While the US military have spent generously in missile defense in recent decades, he has “little to show” for this, he claims a recent revision postponement Posted by Panel on public affairs of the American Physical Society, a non -profit organization looking for physics and other scientific ones.
The authors, who node that the funding of the United States for missile defense generally increases only in response to things such as the “presidential defense”, concluded that the current American system could not highly eliminate missiles and tested by North Korea, not to mention the attacks of more sophisticated actors.
Montgomery tells Wired that the United States should be contracts in part on the early ballistic and hypersonical missiles of China, Russia and Iran.
Go to space
Laura Grego, Senior Director of Research at the Union of Scientists who ended and co -author of the relationship, claims to obtain because the Trump administration wants the ability to launch mission interceptors from space.
The interceptors launched by land sites may have to travel hundreds of miles horizontally, while an interceptor in space must only travel a short distance to reach a missile and stop it in its tracks. “The intuition of most people is that the space is far away,” says Grego. “But in this case, the space is closed. The space is almost as close as possible.”
Grego adds the idea of building a futuristic anti -missile system in the sky has and landing American leaders for decades. President Ronald Reagan proposed a similar plan in the early 80s nicknamed the “Star Wars” program of Critics, which consisted of a space based on a space Laser system to break down the ballistics. While the types of Reagan technologies have proposed to use They were not feasible At the time I am now, says Grego.
Montgomery says that the United States government will probably have to choose between the construction of a new space system or the construction of its land system, because it would be simply too expensive to do both. “If you travel that second path of the Legacy systems now, you will inevitably be short of space -based funding later,” he says.
But Grego Sheys believes that a system of missile interceptors based on space would be highly vulnerable and impossible, because it requires the use of missionistic interceptors transported on board the satellites. Satece the welding of the satellites moves constantly compared to the earth’s surface, the United States would need an astronomical number of interceptors to offer full protection.
Grego says it only works when it is totally complete. “If you are able to separate that constellation and punch of holes using anti-Satellite weapons or other types of attacks on the system, that white thing becomes substantially useless,” he explains.
Grego adds that a system of interceptors based on space would probably cost trillion dollars between the building, the launch and replacement of the interceptors, even if considering the fact that the new technology developed by Spacex has helped to reduce the costs of satellite launches in recent years. The satellites surrounding the earth in low earth orbit also fall into the atmosphere and burn after about three or five years, which means that the components will have to be replaced regularly.
