It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are ICBM's obselete

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Ok this makes sense to me. With all the advanced technology for missile protectection like those boieng 747's with lasers in them doesn't it make sense that nuclear bombardment from icbm is almost impossible. I mean icbm's have to go out of the atmosphere and then they fall back to earth on there target so this thing has to go so many mile through norad airspace without getting blown up by patriot missles, lasers, airplanes who knows, so how is it that if a world war three breaks out that people are so worried about nukes raining down upon them. it seems alomst silly to think that a nuke would ever make it to the ground or even to its detenation height.




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The anti-ICBM technology is still in its infancy. We may be able to deflect one or two missles but an all out strike by the Russians or Chinese would not be affected significantly at this time or in the near future.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I mostly agree with what djohnsto77 said. If a country like Russia used most or all of it's arsenal of nuclear weapons, then the United States (or any other country) probably wouldn't be able to detonate all of them before they hit. But the U.S. would shoot down more than 1 or 2 of them.

So no, they are still effective in combat.

[edit on 1/16/2005 by boren]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Don't forget Russia's Topol-M missile that can succesfully avoid ABM's...

I am pretty sure the US is developing EM guns that fire nukes...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
One needs to detect the ICBM before firnig anything at it, a missile or an energy based weapon.that IMHO is the biggest hurdle..how far is the ABM in doing that?
After all the re-entry along with the orbital flight is 'ballistic' i.e. not powered flight so how does one locate an ICBM unless they know it ahs been launched from so-n-so place at so-n-so time so they can extrapolate its approx location and then hunt for it on various scopes..
Actually this gets me thinking..HOW exactly does an ABM system work???
What I mentioned above is just pure deductive logic on my part..
Because ICBMs once ballsitic have no heat signature (except during re-entry) and they basically just freely fall to their target after that..
also there are a lot of MIRV based decoys so that reduces chances of getting a live warhead(s) even more..grim reality aye??



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
One needs to detect the ICBM before firnig anything at it, a missile or an energy based weapon.that IMHO is the biggest hurdle..how far is the ABM in doing that?
After all the re-entry along with the orbital flight is 'ballistic' i.e. not powered flight so how does one locate an ICBM unless they know it ahs been launched from so-n-so place at so-n-so time so they can extrapolate its approx location and then hunt for it on various scopes..
Actually this gets me thinking..HOW exactly does an ABM system work???
What I mentioned above is just pure deductive logic on my part..
Because ICBMs once ballsitic have no heat signature (except during re-entry) and they basically just freely fall to their target after that..
also there are a lot of MIRV based decoys so that reduces chances of getting a live warhead(s) even more..grim reality aye??


Let me see if I can answer your questions, based on current unclassified US technologies.

As soon as an ICBM is launched it's heat signature is detected by a DSP/SBIRS sattelite that offers 100% worldwide coverage. Based on the IR signature and direction, DSP can roughly determine what is launched and where it is going. (Russia is the only other country with a similar system).

Once the ICBM reaches a certain height it is detected by one (or more) space survailance radar systems, which can track the ICBM until re-entry. Russia and the US have capabilites for decoys/chaff/ECM, although these are typically deployed while traveling towards the earth, making it pretty easy to get a general impact point. The US's uses radar systems at Cape Cod AS, Cavalier AS (North Dakota - part of the original Safeguard ABM system), Beale AFB CA, Thule AFB, Greenland, Eglin AFB, FL, Clear AFS, AL, ad RAF Flylingdales. Obviously how good these radar systems are at sorting out decoys is kept secret.

Once the RV begins to re-enter the atmosphere it becomes very hot, and can likely be detected by space based IR sensors again. No known ICBM's contain any decoys capable of surviving re-entry.

The US National Missile Denfense ABM system uses these and newly built radars to track the re-entry system (typically before multiple RV's seperate) and launch a missile to intercept. Depending on how manuverable the RS is and the types of decoys this can be very difficult. Although the US only plans 20-30 interceptors, so it is obviosly not designed to be effective against a Russian threat. There are also boost phase systems (i.e. the Air born laser), which makes decoys improbable - although you have to be pretty close to the suspected launch site. The Patriot is a terminal denfense system, which means it uses smaller radars to detect the missile after it re-enters, although the current PAC-3 probably would be innefective against an ICBM warhead (they are just too small and fast). Both the US Army and Navy are designing systems to meet this need however.

That said, there is simply no effective defense against a large scall ICBM attack, particularly against advanced ICBM's that both the US and Russia have. It will always be far more costly to develop a defensive than to overcome it, so unless one country has far more money and better technology ICBM's are impossible to defend against.

Here are some pic's

Pave Paws radar at Cape Cod


DSP sattelite


Link to an overview picture
www.globenet.free-online.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
thanks ..that answer quite a few questions I had..MIRVS could screw it up a lot after re-entry aye??..hehe..Also I'd like to know how EXACTLY this systme that the US/Russia has which can detect launches ANYWHERE in the world..pretty hard to believe..



