From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Patriot Missile Myth (was re: Perot)
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:31:27 GMT

In article <jayson.03ja@tbag.tscs.com> jayson@tbag.tscs.com (Jayson Phillips) writes:
> 
> 5 Sep 1992 mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
> 
>>Oh... now the liberals are saying that the Patriot didn't hit a
> 
>"Liberal"  comes  from "liberty" which means freedom.  I belive in freedom,
>unlike certain authority-worshipers with network TV educations.
> 
>>SINGLE scud!  The number keeps getting lower and lower!  Next, it
>>will be negative!
>>
>>What nonsense!  (unsustantiated nonsense)
> 
>Patriot Missile success is a myth and your ignorance is astounding:

>Subject: Patriot missiles misled by `accidental' decoys
> 
>Quotes from an article in the New Scientist 15 Feb 1992:
> 
>The  US  Army's Patriot missiles missed many of the Iraqi missiles that the
>US  thought  they  had  shot  down  during the Gulf War, according to a new
>analysis.   Iraqi's  modified  Scud  missile,  called  the  Al-Husayn,  was
>difficult  to hit because it was so unstable that it broke into pieces when
>it reentered the atmosphere, creating a confusing barrage of debris.

Just to point this out: this only says that 1)the oh-so-feared Scuds
were really really ineffective, and 2)this in no way makes a judgment
on the capability of the Patriot.  I am only stating this - not
arguing for nor against.

>The  army  claims  that  the Patriots successfully intercepted 45 of the 47
>missiles  they tried to shoot down.  But Postol says the tapes show that in
>some  of  these  cases,  the  Patriots  missed  their targets by at least a
>kilometer.  Postal measures this distance by comparing the relative motions
>of  the  Patriot  fireball,  which  stays  in  one place, and the Al-Husayn
>warhead.

Keep in mind of difficult it is to hit something moving that fast.  Also
keep in mind that while 'some' Patriots where a kilometer off, some
WERE NOT.  There is no need for DIRECT COLLSION to destroy.  Exploding
in a relatively close proximity can do the trick too.


>evaluating  the claims made for missile defence technologies, such as plans
>for the US Star Wars system.
> 

No, this should in NO WAY make ANY judgements on such a system. The
conditions are completely different.

> 
>The  Army  acknowledged  on 7 April 1992 that its glowing claims of success
>and its aftermath, discussed in RISKS-13.32.  Postol was on Fox TV early on
>the  morning  of  the  7th,  prior  to  the  Army  briefing, discussing the
>Patriots.   He  suggested  that 10% was much closer than the 80% previously
>claimed,  and  that  it  is  actually conceivable that NO direct kills were
>actually achieved!]

And, it is conceivable that there were mayn 'direct' kill swhich saved
many people's lives, saved property, etc.

>Subject: Patriot: The missile that missed
> 
>From New Scientist 18 April 1992
> 
>While  defending  the performance of the Patriot missile last week, US Army
>officers reduced their estimates of how many Iraqi missiles the Patriot hit
>during  the  Gulf War.  The army now believes that the Patriot successfully
>intercepted  24  missiles  out  of  about  85  attempts.   But it has "high
>confidence" in only 10 attempts.
> 
>Even  as  the  Pentagon  renewed  its  defence of the Patriot's record, new
>evidence  cast  additional  doubt  of  its  credibility.  The congressional
>General Accounting Office revealed that the army's earlier estimates of the
>Patriot's  success  were  wildly  optimistic and were based on over-hopeful
>assumptions.   For  instance,  if  the army could not find an impact crater
>from  a  Scud  warhead,  it  assumed  that the Scud had been destroyed by a
>Patriot.   Yet  some  army  units  on  the scene never bothered to look for
>craters, says the GAO.
> 
>The  Congressional  Research  Service, in a separate analysis of classified
>Pentagon data, concluded that most of the army's evidence was weak.  Steven
>Hildreth of the CRS says that he is only convinced that one Patriot missile
>actually destroyed a Scud warhead.
> 
>Robert  Drolet  defended  Bush's  statement  at  last  week's congressional
>hearing,  saying  that  "intercepted" meant only that "a Patriot and a Scud
>passed each other in the sky".

...exploding near

....near enough for the patriot explosion to disable or explode the Scud.
Perhaps.

While all this talk is ceratinly interesting, I do not think it has
anything to do with other instances where it could be used.

>[It  is very good news, if Ted Postol has been "cleared" and that no action
>will  be taken against him.  However the double speak "intercepted" by this
>article  leaves  me worried to say the least.  Most people will believe the
>systems  fail, it is the scientists, who get the blame and the world starts
>to reject their achievements instead.]

The capabilities of the Patriot, like any weapons systems, should be
constantly reviewed.

> Jay Phillips * Tampa FL         * Bush has overtaken Reagan as *
> USENET: tbag!jayson@tscs.com    * "Read my lips..." not again! *
-- 
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy