Anti-Ballistic Missile Shields

I was just wondering whether such shields would be a blessing or a curse. On one hand there is a possibility that nuclear, biological or chemical capable ballistic missiles can be destroyed before they reach a country. But on the other hand, such shields may embolden countries to strike others thinking that their shield can protect them. At least without the shields there is the fear of MAD.

A shield never..I mean if you're thinking of a stra trek kind of shield ..forget it..But there were a couple of proposals made on the sunject and besides the stra wars project that President Reagan wanted to implement,which was never launched because of it's tendencies to misinterpretate the sun's radiation rays as a missile lauch thus we could have had destroyed the planet just bbecause of some solar wind ..

But there is a possible scenario where a powerful enough guided missile that could clamp on to the incoming and disruptes it's guidence equipment,and then chang the trajectory to out in space..now that would be a good effective shield...I would think..but prevention is always better thanthe cure..

The missile shield was never designed to replace MAD and it simple cant do it. The only country that shares complete MAD with the US is Russia and Russia would send so many nukes with MIRVs at the US it wouldnt matter.

The shield was designed to prevent countries like N Korea with a few nukes from making a nuclear stand off with the US.

ASSoCIAtion this mean word either we use the A$$ to shields with it or this dept might do CIA or maybe both the CIA-A$$ (CIAA$$MENS) might do the good job

I see. So it would only be good for a few missiles.

Not to sound insane, but there is a conspiracy theory that the Star Wars project you mentioned, Horus, was actually a laser array, something like what they have in Australia, and was meant to protect us from the Reptoids. Now personally, I don't know if I believe this. But that NASA footage that shows that object entering our orbit and a laser beam being shot at it is quite remarkable.

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Mephorium]

acctually i saw on that night i use to believe australia has one window from southern part where most of the UFO try to fly on sensetive zone area.the thing is a lot of this UFO came on that nights but just only one being shot what about other is there any regulations or law or do we have a ties with this ALIEN PEOPLE??? that the question i dont have any answer.
i know how this ALIEN came and how do they go.their tech it is not so hight tech anymore to me cos we already have the technology but only at firststage right now

From what I understand of the lore, we have ties with the Greys and the Reptoids are the enemies of both the U.S. and the Greys. I have seen the laser (at least I think it was the same laser) on the History Channel. I don't understand why we don't build a ****load of those. I mean hell if you are going to put a laser on the tip of a 747, or what ever plane they are going to use, why not put a some on the ground.

Originally posted by Mephorium


. But that NASA footage that shows that object entering our orbit and a laser beam being shot at it is quite remarkable.

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Mephorium]

I have seen that footage too quite amazing there is another video that shows what appears to be a missile being shot at a UFO. Whatever the object was it looked like it knew it was targeted because it changed course quite dramatically before it launched and it missed.

I wouldn't be shocked if they were taking pop shots at UFOs. Just think about the tech you could salavage from bringing one down. Im sure the DOD drools at the idea.

Its a shame NASA no longer does live feeds from shuttle missions. I doubt we will ever see anything like that from NASA .

[edit on 6-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Doesn't NASA have to keep quiet about such matters? That's the downside about Gov. funding; the threat of having it taken away. In the "Shooting Down A UFO" thread, Indigo_Child mentioned something about fighter planes firing upon a UFO for thirty minutes. Do you know anything about that?

The only casi I know of where a sustained bombardment was levied at a UFO was the Los Angeles incident in 1942. Anti aircraft fire was directed at a UFO without inflicting damage despite eye witnesses reporting direct hits. That was 60 years ago however, so today the outcome might be different. But given the footage of the UFO's dodging what appears to be incoming fire i doubt that we'll be seeing any kind of sustained attack against a UFO, they'll either leave or retaliate which would probably be a bad thing.

Technologically, we are developing at an alarming rate. Hopefully, things have changed greatly since 1942. Including our abilities to defend ourselves from "outside forces."

hey, the thing aboout the ICBM shield being just for "rogue states" is only until the system is fully operational. now theres only interceptors at Alaska and Calif i think, but rest assured, when this thing is running at 110%, and is knocking every missile test out of the air, they will be putting more interceptors to protect the US from a massive strike-this prolly wont happen for another 15-20 years, but its still possible that a large enough array of interceptors can shoot down incoming ICBMs, lol KINDA like that old game missile defendor (i think) where u shoot the meteors before they destroy the 3 cities... lol

A missile shield is really impossible. The defense will always be a step behind the offense because its reactionary. The enemy will keep increasing their numbers of nukes, and it'll just stay above our ability to shoot them all down.

realistically, you have a point. but i still think the shield (operating at 100% of course) would take out 90% of the strikes, and you mite say well 90% isnt that great when the other 10% could be 200 nukes, but remember, unless the adversary is sending 1000's into each city-which would be a waste ofcourse because of not only wasting a bomb but the radiation multiplys thousands of times more, and those other 10% could land in a rural area (which is more probable considering a missile defense system would shoot down the missiles threatening the cities and military bases first... but whoe\ knows..

Why hasn't anyone tried a broader shield? For example nuclear weapons could be designed for the expressed purpose of being fired at incoming and destroying missiles at their apex, before they have released their multiple warheads. I'm sure it would be really bad for the atmosphere, but better than getting your continent reduced to ash. I've always sort of figured that we had the capability to do what I'm talking about with our existing missiles- it's an obvious idea. We used to have nuclear anti-aircraft missiles for destroying incoming bomber formations too.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why hasn't anyone tried a broader shield? For example nuclear weapons could be designed for the expressed purpose of being fired at incoming and destroying missiles at their apex, before they have released their multiple warheads. I'm sure it would be really bad for the atmosphere, but better than getting your continent reduced to ash. I've always sort of figured that we had the capability to do what I'm talking about with our existing missiles- it's an obvious idea. We used to have nuclear anti-aircraft missiles for destroying incoming bomber formations too.

This has been done. Russia has an operational system like this to protect Moscow. The US had a system like this to protect Grand Forks ND - but due to a combination of public outcry and worries over broad EMP effects it was dismantled shortly after becoming operational.

eventually, when we all get missile shield it will cancel out ICBMs and we will end up right where we were in 1960...until a new WMD comes out...

..like a high powered laser shot into space which reflected off of a mirror in space and directed back at the enemy to blow up 100 times worse then nukes...

try and stop that...

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
eventually, when we all get missile shield it will cancel out ICBMs and we will end up right where we were in 1960...until a new WMD comes out...

..like a high powered laser shot into space which reflected off of a mirror in space and directed back at the enemy to blow up 100 times worse then nukes...

try and stop that...

sorry but you're lasers which dont exist operationally were already caneled by soviets since the 70's russian icbms have laser shieldings..

Originally posted by Hellraiser

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
eventually, when we all get missile shield it will cancel out ICBMs and we will end up right where we were in 1960...until a new WMD comes out...

..like a high powered laser shot into space which reflected off of a mirror in space and directed back at the enemy to blow up 100 times worse then nukes...

try and stop that...

sorry but you're lasers which dont exist operationally were already caneled by soviets since the 70's russian icbms have laser shieldings..

no no no... im talking about the laser hitting a city... not knocking out a missile with it.. ICBMs with laser sheidling have nothing to do with what i said