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
thanks ..that answer quite a few questions I had..MIRVS could screw it up a lot after re-entry aye??..hehe..Also I'd like to know how EXACTLY this systme that the US/Russia has which can detect launches ANYWHERE in the world..pretty hard to believe..


Detecting launches anywhere is pretty simple, take a few of those DSP sattelites, put them in geostationary orbit and they can detect heat sources over most of the earth. Supplement that with some other small sattelites to cover the south and north poles and you have worldwide covereage.

However, given the economic state of the Russian military and their priorities, it is unlikely that they have the kind of coverage as they once had. (Sattelites have a limited lifespan, the US launches a new DSP sattelite every 5 or so years)



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I don't think we could defend against a large missile attack today.I think lasers are the only thing quick enough to stop a large ICBM attack but the power of the laser which is needed is still like 5 or 10 years away.I also heard of a magnetic shield that could repel a missile attack, but I can not confirm that.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by thecry]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
the world wide coverage of airspace isn't restricted to one nation or another i think that they share it right now between most countries anyway. One thing about those lasers in the jumbo jets is that they can target multiple targets at the same time. so if they have those things flying around all the time under the guise of civilian passenger liners how would anyone ever know. Also it makes sense that the icbms would be travelling very hot and fast into the atmosphere and might even be sheilded from laser just because they have to withsatand the re-entry. wouldn't it really be scary if they had icbms on satellites with nukes they would only have half the time to find out whats going on.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I'd say that if ICMB's were obsolete, then it would be reasonable to think that the governements in charge of them (and of course the systems that are being said to have made them obsolete) would know that ICBMS are obsolete.

And if that were true then there'd be quite a bit more war and strife than there is now.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
personally i dont think ICBMs are meant to use, they are meant to threaten. only put fear.
But i dont think so that theres any defense against them.
i mean that thing comes at around mac-22 almost vertically down.
Also the Boeing laser is still far away,
and i read it on ats that the russians have a nw ICBM that cannot be intercepted even if an anti-missile bursts 50 feet from it.

so cant the laser be averted or absorbed bgy thick armor?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
The Airborne laser can get the new Russian missles as stated by Intelgurl, but the problem is, if no intelligence is given and the missles are set off with not warning, then were toast. But if tensions started to rise, then we send alot of ABL to the areas so that we are protected.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Tell me a little bit more about this ABL creature you speak of..



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Tell me a little bit more about this ABL creature you speak of..


The ABL is a 747 that carries a large chemical laser. It has the capability to burn through the shell of just about anything at ranges of several hundred miles.

If one is in the general area that a missile is launched, it tracks the missile and destroys it during the boost phase. Current plans are for the AF to acquire 6 ABL's. Becuase it operates in the boost phase, there is really no way to confuse the ABL (a rocket engine is very difficult to hide or spoof), and armor is out of the question becuase of the added weight.

www.boeing.com...

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Starwars51]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
yeah thats the thing i was talking about its so cool. I heard about it a few years back and watched something on discovery channel about it. the thing is wuite a neat toy.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Yes defense against and ICBM, full scale, is neraly impossible to stop, but for years the military does exercises on this stuff, of course computer modulated exercises.

As far as tracking the ICBM's, trust me, if a country has them and we know of the location, cause you cant move something that big without it being noticed, we track it...and ICBM takes time to prep for launch and when and ICBM launches it has a high heat signature that burns in one spot for nearly 7 seconds before it really gets about 200' off the ground, thats when DSP sat's pick it up ASAP and all types of lights go off everywhere. There are steps and procedures to intercepting.

Also to build such a weapon cost lots of money, from missile construction to launch platform construction, not to mention the parts that are shipped in and out. Thats where Economy and World Affairs Intel steps into place, monitoring the purchase and sale of certain items, shipping and what is done with it. There is another intel section that deals just with weapons purchases and anythign related to weapons of any scale, they monitor that stuff pretty well.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mscbkc070904
Yes defense against and ICBM, full scale, is neraly impossible to stop, but for years the military does exercises on this stuff, of course computer modulated exercises.

As far as tracking the ICBM's, trust me, if a country has them and we know of the location, cause you cant move something that big without it being noticed, we track it...and ICBM takes time to prep for launch and when and ICBM launches it has a high heat signature that burns in one spot for nearly 7 seconds before it really gets about 200' off the ground, thats when DSP sat's pick it up ASAP and all types of lights go off everywhere. There are steps and procedures to intercepting.


This is why most new ICBM's are cold launched (i.e. the Peacekeeper or SS-18 Satan) - it reduces the time that IR sensors have to detect them. However the 60 seconds (or more) of engine burn time is more than enough to detect and track.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join