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.

 

An Expensive Solution (US Missle Defence) To An Imaginary Threat

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

An Expensive Solution (US Missle Defence) To An Imaginary Threat


www.canada.com

"The United States is in the midst of one of the largest military buildups in history," wrote Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, in the May issue of Foreign Policy. "And it is against a threat that is disappearing -- fast."

Under George W. Bush's plan, the U.S. "would spend more than $60 billion on missile defence in the next six years, an unprecedented sum, even for the Pentagon," Cirincione wrote. And it would do this despite the fact that "there are far fewer missiles, missile programs, and hostile states with missiles aimed at the United States and its armed forces than there were 20 years ago. ...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
So there is less of a threat from missles now then there was 20 years ago!

So why are we going to build this HUGE, extremely EXPENSIVE, missile defense system in other countries when the threat from a missle attack is actually declining?

This doesn't make much sense to me if it is true!

And this is actually the first time I've ever heard a price tag put on this project.

60 BILLION DOLLARS!

I really think that that that money would be put to better use in trying to get rid of some of the countries debt than building a missile defense system in foreign countries!

Why should we get deeper in debt to pay for a missile defense system for foreign countries when that threat has been declining for the last 20 years?



Most of the 28 countries that have any ballistic missiles at all have only short-range Scud missiles -- which travel less than 300 miles and are growing older and less reliable each day. Even the number of countries trying to develop ballistic missiles is falling."



I think using this money to help pay back some of the countries debt would be the more responsible thing to do.

But, alas, politicians are involved in where this money gets spent and the military industry will no doubt get this money.

www.canada.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/13/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I wonder if the guy that penned the article needs to step out of whatever cave he has spent the last 20 years in
While the thread of all out global destruction is gone, the ongoing advance in many countries developing missile technology continues at a relentless pace.

If you wait around untill say Iran or North Korea develops a IRBM or an ICBM you have fallen too far behind. The missile defence system is designed for this very threat in mind.

Also this type of short sighted ignorant ranting like this:



So why are Europeans supposed to worry about Iran launching a missile or two their way? Iranian officials who survived the retaliatory bombardment would find themselves on trial in The Hague. Which is a bit of a deterrent, one would think.
www.canada.com...


This is a joke right? Who fears the Hague? Its not liek the nazi war crimes trials at all :shk:



[edit on 7/13/08 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Also to add:

The technology that comes out of such research will trickle into our industrial base for years and even decades. People made jokes about Reagans Star Wars program, but the technology is used in many facets of our regular lives every day now.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Poland just recently rebuked our missile shieild. Czechs have given the green light for it. We are playing a very real game of high stake 'Risk' here.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
So there is less of a threat from missles now then there was 20 years ago!

I don't believe that is a accurate statement especially considering how another poster pointed out that more and more countries are developing sophisticated weapons.

Plus, the technology to actually build an effective shield was not available 20 years ago. It is only recent progress which has allowed the technology to build the shield to come into fruition.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I was finding some of the things this article was saying a little hard to believe.

Here is a website that shows countries that have known missle capabilities if anybody is interested.

World Missle Chart

The article says 28 countries have ballistic missle capabilities and the website above claims there are 35 countries, doesn't seem like they did their homework very well.

I thought Canada.com was a trustworthy news source.

But I still don't see why the American people have to foot the bill for this!

Our country is trillions of dollars in debt! Why can't these countries that this system is being installed in go into debt to pay for this system? We're deep enough in debt! Let them go into some debt if they want this defense system!

We go deeper into debt and they just reap the fruits of our debt!

Just doesn't seem right!


[edit on 7/13/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Because Iran is going down. One way or another. I don't agree with it but it will happen soon. We are hog tied in the sack race with Israel.
It will be our eventual downfall....In my always of humblest expression.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
so whats the european based missile defense for anyway?

The premise that the missiles are there to protect from Iranian missiles is utter rubbish since the range of the shahab3 covers

kazakstan, russia, ukraine , molodva,romania, bulgaria and some greek islands *maybe crete*

and thats as far north as it goes.

the thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

covers the range of the `best` iranian missile.

so what use are missiles when its 530 miles from warsaw to bucharest? and these missiles would be based NORTH of warsaw?

poland have caught on to the game the USA want to play and don`t want any of it.

and the czech deal isn`t as clear cut as you think - thats going to court to force a national vote on it.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


Well it makes sense to calculate how many Russian missiles are being dismantled, and rogue nations missile capabilities increasing eh? 1,000 Russian missiles dismantled, rogue nations missiles increased lets say 50, indeed it makes sense not to spend on missile defense system that was never meant against Russian vast quantity of missiles in the first place. A dozen or so is hardly anything against Russia. Remember that one Senator made a show by thinking that its a useless system by making comparison to a torned up umbrella against rain.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Possible, But what of the -4 or the -5 variants etc. If the interceptors had the cross range speed needed to cover Europe from bases in the CONUS or the could track the inbounds from radars based in the CONUS then Ill bet the US would do so. But perhaps you could get away with space based radars, but the missiles have a finite speed. Space based Directed energy weapons would allow this but not for some time.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The -4 variant has a 2000 km range, the -5 and -6 5000 to 10000 respectivly. Note there is no evidence that any of these have been built as of yet.

[edit on 7/13/08 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
what I don't get is why they need a rocket based rocket shield .. when the USA and allies have THEL and MTHEL technology in there possession. they can even had plans of a space based THEL system . using lasers to shoot down what ever comes . rockets , mortars and even planes can be shot down with those systems .. the USA made it with co-operation of the Israelis.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Hmmmm! Perhaps even 'towers'? Was rather convienient the ISS was over NY on 911.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


missiles based in poland have the ability to engage russian icbm fields - since those are within the arc and travel range it could engage from - in the boost phase.

lets have a good look and see what its really for - 12 icbm is 96 warheads , so thats 96 fewer targets that would be killed.

google maps link

a little jiggery needed but move the map till you see the UK on the left then click ` show labels`

poland *should* be in the middle and all those `dots` in russia to the right are the icbm fields

so tell me again what those missiles would be for


[edit on 14/7/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



How many interceptors will they base there? We are talking about 10-20 here. If they are emplacing them by the 100's then you may have a point.

Could they take out Russian missiles inbound to Europe? Yes

Could they intercept enough to make any meaningfull dent in the attack? No.


lets have a good look and see what its really for - 12 icbm is 96 warheads , so thats 96 fewer targets that would be killed.


You are making the assumption that the missiles are intercepted in the boost phase (Its unlikely that the Russians would allow the ABL to loiter around thier missile fields) which with the Groundbased Missile Defence the interception occurs after MIRV separation. (Mid cource interception) Not to mention the oft touted Russian countermeasures. Terminal defence in the form of THAAD, MEADS, PAC-3 have not really shown that much sucess against such a hypervelocity rentry vehicle.

Even under your best case sceanrio that the missile can get 10 SS-18 in boost phase, they still have 1000's of deliverable warheads that can bounce the rubble 10 times over.

DOnt forget about MARV's which can manuver and pose a real headache for interceptors.

[edit on 7/15/08 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Let the boy's and girl's have there toy's and play with them how they wish.

But just remember mom and dad are whatching and if they make too much mess they might get them taken away.

Take care.

Regards
Lee



[edit on 15-7-2008 by h3akalee]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole

The article says 28 countries have ballistic missle capabilities and the website above claims there are 35 countries, doesn't seem like they did their homework very well.

Just doesn't seem right!


[edit on 7/13/2008 by Keyhole]


What? "Only" 28 countries (instead of 35) that could send a ballistic missile towards the U.S. isn't a good reason for having a missile defense?
A naive point of view if I've ever seen one.

Granted some on the list aren't likely to launch missiles at the U.S. under the current state of affairs, but alliances change. FredT was correct in pointing out that trying to play catch up on this will only get the U.S. blackmailed or killed.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

What? "Only" 28 countries (instead of 35) that could send a ballistic missile towards the U.S. isn't a good reason for having a missile defense?



Actually there are VERY few countries that could hit the US with a missile launched from their own territory.

The 17 Contries With Short Range Ballistic Missiles

The Six Countries With Short to Medium Ballsistic Missiles

And finally the ones that can definitely reach out and touch the US.

The 5 Countries With Long Range Ballistic Missles

According to this, only th U.K., France, China and Russia definitely have the ability to launch a missile from their country and hit the continental US.

Source of Charts: Global Ballistic Missile Arsenals, 2007

[edit on 7/15/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by FredT
 


missiles based in poland have the ability to engage russian icbm fields - since those are within the arc and travel range it could engage from - in the boost phase.

lets have a good look and see what its really for - 12 icbm is 96 warheads , so thats 96 fewer targets that would be killed.

google maps link

a little jiggery needed but move the map till you see the UK on the left then click ` show labels`

poland *should* be in the middle and all those `dots` in russia to the right are the icbm fields

so tell me again what those missiles would be for


[edit on 14/7/08 by Harlequin]


Dude you really need a better map. Poland and Russia are beside each other (east and west) How would Russia have ICBMS west of Poland? Russia's nuclear missiles fly over the pole if they are headed to the U.S. or Canada. The anti-missile system is an interceptor not a run them down and kill them system. The U.S. land based system in Poland would not intercept and can not intercept any Russian missiles unless they are shot at Europe.

Please learn more about ICBMS and then join this discussion because you have no idea what you are talking about and Russian is just whining because this removes the fact that they can send one or two missiles at any country in Europe if thats what they wanted to do.

For any anti-ballistic missile system to work the target missile has to be shot in its general direction. Besides Russia has seen nothing yet, Wait until we park allot more Aegis destroyers in the Arctic and really have a full missile shield from a Russian land based attack. Not to mention or air based laser system.







 
1

log in

join