Life's Persistent Questions

What's wrong with this picture?

The other day, the immenent missile defense system of the U.S. government suffered a big setback during its first full-flight test. Well, one would say it's pretty difficult, trying to shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. That's why the U.S. military has and will continue to sink tens of billions of dollars into this project.

In more relevant news, an U.S. base in Mosul got attacked yesterday. The initial report is conflicted on the method of attack: rocket/mortar, planted bomb or suicide bomber, although the latest news has put more weight on the suicide bomber theory. On NPR I heard a curious comment though. In short, the military people were relieved that it was a bomb delivered by a person on the inside, rather than a rocket launched from outside the base. Leave aside the idea that suicide bombers are easy to deal with, here's my question.

Which is easier to shoot down from the sky? A mortar rocket or an intercontinental ballistic missile?

Well, the truth is--I don't know. But a large part of me think it would be easier to knock down a mortar shot, which probably costs a few hundred dollars, than an ICBM that costs hundreds of times more, right? Now if we can't protect our soldiers gathering for some chow inside their protected base from some Iraqi insurgence, what made us think the government will protect us from missiles from North Korea. Or how about this? Before we spent a hundred billion on how to shoot down ICBM, shouldn't we be trying to find ways to shield our troops from these mortars and shoulder-launched rockets? Just a thought.

posted by hedgehog @ 8:11 PM