Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 08:44 AM
link   
fas.org...

































[Edited on 2-7-2004 by 4]




posted on Oct, 21 2002 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Very interesting......however, the primary threat to national security is still asymetric WMD assaults conducted by terrorists and not nation-states. Why would someone want to spend all that money on material and R&D for ICBM tech when they could simply hand carry a nuke into any city they want???



posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It's not easy to build a suitcase nuke. Only Great Powers can do it. Because they have the technology, the know how.

Rogues states don't have these knowledges. But they can buil a ballistic missile.



posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Ultra-Phoenix; but of course some of these rogue states have lots of cash and can buy the technology.
I shudder to think what might be lying around in some of the former Soviet republics -waiting for a buyer to come along.
On the general issue of "why" - I think a lot of it is pure commercial greed: the biggest bucks go to defence. A century ago every Great Power was bankrupting itself building Dreadnoughts - they clashed, basically, once in the inconclusive Battle of Jutland and then some smart Alec invents the aircraft carrier.



posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:49 AM
link   
It's true Estragon.

But only the Russians could sell this technology to a rogue state. And they are now ( the Russians ) involved in the war to terrorism. So, I don't think they'll do it.

But may be they did it before, when former USSR were collapsing and looking for money.

BTW, I'm not sure. I can't believe that they do it. Russians and former Varsaw Pact nations are like NATO nations. They want stability. And they'll not have it if they sell nuclear suitcase to terrorists.

And I'm still convinced that terrorists don't have nuke suitcase. May be it's naive, but if they don't use a nuke suitcase, it means only 1 thing : They don't have nuke suitcase. ( I hope )



posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I agree about the suitcase "nukes" and I certainly don't think the governments or official % unofficial agencies of Russia or the old Warsaw Pact nations would have sold such weapons -too scared of having them used against themselves, apart from anything else.
But I could believe that criminals, warlords, dissidents could sell such a weapon.
Not yet, though -the test would indeed be that they would have used one.



posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 04:58 PM
link   
NATO, Varsaw Pact, the Cold War....Things were so clear. Pure like Crystal. Everybody knews what he had to do, where was his side. Things were statics of course, but we were living in a more secure world than now.



posted on Oct, 31 2002 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Hahahaha.....wait a sec....are you serious???

I seriously hope you don't REALLY think that its cheaper to build an ICBM than it is to acquire a suitcase nuke??!!! Do you know how much money the US and USSR spent on weapon R&D and facilities to have ICBM's? Billions upon billions of dollars. You think a country like Libya, Iran or Iraq would have that kind of purchasing power parity? HELL NO!

The Russian gov't has NOTHING to do with buying or selling ex-Soviet weapons technology!! These weapons are available on the BLACKMARKET! So....its actually the Russian mob that would be selling the suitcase nukes. And I seriously doubt that they would harbor any moral qualms about selling WMDs to terrorists.



posted on Nov, 1 2002 @ 12:16 PM
link   
psypher, these technology ( ICBM's ) are now " afordable ". There is many rockets scientists who have the know-how and even a "poor " nation like Libya or North-Korea can build a basic ICBM with a SRV warhead. They don't need more. They don't have to have 1000 ICBM's, loaded with 10 MIRV or MARV. For them, 30 or 40 " light" ICBM, it's enough.



posted on Nov, 1 2002 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I guess one difference is that the origin of an ICBM can be identified and that to launch one would be an act of war -by a government.
That's why the MAD doctrine worked -we "know who you are and we'll get you back."
Not so with terrorists -as modern events so tragically show -which is why a portable "unlaunched" nuclear device is so frightening.
The "origin" could be a parked car in any street, anywhere. And always the country of origin would also be the target - and what sort of doctrine can prepare a nation for that?



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 04:37 AM
link   
In the sixities and the seventies,the Soviets deployed space weapons. It were satellites who were carrying A & H bombs.

These satellites were on a sub-orbital orbit.

I wonder if they removed them or not.



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by psypherDo you know how much money the US and USSR spent on weapon R&D and facilities to have ICBM's? Billions upon billions of dollars. You think a country like Libya, Iran or Iraq would have that kind of purchasing power parity? HELL NO!

