lack of detail in the Pentagon's plans.

/// LEVIN ACT ///

The administration's plans for missile defense for fiscal year 2002 have been harder to zero in on than a target in a missile defense test.

/// END ACT ///

The Pentagon has scheduled a full-scale interceptor test for this Saturday. A so-called - kill vehicle - will be fired from a Pacific Atoll in an attempt to destroy a ballistic missile launched from California.

Two of the three previous similar tests failed to result in an interception. (SIGNED)

NEB/BEL/RAE
Click to expand...
 
SBrown said:
OK
So I found this reported by CNN:
of course I cannot post links......:jaw-dropp

So I guess if they were testing one in 2002, they didnt have one in 2001....right?
Click to expand...
Let us know what you find out, okay?
 
SBrown said:
So the whole Pentagon restricted airspace thing is a farce?
Click to expand...
IIRC, Reagan Int'l was closed for some time after 9/11 while security concerns were debated. Closing it permanently was even an option. I have no doubt airspace was/is now restricted around it, but really if a plane on its way to Reagan Int'l was hijacked and the hijackers managed to keep it secret from the FAA it would be quite easy to divert to the Pentagon at the last minute and crash into it - it would only take a few seconds of diversion from the flight path. Not much chance of stopping it at that point.
 
WildCat said:
IIRC, Reagan Int'l was closed for some time after 9/11 while security concerns were debated. Closing it permanently was even an option. I have no doubt airspace was/is now restricted around it, but really if a plane on its way to Reagan Int'l was hijacked and the hijackers managed to keep it secret from the FAA it would be quite easy to divert to the Pentagon at the last minute and crash into it - it would only take a few seconds of diversion from the flight path. Not much chance of stopping it at that point.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, I believe the Pentagon has always had a restricted airspace. Are you saying that it only had one directly after the attacks on Sept 11th?
 
SBrown said:
Wait a minute, I believe the Pentagon has always had a restricted airspace. Are you saying that it only had one directly after the attacks on Sept 11th?
Click to expand...
So you're jumping to the conclusion that restricted airspaces automatically have missile defense systems?
ETA: Like sports stadiums?
 
Last edited:
The US does not have a "shoot first ask questions later" policy on restricted air space violations. Even now, after 9/11, the newest system being implemented in DC is a laser light warning system to alert pilots that they have violated air space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom