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.

 

Missle Defence Already Obsolete?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
It seems like the US plans on developing a missle defence system is already obsolete according to Russina President Putin. After comments he made at a news conferece boasting of Russias new missle systems.




MSNBC.com
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday boasted that Russia has missiles capable of penetrating any missile defense system, the ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies reported.

"Russia last year tested missile systems that no one in the world has and won't have for a long time," the news agencies quoted him as telling a news conference. "These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path."


Well I wasnt one for the missle defence program anyway but I dont know about the claims of Putin about his missles until I see them. This just seems like its more saber rattling then anything.

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)



[edit on 2-2-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Already posted. This is the usual BS, with absolutely no proof and what has this new missile been actually tested against. NOTHING, lol.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The only way that a missile defense would work is to shoot down the ICBM as it is launching. There are between 50-200 warheads and decoys that come out of a single ICBM. You would need just as many interceptor missiles to defend against just ONE ICBM. When over 1000 could be launched simultaneously... well the numbers just get ridiculous.

The best proposal that I have read (in the journal Foreign Affairs) is to do a joint defense with other countries and put interceptor sites near ICBM launch sites of hostile countries. For example, we could team with Russia to put an interceptor site near North Korea.

Of course, that leads to the notion of "You built nukes, so we built interceptor sites near your border" which is followed by "You build interceptor sites near our border, so we built more nukes." And around and around it goes.

Let's just push the Big Red Button and wipe out humankind so that the Earth can spend a couple billion extra years to evolve a new species that isn't so damn destructive.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Do you have a link for where this is already posted? just wondering so I can check that thread.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
The only way that a missile defense would work is to shoot down the ICBM as it is launching. There are between 50-200 warheads and decoys that come out of a single ICBM.


LOL, between 50-200, just where exactly did you get that, the figure is so far off base that it's completely ridiculous. Seriously, you really should do some more reading.


Northrider, if you do a search, you should be able to find the link.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The NMD program was never intended to counter the Russians anyway, even without the new MARV's the Russians can simply saturate the system with far more missles than we have interceptors. Even NMD's staunchest supporters freely admit it would be useless against a large scale ICBM attack by Russia or even China.

The system is only useful in the event of a North Korea or equivalent launching one or two missles, and judging by it's failure to get off the pad in tests, I wouldn't bet my life on it protecting us from that either...

[edit on 1/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
The only way that a missile defense would work is to shoot down the ICBM as it is launching. There are between 50-200 warheads and decoys that come out of a single ICBM.


LOL, between 50-200, just where exactly did you get that, the figure is so far off base that it's completely ridiculous. Seriously, you really should do some more reading.


Northrider, if you do a search, you should be able to find the link.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by mad scientist]


How many decoys are with the 3 warheads in a MM3 or 6-14 Trident D-5?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
its a cover for other projects like anti missile lasers and long wave radar.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
The only way that a missile defense would work is to shoot down the ICBM as it is launching. There are between 50-200 warheads and decoys that come out of a single ICBM.


LOL, between 50-200, just where exactly did you get that, the figure is so far off base that it's completely ridiculous. Seriously, you really should do some more reading.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by mad scientist]


I did research it, 'tard. Just because you put a laughy-face in your post doesn't mean that you know what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I suppose the number of decoys probrably relies in large part on just how sophisticated the decoys are. Simple, self inflating mylar ballons will get the job done while the missile is out of the atmosphere, provided no-one is using IR to look at the potential targets. And they don't need to be very large prior to inflation, so I suppose a large number of them could be stowed in the space required for just one live warhead.

Fortunately, there are systems which can tell the difference between a ballon and a nuclear warhead.

Unfortunately, there's also a never ending cycle of who can build the best decoys vs who can build the best discrimination system. and decoys are easier.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join