US anti-ICBM Multiple kill vehicle...so much for evading missiles and MIRV

I dont know how I missed this before, in fact I wondered why it hadn't been developed. It turns out it had

Apparently the US government awarded someone a contract for a sort of GBMCD with MIRV except the vehicles dont re-enter. They independently target. This greatly reduces the problem of MIRV, one interceptor can be lighter and easier to get up there than an 8 warhead MIRVed missile, more can be fitted, it would be less expensive, and less warheads would get through.

It also logically would posess advanced capability against evading missiles, I.E. instead of shooting a bullet with a bullet, you shoot a bullet with a shotgun. I'm not sure it specified that, I am simply thinking that logically it SHOULD be better suited against newer missiles such as Topol-M variants.

Here is a great PDF about it: www.smdc.army.mil...

I have been told that TITAN missiles were actually designed to be used defensively. In the event of nuclear war, the TITANs would be launched, in response to an enemy ICBM launch, then exploded at the appropriate coordinates, to take out as many enemy missiles as possible. Bearing in mind that a full nuclear exchange would result in many, many missiles being launched towards a single target, all within a small frame of time, targeting them individually would not be very efficient, nor effective. Blowing the hell out of square mile sections of the sky, on the other hand, would work very well for taking out 10 thousand enemy missiles. So I guess it makes sense.

I think these calls for modernized, non nuclear missile defense systems, is for war with third world countries, such as Iraq and Iran. What use they have against modern military powers, I'll never know

Originally posted by electronQM
I have been told that TITAN missiles were actually designed to be used defensively. In the event of nuclear war, the TITANs would be launched, in response to an enemy ICBM launch, then exploded at the appropriate coordinates, to take out as many enemy missiles as possible. Bearing in mind that a full nuclear exchange would result in many, many missiles being launched towards a single target, all within a small frame of time, targeting them individually would not be very efficient, nor effective. Blowing the hell out of square mile sections of the sky, on the other hand, would work very well for taking out 10 thousand enemy missiles. So I guess it makes sense.

I think these calls for modernized, non nuclear missile defense systems, is for war with third world countries, such as Iraq and Iran. What use they have against modern military powers, I'll never know

I assure 10,000 Missiles will take up more than a Sq Mile AND 10,000 Missiles will NOT be fired for 1-4 targets, each target that Russia/U.S.A. has targetted will get 3-5 war heads thats why Russia and U.S.A. have 39,000 and 25,000 warheads there are THOUSANDS of targets they've targeted.

It, however, certainly a good alternative to the current program -- And as the current program is targeted at the likes of Iran or North Korea, and Russia, I see the point as being moot.