Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

July 5, 2013 - 8:01 pm

A day after Independence Day, and as global crises were knocking at the administration’s door, the Pentagon announced that it failed to stop a test missile over the Pacific.

The Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, Joint Functional Component Command, Integrated Missile Defense (JFCC IMD) and U.S. Northern Command conducted  an integrated exercise and flight test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System, the Defense Department said this evening.

“Although a primary objective was the intercept of a long-range ballistic missile target launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, an intercept was not achieved,” said the Pentagon.

The interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif.

“Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept,” the Pentagon continued.

It’s unknown if Kim Jong-un is celebrating in reaction to the news — a recent Defense Department report to Congress on security developments in North Korea warned that the country is pulling closer to its “stated objective of being able to strike the U.S. homeland.”

“North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear technology and capabilities and development of long-range ballistic missile programs, as reflected in the December 2012 Taepo Dong 2 missile launch and April 2012 display of a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, underscores the threat to regional stability and U.S. national security posed by North Korea,” the report stated.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I work at Vandenberg.

This is a new technology and in Vietnam the AIM-9 Sidewinder Missile had a 81% Failure Rate.

Give it 20 years and it has a 99% Kill Rate.

So it is with the ICBM killers.

It only took30 years from Kitty Hawk to the Mitsubishi Zero.

So 30 years from now do you want to see Los Angeles Incinerated from a North Korean 50s Type 10 Megaton ICBM.

Just because Hey, That primitive thing could NEVER shoot down a WWII Zero.

The counter weapons get better if you let them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (25)
All Comments   (25)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I support "trial and error".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Not to worry - if that pissant dictator fires off a real nuke that manages to hit American soil we'll make an island out of S. Korea.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Really? Who is "we"?

Did you forget who is President? Will THIS Commander in Chief ask Congress for a declaration of war? Will he launch a counterstrike on his own? Will he do anything at all of significance?

Our military power is currently at the mercy of an America-hating Marxist. If Korea nukes Seattle or Los Angeles America will do NOTHING.


And all the patriotic chest thumping in the world won't change that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So goes engineering. That's why we test things before and after deployment. No major military system has ever been fully debugged inside of 10 years.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This was a test of a land based system. The currently deployed systems are sea based aboard U S Navy destroyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes. the land-based interceptors have a much longer range and intercept higher up. Very tricky problem.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Who was watching the interceptor missile failure over Pacific Ocean? Interceptor missile from Vandenberg AFB,CA and the incoming long-range ballistic missile fired from Army Base on Kwajakin Atoll,Republic of Marshall Islands. Chinese and Russians,Iranians and some EU countries (whom Russia and China are courting/wooing to the hilt) reported this before US DoD. Apparently DoD had to acknowledge the failure since it was taped (by non US sources).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Everybody was watching it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The real surprise? That someone in charge actually told the truth!! Or, wait.... DID they tell the truth?? Hmmmmmm......
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The military usually does.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I fail to see the need for a long-range ground-based interceptor. Orbiting interceptors----think Dan Graham's Brillant Pebbles-------are a superior way of going after ballistic missles from launch through ren-entry. Ground-based only for those warheads that sucessfully run that gauntlet.

Plus the fact that each Brillant Pebble can be directed to go all the way to the ocean surface, arriving at 7 miles per second. One hit at that speed and there will be no farther worries about Chinese aircraft carriers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I fail to see the need for a long-range ground-based interceptor."

Look up "defense in depth".

See also, "eggs in one basket".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The ground-based interceptors are in hardened silos. Orbital interceptors (aside from any space-based weapons treaties) are themselves vulnerable to anti-satellite weaponry. Since we're trying to intercept warheads aimed at a specific target (us) we know where they're going to land.

As for the second point, the interceptors are made to function in near-space, they won't survive the atmosphere close to the ground.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I work at Vandenberg.

This is a new technology and in Vietnam the AIM-9 Sidewinder Missile had a 81% Failure Rate.

Give it 20 years and it has a 99% Kill Rate.

So it is with the ICBM killers.

It only took30 years from Kitty Hawk to the Mitsubishi Zero.

So 30 years from now do you want to see Los Angeles Incinerated from a North Korean 50s Type 10 Megaton ICBM.

Just because Hey, That primitive thing could NEVER shoot down a WWII Zero.

The counter weapons get better if you let them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thank you for being the voice of sweet reason!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Would this be your linky?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22770863/missile

No more detail, I was wondering if it was a near miss, a mile, or a thousand.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Are we still buying chips and boards from China? If so, might want to rethink that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All