A Back-and-Forth About Missile Defense

choi

本文通过一路BBS站telnet客户端发布

(1) William J Broad and David E. Sanger, Physicists Say Weapon Failed in
Missile Tests; Obstacles for Obama, Who Backs System. New York Times, May 18
, 2010 (title in the print).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/18missile.html?scp=1&sq=sm-3&st=cse
("At issue is whether the SM-3 needs to strike and destroy the warhead of a
missile — as the Pentagon says on its Web site")

My comment:
(a) The two physicists do not dispute Standard Missile-3 hit the intended
target missile. What they dispute is SM-3 hit the warhead portion of the
target only 10-20% of the times.
(b) The quotation above refers to a reply from agency head. See next.

Richard Lehner, Missile Defense Agency Responds to New York Times Article.
Missile Defense Agency, May 18, 2010.
http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/2010/05/missile-defense-agency-responds-to-new-york-times-article/
("they had no access to classified telemetry data showing the complete
destruction of the target missiles, or subsequent sensor views of the
intercept that were not publicly released so as not to reveal to potential
adversaries exactly where the target missile was struck")

Note the word "complete."


--