One thing you've failed to see is what the natural course is that new technologies follow: The R&D money has been spent & mass production has been implemented. As technologies progress, the already-existing facilities can produce things much cheaper *now* than they were able to back then. As the price of production continues to drop, more "consumers" become able to afford the "products". Why do you think that you're computer's value or your car's value drops significantly every time a newer model hits the market?



Originally posted by ultra_phoenixI wonder if they removed them (weapons satellites) or not.

Good question...I wish I had an answer. Even if they've been merely "disarmed" of all potential weapons, it would be acceptable to me. I'd just hate to see a satellite's orbit decay enough to bring it to ground & see a nuclear explosion result from the impact...



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'd really like to see some evidence that space-based nuclear weapons platforms were ever even succesfully developed let alone deployed.

As for the point about ICBMs being cheaper to deploy nowdays... that may be true, but you have to consider that they'd have to be developed and deployed in a country WITH the governments knowledge. There is no way that terrorists could build an ICBM launch complex in some governments backyard without their knowledge. Accordingly, if a nuclear strike were initiated, the country of origin would be promptly immolated by a US counter-strike. In short, no gov't would EVER let that happen.

I definitely agree with Estragon here. Land based devices (suitcase nukes) are a much bigger threat than ICBMs.



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by psypher

I'd really like to see some evidence that space-based nuclear weapons platforms were ever even succesfully developed let alone deployed.

Well, the Soviets didn't try to hide their nuke space weapons.Look on the net.



Originally posted by psypher

As for the point about ICBMs being cheaper to deploy nowdays... that may be true, but you have to consider that they'd have to be developed and deployed in a country WITH the governments knowledge. There is no way that terrorists could build an ICBM launch complex in some governments backyard without their knowledge. Accordingly, if a nuclear strike were initiated, the country of origin would be promptly immolated by a US counter-strike. In short, no gov't would EVER let that happen.

I never sayed this. I told you that rogues nation, and not terrorists groups, want to have these weapons.

Originally posted by psypher

I definitely agree with Estragon here. Land based devices (suitcase nukes) are a much bigger threat than ICBMs.

Both are dangerous. ICBM from rogues nations & nuke suitcases from terrorists groups.We have to deal with both of them.



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Yeah right!! Like a nation-state would actually launch a nuclear attack on the United States! NEVER!! They know exactly what would happen if they did that! There is absolutely no way in hell that any country could be so stupid. Even Saddam would never try a stunt like that. Sure, he might try to nuke Israel or one of Iraq's neighbours, but it would be a cold day in hell when he tries to nuke the US!! When you think about it though, it would also be pretty stupid for a "rogue" nation to nuke Israel because they would respond just as violently (if not more violently) as the US.

As for those Soviet nuclear satellites, be so kind as to provide a URL to this alleged site you are talking about!!



posted on Nov, 5 2002 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I can't provide any URL to this alleged site,cuz I NEVER spoke about a website !

I have read it on a book, some years ago now. But feel free to look by yourself on google.



posted on Nov, 5 2002 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Nuclear satellites?
Well, if i can provide some help,
Here's a link. Polyus ASAT Station.
www.astronautix.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Thanks for the article. This only further reinforces what I was saying: There are NO soviet nuclear missile satellites in orbit. Nor were any ever designed as the article about this dubious "polyus" satellite says it was an anti-ASAT satellite and mentions nothing about ICBM launch capability. Furthermore, even if it did say any thing about that, the article says it never worked and that "Polyus's failure to achieve working orbit was caused by a faulty inertial guidance sensor".

Phoenix: You did say:


the Soviets didn't try to hide their nuke space weapons. Look on the net.



which would naturally lead me to believe that there was at least some testimonial evidence of these nuclear launch platforms you were talking about.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Look psypher, I have read this story about soviet-nuke-sat some years ago.

Unfortunately, I don't remember where. I just remember what it was write.

"Since the sixties and the seventies, USSR have satellites who are carrying A & H warheads ". May be it was a hoax, may be not. I don't know.




posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Well the problem with the logic that a suitcase nuke is too hard to come by is that it doesnt have to be in a suitcase. It could be in the boot of a car the back of a truck even a full size shipping container.

And the idea that a ICBM would be easier is just plain silly. ICBM technology isnt something you can just get and set up like any old machine gun mount. And the valid point is any launch directed at the US would be returned with a few hundred minutemans or what ever they use these days.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join