Talk:Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

from VfD:

There is nothing in this article to indicate what it is. RickK 20:29, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Uninformative substub. — Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now the article actually says what it is. Needs NPOVification though. — Gwalla | Talk 23:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• It's THAAD, Dad! I mean, Delete. Indistinguishable and uninformative. Ian Pugh 22:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I concur. Ian Pugh 03:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, should be called a substub. It's THAAD, a high priced US miltiary antimissile defense project aimed at draining millions of dollars from public coffers while not offering an effective defence. THAAD should have high hit rate everywhere (16k on Google). It's related to SDI, the BMDO, ERINT (aka Patriot PAC-3), Corps SAM, the ABL, and other such stuff. In military terms, Theatre is a region where a war campaign takes place, hence the Pacific theatre of WWII. In US military projects, THAAD provides missile defence over the theatre from IRBMs. The next layer up is stuff like NMD, next layer down is the battlefield missile defence systems, like ERINT and AEGIS, then on down to unit defence like Corps SAM and then squad defence MANPADs... 132.205.15.4
  • So how hard is it to say all that in the article? RickK`
    • I'm biased on the issue (see the waste of money bit?) 132.205.15.4 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

waste of money?

a high priced US miltiary antimissile defense project aimed at draining millions of dollars from public coffers while not offering an effective defence.

The italics is a misguided POV statement. Budget numbers are in the article. For comparison sake, US Public Education has a total financial drain on the order of $300 Billion per year($90+ Billion Federal funding and $200+ Billion in state fundings). In other words, Public Education is three times the peak financial burn rate of the Iraq War; and the advocates argue that Public Education is funded oh so inadequately. Whereas many US public schools currently have teachers who teach children that intercepting an incoming missile is impossible, 20 years of MDA funding has given us a far more accurate, trustworthy and useful science education for a running total of less than just four months (assuming 12 equal months of spending with no summer breaks)of US Public Education spending. Never mind that teachers unions regularly pay millions of dollars into pro-homosexual lobbies and other items of educationally debatable value; and then complain that they are not paid enough. THAAD is relatively lower impact and higher yield for funding.192.91.147.34 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Good start. ElBenevolente 23:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep acceptable stub. -- Jmabel 00:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• I've rewritten the "acceptable" stub to actually be acceptable to myself. Surprised me that this one didn't exist. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the revised page (under Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and THAAD redir). Looking good now. -R. S. Shaw 06:59, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
• What Shaw said. Ropers 22:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I added more information 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The statement, "The THAAD missile does not carry an explosive warhead and destroys incoming missiles by colliding with them, utilizing hit-to-kill-technology, unlike the one used by the MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3," is incorrect. MIM-104 Patriot uses an explosive warhead and is built by Raytheon. Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) is built by Lockheed Martin, employs Hit-to-Kill technology and does not use an explosive warhead.

The original statement about PAC-3 having an explosive warhead is correct. Changed article to reflect this. The confusion is likely from PAC-3 mainly using a kinetic warhead, but also having an explosive warhead, often termed a "lethality enhancer." Prior Patriot versions used exclusively explosive warheads. [1] Joema 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] One major problem......

I have removed the last paragraph because it was uncited and not clear how it was relevant. So what if ballistic missiles can change their trajectory or THAAD will not deter a launch? Surely the whole point of the system is that it can track and intercept missiles regardless of how they move and that they do intercept missiles - it's not for show. In any case, how do we know THAAD will not deter anyone from launching attacks?

Unless someone can produce more in-depth, relevant and cited material to substantiate why that is a problem for this system it is irrelevant. John Smith's (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)