Hmmm. There's some validity to what he's saying. To validate the idea of firing one missile at another, the missile technology might be ready to test before the guidance technology. In such a case it would make sense to put a beacon on the target to test _a portion_ of the final system. That's how big projects are done.
But my point remains that the USA doesn't have any threats from missiles. Maybe our weapons manufacturers are so strong in the government that the USA is now doing research and development of Systems (capital S) chiefly for our allies. Reading that South Korea and Israel want this makes more sense to me than saying that Mom & Pop Middle American in Seattle, Washington are worried about the Chinese lobbing dozens of tactical missiles across the Pacific!! Obviously, it's gonna get built whether I approve or not and my Government is subsidizing, no HIRING the R&D which will only benefit the manufacturers and our allies. <sigh> I think the manufacturers should pay for their own R&D. Lama >>>>>>> The third and fourth tests of ballistic missile interceptors, unlike the first and second, which flopped, were "successful." Unfortunately, the tests (July 14 and Dec. 3, 2001) were rigged. In both cases, although the target missile and interceptor were fired 5000 miles away from each other, the interceptor was guided to within 400 meters of the target by a beacon implanted in the target's nose. General Kadish does not seem worried about this problem. "Our test philosophy is to add step-by-step complexities over time. It is a walk-before-you-run, learn-as-you-go development."
