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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I don't see why Russia couldn't be coming from both ways.




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You're kidding yourself if you think America's would lose. This is why it's a bad idea to even converse Nuclear Weapons with the country that invented them.

We're substantially cushy on many other things, that's the only reason people are even allowed to have Nuke other than us.

Also if Russia launched that many warheads, America would use a 'blow up the whole planet' bomb. The only reason America has nukes is a deterrent, and they're moving onto bigger things.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 06:33 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?

Sub launched cruise missiles off the coast. If what happened in Syria is any indicator... its still very difficult to intercept these, otherwise the US would have.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 06:41 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.


Yes meteors travel at the speed of smell.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: joshysway


What kind of antimissile system does the US have

If you don't count 911, where the US couldn't stop a few airliners, imagine if some sneak attack included warheads aboard commercial aircraft in combination with warheads hidden in shipping containers, millions of which arrive in all major US ports every year, get shipped to destinations all over the country by truck and rail?

Forgetting all that, what would stop a bunch of low flying cruise missiles launched from ballistic missile submarines?

We might detect them, but how do you stop them?

In my day, the system was called Nike, googling...

image search

This coastal defense system was designed to hurl nuclear weapons skyward to detonate en masse and stop incoming ICBMs form Russia and China. What a fireworks show that would have been...


edit on 26-3-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Sneak a warhead onto Jetblue?

It's like out of an oceans movie...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MacK80

It's funny.... All sorts of wild, mostly useless talk on this thread and not a mention that the US has space platforms that will take care of most business for ICBMs. ('Course, Phage probably will deny that any evidence exists for such weapon platforms as he ignores that we have--or somebody does!--the triangles.) And the cover keepers will come along to call this post wild.

Such is the world views and our opinions as fashioned by outside influences.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Probably the main antimissile system is the fact that a lot of people don't want to shoot one in the first place because of general intimidation.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
After the Obama silent revolution , I would say rubber bands and paper clips...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Mark1456

The Right is just ignorant atm about Nukes.

Trump was quoted asking why we even have them, if not to use them.

If we have weapons much greater than nukes, it's an easy psy op to pull off however to strawman their importance. We want to sell nukes fully knowing that if one ever goes off, they know we will punish the living hell out of them forever. It's a scam.

Nukes don't win territory. They destroy the planet. Who wants in on that? At least the major superpowers. It's a bravado thing. Not legitimate national defense.
edit on 26-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



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

As Phage said..."a really, really good one"....and others. And Ill use one word. Lasers. Point and shoot. Done.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: joshysway
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?


*Additionally...unlike my 45 caliber with hollow points I have to draw, point and fire to defend myself...quit thinking we need "guns" and "missles" and "propelled" devices..to "shoot" down incoming...

We could even just "pulse an EMP" at about anything coming while we're in our bathrobes and slippers.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We have a great defense against Medium range missiles. Our defense against ICBMs sucks, but is improving.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Lasers work great during the boost phase, but the terminal phase is much harder to stop, and is getting better at getting through.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I read that the anti-missile defense system to protect us from missiles coming across the ocean is flawed, it can't hit much. The original tests were good but they were structured to succeed. When our government tested them in a real life situation, they failed both times, I guess the contractor is trying to fix the problem of the worthless missile defense system.

Then we ordered a bunch more of the missile busters after they knew they did not work. Maybe we can get cooperation from other countries so that they follow only the right way so we can hit their missiles. Trump can talk Russia into doing that.
Kims missiles may even be able to hit California.

I do not know if they got that problem fixed, it has been a year now since I read that report. Those antimissile missiles stationed in Alaska are very expensive, and they did not work well during real life testing.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun


It's funny.... All sorts of wild, mostly useless talk on this thread and not a mention that the US has space platforms that will take care of most business for ICBMs.

But not cruise missiles. If launched from off shore submarines Inside flight time is about six minutes. Tons of drugs come into this country all the time that supposedly can't be interdicted. How many tons of bombs or bomb parts you think could sneak by, too?

None of that could be stopped by "Rods from God" or whatever orbital magic bullet you are proposing.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What about "Free Electron Lasers"? I know, a bit of fantasy land, but wasn't this technology being researched? based off the potential applications, you'll think this is our answer...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger


We could even just "pulse an EMP" at about anything coming while we're in our bathrobes and slippers.

Over rated, the effects of EMP burst(s) wouldn't stop a mass attack of ICBM's from all points of the compass. Especially if they are past apogee and free falling towards their targets. War heads themselves are shielded , btw.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Lasers work great during the boost phase, but the terminal phase is much harder to stop, and is getting better at getting through.


Yes. Im of the opinion we speak too much about nukes and missiles flying through the sky...there a more than a few ways to attack an opponent...and we hardly refer to them at all.

I think "Joe Average" just thinks missiles and delivery systems. We got a WHOLE LOT of high tech top-secret weaponry we can't imagine in the "garage". What do we think they are for?

A simple one is set a biological weapon on both coasts loose, let it spread..and EMP the entire country and communication with each other. Let us kill ourselves over food and water....

The rest will die from the bio weapons...then just move in...clear 'em out...and everything is left in place. Houses, building, stores etc...no electronics though...but thats easy to fix in a short amount of time by the conquerors....

Thanks...Best



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: intrptr

What about "Free Electron Lasers"? I know, a bit of fantasy land, but wasn't this technology being researched? based off the potential applications, you'll think this is our answer...

Thats why I showed the Russian cruise missile strikes from the Caspian Sea. If we had such bad ass secret tech it would have been employed already and stopped the Russian cruise missiles?

The western narrative has such total control from on high, monitoring every single russian military asset round the world with satellites, ready at a minutes notice to detect multiple launch signatures and any missiles with lasers from orbit, air borne platforms, even land based lasers?

Right? How come these multiple cruise missile launches from the Caspian sea were allowed to continue on to whatever target they were headed for, before the US military even knew where they were headed for?

We have all these patriot batteries along the Turkish border with Syria too, they weren't employed either. Some of the cruise missiles fired by Russia were launched from the Mediterranean too. How many US carrier strike groups didn't stop them either?


google search




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join