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.

 

What kind of antimissle system does the US have

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
What kind of anti missle defense system does the US have to protect ourselves? I have to imagine there is a system in place that could not only being down any nuclear warheads headed towards us, but even destroy them seconds after they are launched. Is nuclear war less likely perhaps with potential technology we don't know about?




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: joshysway

A really really good one.

And getting better all the time.
www.cnn.com...

They didn't just get close. They flew right into the damned thing.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: joshysway

Nope.

Protecting against nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles is very difficult. Stealthed MIRV's (Multiple Independently targeted Re-entry Vehicles) can fall passively from space at high velocity in their hundreds or thousands.

If meteorites (high iron content) falling from space, still impact the ground within the United States, then how effective do you believe the 'technology' is? Why isn't it deployed against another natural threat to American lives and property?

The answer is that the technology to shield the US does not exist.

It is only during the launch phase that any system would be effective.

edit on 26/3/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


If meteorites (high iron content) falling from space, still impact the ground within the United States, then how effective do you believe the 'technology' is?
Meteors don't have a launch signature and travel much, much faster than ballistic missiles.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I saw a documentary years ago on tv where government guys were talking about the cold war nuclear threat. They said on that program that they really didnt have a defense system at that time against nukes, they just made a bunch of propaganda so the soviets would believe we had a system that could blow their missles out of the sky. But they didnt really have one at that time



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut


If meteorites (high iron content) falling from space, still impact the ground within the United States, then how effective do you believe the 'technology' is?
Meteors don't have a launch signature and travel much, much faster than ballistic missiles.


Correct on both counts.

... but if Russia launched their 4,490 ballistic missiles each carrying an average of 20 MIRVs (that's 89,800 warheads), how effective a shield would a few thousand ship borne missiles be? Not to mention that the ships would have to be in close proximity to the launch locations and with only 84 equipped ships that leaves a lot of unprotected launches, and the anti-ballistic missiles would have to be launched only a few at a time from each ship.

edit on 26/3/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

how effective a shield would a few thousand ship borne missiles be?
Fairly. But it wouldn't matter when the dust settled. It only takes a few.

I don't think Russia is the main nuclear threat. Do you?
edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

how effective a shield would a few thousand ship borne missiles be?
Fairly. But it wouldn't matter when the dust settled. It only takes a few.

I don't think Russia is the main nuclear threat. Do you?


Doesn't matter who launches first, the result is we all die.

(on balance, I actually think the Americans are the biggest threat because some of them seem think that it might be possible to 'win')




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah.

There's that fat kid though.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah.

There's that fat kid though.


Just crazy enough...




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, our shiny new Secretary of State is a big help.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: joshysway




I have to imagine there is a system in place that could not only being down any nuclear warheads headed towards us, but even destroy them seconds after they are launched


Then you imagine wrong. Defenses may or may not protect against a launch from a known site. But If Russia decided to launch a surprize attack from a number of container ships for example that have already entered US ports they could hit their targets within seconds, leaving no time for any defensive action.

The entire gambit with nuclear deterrent is that we all die. Well those that don't have a pass to underground shelters. You do, don't you?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, our shiny new Secretary of State is a big help.


What, the ex-Exxon boy scout, Mr Wayne Tracker? (or is it Caligula's horse)?




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: joshysway

A really really good one.

And getting better all the time.
www.cnn.com...

They didn't just get close. They flew right into the damned thing.


Thats for theatre ballistic missiles.

The USA has no defence for ICBM's.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The USA has no defence for ICBM's.
How do you know?
But, apart from that, where did the OP mention ICBMs?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee


The USA has no defence for ICBM's.
How do you know?
But, apart from that, where did the OP mention ICBMs?


No one has an effective defence system against ICBM's, they're travelling at 16,000 mph.

Nuclear warheads headed towards the USA aren't coming from Canada or Mexico, they would be ICBM's from Russia or China.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Huh. Russia and China only have one delivery system. I did not know that.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee
Huh. Russia and China only have one delivery system. I did not know that.


huh?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee


The USA has no defence for ICBM's.
How do you know?
But, apart from that, where did the OP mention ICBMs?


No one has an effective defence system against ICBM's, they're travelling at 16,000 mph.

Nuclear warheads headed towards the USA aren't coming from Canada or Mexico, they would be ICBM's from Russia or China.


You forgot about NK, israhel, pakistan ans the countries they candupply to, and then the one i think is mist likely a nuclear attack in usa by usa. That will most probably be a stolen nuke or a rouque person or organisation



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
If they blast it with nuclear reactions, it could eventually be like a laser pointer popping a balloon because of the required material inside of it.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join