> Mike,
> 
> I have worked with Raytheon on this project (in the past) 
> and seen some of the stupid mistakes they made. 

<remainder of examples snipped>

So that makes it even worse than I had thought.  I was
speaking about principles of operation- the one-warhead,
one-interceptor model is hopelessly outdated.  Anything
that comes from ex-Soviet technology will likely be a
MIRV containing 3 or more independently targeted
warheads.  Even a single warhead is likely to be
accompanied by debris from the launch vehicle which is
virtually guaranteed to confuse the most advanced of
automatic tracking devices.  I'll give them the benefit of
the doubt that they can actually make an interceptor
which will hit an incoming target; of course, that's not
a given, since they've been having a hard time hitting a
monolithic target, coming on a known trajectory.

The only effective ways to stop incoming ballistic
missiles are boost stage destruction (tough, since the
boost stage occurs either as a surprise from a mobile
launcher or deep within "enemy" territory) and high
altitude nuclear detonation, early enough to catch 
MIRVs before they are too far apart.  We aren't
pursuing anything along either of those lines.

Mike H.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist