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.

 

The Missile Defense System May Be A Reality

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
today.reuters.com...

I fully think that this is a realistic assessment. I personally expect it to work, but I don't know if it will protect us from anyone other than Russia and China who, despite the posturing, are not really immediate threats.

The question is, will it actually work? And will it matter?




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Im sure it will work against a limited ballistic missile attack. We dont have enough units yet to prevent a massive onslaught of ICBMs. I have to admit that I feel better that we have these systems, too many nuts in the world trying to get their hands on ICBMs.

I am really surprised we arent seeing more of a protest from thge Russians since this will eventually make their current ICBMs moot and places them at a strategic disadvantage. I am sure they are attempting to develop missiles that will defeat the new missile defense system. the good news is this makes NK, Iran, etc. missiles completely obsolete from the get go.


ape

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
eventually in time we will have what it takes to protect from a 'full' onslaught ( anyone who shoots a nuke at us will be having a massive amount of nukes going at them losing launch sites in the process). they are working on THAAD which was displayed on future weapons and so was the stategy, it looks sick, pure kinetic energy to take out the ICBM.

I dont know how far ahead the military is regards to a solid layered missile defense system, we certainly dont know the full scoop. 1 thing is for sure with the advancment of THEL/DEW and THAAD among others we are going to be untouchable in the future.





[edit on 29-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Currently our ABM units can probably stop a limited attack by a less sophisticated enemy, however against a large well equipped force we can't really do anything but play show and tell with our ICBMs. However I too think if current US ABM efforts (ie R/D, funds, resources etc...) are maintained or even increased for a few decades we will eventually have the capability to implement Regan's original magic bubble that stopped close to everything.

Also, Russia is making very loud noises, and has been ever since the US announced their intent to place a limited missile and radar facility in one of two (or both?) former soviet republics (Poland and the Czech Republic). Recently the US formally requested if the Czech Republic would host a US ABM site. Eventually their government will agree and the instillation would go operational sometime around 2011.

Now, either Russia sees the possible full (future) potential or they just don't like US/NATO forces increasing their presence in former Soviet territories even more. The 10 or so interceptors themselves would pose no threat to the Russian strategic arsenal. However I suspect the very long range of the surveillance units and the long term effects of this strategic move is what's really got them pissed.

Linky

EDIT: Could someone shorten the long link from hell? Thanks.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by WestPoint23]


ape

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a good read WP. russia better read the writing on the wall and adjust because their bread and butter is about to become obsolete ( they dont have the money to adjust, they better just demilitarize all together and focus on domestic issues ). IMO russia is the past, they got a ton of missiles but they have no clout.

hah, notice the commie party is the strongest opposition against the US offer.

I hope the left in our country doesn't gut funding for such programs man, the liberals scare me. if they ascend to the whitehouse we can forget about a missile defense. but who knows, maybe they will grow some nads.





[edit on 30-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
The danger of such missile defence is not that it deters rogue elements from launching missile attacks on the U.S., but that it makes an American first strike more likely.

Given the state of decay in Russian strategic forces, it has been speculated (in Foriegn Affairs magazine, no less) that the old paradigm of Mutually Assured Destruction may be crumbling with the introduction of such systems.

An accurate first strike would leave so few assets left for a Russian command to respond with that a modern ABM system such an event becomes more likely in a crisis.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
eventually in time we will have what it takes to protect from a 'full' onslaught ( anyone who shoots a nuke at us will be having a massive amount of nukes going at them losing launch sites in the process). they are working on THAAD which was displayed on future weapons and so was the stategy, it looks sick, pure kinetic energy to take out the ICBM.

I dont know how far ahead the military is regards to a solid layered missile defense system, we certainly dont know the full scoop. 1 thing is for sure with the advancment of THEL/DEW and THAAD among others we are going to be untouchable in the future.





[edit on 29-1-2007 by ape]



What about them attacking us from the INSIDE !?!?!?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
If we get attacked from the inside then it probably won't involve missiles, so yeah, inside attacks would probably leave us in quite a pickle. But that goes for any country, not just the US.

So far it's a good step, although one has to wonder how effective it actually is. Although THAAD looked pretty sweet on Future Weapons we only saw one test. One test which didn't actually give us too many details. For all we know the system might be up and running but might not work against a single ballistic missile when the time comes.

The other question is how effective the system is against MIRV carrying missiles. Because I'm no ballistic missile expert, but I'd imagine that there's a few that release their MIRV's before it's within range of THAAD. So who's to say that Russia hasn't sold a few under the table? After all, with tens of thousands of warheads that'd been recycled I'd imagine that some of the delivery vehicles might have been mysteriously lost.

So are we untouchable? Far from it. Are we safe from limited ballistic missile attack? More so than we had been, but I still wouldn't bet your life on it. Will be untouchable from ballistic missiles in the future? Probably not, history shows that offensive technology tends advance more quickly than defensive technology.

Overall this is good news, but we need to take it with a grain of salt and still can't afford to get overconfident when dealing with international politics.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
The other question is how effective the system is against MIRV carrying missiles. Because I'm no ballistic missile expert, but I'd imagine that there's a few that release their MIRV's before it's within range of THAAD.


THAAD, Patriot and to an extent the SM-3 are all designed with an intended capability to intercept the individual reentry warheads in the terminal phase.


Originally posted by cyberdude78
Will be untouchable from ballistic missiles in the future? Probably not, history shows that offensive technology tends advance more quickly than defensive technology.


Normally I'd agree but looking at ballistic missile tech over the last 30 years or so the basics have not changed. Yeah the CEP has gotten better and so have the decoys but it's still the same basic design. ABM tech will advance more rapidly then ballistic missile tech if current efforts are sustained.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I know it is a cliche, but I would disagree with your assumption that offensive capabilities generally outstrip defensive ones.

The reason that cities had walls from Ancient Mesopotamia until the late 18th century was -- very simply -- that they were effective. Indeed most sieges (in the range of over 90%) failed despite specialized siege engineers because they were not able to breach city (or castle) walls and take over a city barring a lucky hit or subterfuge from within. Indeed, even when a siege did succeed it was generally because they had the economic resources to outlast the defender (namely enough food or water), not some great technological advantage.

In modern war (of course) gunpowder has been a tough nut to crack. That said, the world's second largest war in the gunpowder age (roughly three hundred years after perfection of gunpowder) was essentially a stationary war since neither side had the offensive capabilities to overcome the trenches of the other. Again, it was economic force that defeated Germany, not the allied armies (except in so far as the allies with American help were simply able to field FAR greater numbers of troops than the Germans and overwhelm their lines).

Even during WWII, the defensive positions was of paramount importance to helping Russia stave off German advances despite Germany's superior artillery and tactical bombers. Germans were simply not able to overcome the defenses of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow. Even when the Russians advanced in return, they suffered astounding losses when the Germans were finally forced assume a defensive position (ie. Battle of Berlin). Look at the casualties America suffered at Okaniwa.

A few quicker examples:
Despite years of perfecting chemical weapons and new delivery systems for them gas masks are still very effective.
Despite over 150 years of the landmine, it is still a difficult task for an advancing army to dismantle them.
Isn't radar essentially a "defensive" technology? Despite 70 years after its development only massive spending by the US has allowed the bomber to overcome this. And still America is the only country with this capability, and even it isn't perfect.


ape

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

xbadger
Even during WWII, the defensive positions was of paramount importance to helping Russia stave off German advances despite Germany's superior artillery and tactical bombers. Germans were simply not able to overcome the defenses of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow


I agree to an extent but in russias case that country was on the verge of either surrender or full slaughter, it was the US lend lease that allowed russia to continue it's defenses, otherwise the nazis would have overran that country. you are correct about supply lines though, the nazis didn't expect the russians to last as long as they did ( thanks to the US ) and it was a military blunder.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I seriously doubt it will work. I mean under test settings it hasn't even worked half the time against dummy missiles which are highly visible. How can they expect it to work under real settings. I don't. Its just another case of a connected defense contractor getting the contract even though their system might not be the best option available.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
The danger of such missile defence is not that it deters rogue elements from launching missile attacks on the U.S., but that it makes an American first strike more likely.

Thats not much of a danger for the US, so the US is probably going to go along with it.

Also, there's really just no need for nuclear war between the US and Russia. Russia isn't old guard communist anymore. True enough, they want to reassert themselves as a global pole, but they're not going to want to risk nuclear war over that. Indeed, they can reassert themselves as a global pole, the US realizes that its not going to be a unipolar world anymore.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I have a theory these systems may be much more effective then we think or are lead to believe. These system they show the public have been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet, though at speeds much faster then any bullet. Rightly so it is not easy.

But what if you could a any point during interception increase the size of your bullet by millions of times? Imagine what that would do to the intercept odds of current systems?

Well you could if your interceptor had a nuclear warhead. That concept goes back to at least to the Nike-Hercules Missile which could be fitted with the W31 nuclear warhead with yields of 2KT, 20KT and 40KT.

Doing so you just turned your bullet into the side of Barn by comparison (not even getting into any EMP effect)

Just with a much more modern and accurate system compared to something like a hercules.

For obvious reasons such a system would have to be part of the outer layer of defense. It could cause huge political headaches if made public but when Some country is shooting ICBMs at you all bets are off and its of little concern then.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join