Russian defense minister : NATO has 1000 ICBM interceptors aimed at Russia

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Russia will figure out how to thwart the interceptors, or drastically reduce their efficacy. Russia is not far behind the West in technological terms, and could even be on par, or theoretically more advanced in some regards. While they might be complaining about it, dont doubt that they will counter it in their own way.

this is very true, especially with modern missiles systems with MIRVS and such ,
for the past years of the cold war and beyond ,both sides have been continuing with research into better delivery systems.
and then there is Space and all the wonderful toys they can use up there...........

snoopyuk

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Fitch303
Ron Paul fan in support of the missile defense shield. Why is having the capability to shoot down icbm with nuclear warheads a bad thing? In order for us to use them Russia has to first launch which means they would be used only in response to a Russian attack.

Wrong.

If NATO strikes first, then Russia fights back, then they can be used.

And it's not wrong to have a missile shield. But don't put it up Russia's butt where they can be used to take out Russia's ICBMs when they are in their most vulnerable phase... when they launch.

edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Well this is the point really. Each Russian ICBM has multiple independent warheads, and a number of decoys designed the give the same radar signatures. Figuring 4 (probably low!) warheads per ICBM and say, a dozen decoys, that's 16000 targets to shoot down on re-entry.

Yeah when Russian citizens were starving in the 90's due to their collapse their military R&D was full steam ahead. Got to have some super weapons to defeat the Chechens with right?

Lasers dont care much about MREV's.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Fitch303
Ron Paul fan in support of the missile defense shield. Why is having the capability to shoot down icbm with nuclear warheads a bad thing? In order for us to use them Russia has to first launch which means they would be used only in response to a Russian attack.

Wrong.

If NATO strikes first, then Russia fights back, then they can be used.

And it's not wrong to have a missile shield. But don't put it up Russia's butt where they can be used to take out Russia's ICBMs when they are in their most vulnerable phase... when they launch.

edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Well this is the point really. Each Russian ICBM has multiple independent warheads, and a number of decoys designed the give the same radar signatures. Figuring 4 (probably low!) warheads per ICBM and say, a dozen decoys, that's 16000 targets to shoot down on re-entry.

reply to post by princeofpeace


Lasers are not magic. Tracking takes time and effort (machine or man), and the beam must be able to stay on each target until it is neutralized.

Aside from this, lasers have difficulty with humidity and clouds, to say nothing about rain and snow.

NO, not all do, not at all. You've seen the latest weaponized versions? I'll dig up the literature and get back. Rain, nor sleet nor gloom of night stop them. They should be called the "Mail man" LMAO

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

Lasers are not magic. Tracking takes time and effort (machine or man), and the beam must be able to stay on each target until it is neutralized.

Aside from this, lasers have difficulty with humidity and clouds, to say nothing about rain and snow.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Fitch303
Ron Paul fan in support of the missile defense shield. Why is having the capability to shoot down icbm with nuclear warheads a bad thing? In order for us to use them Russia has to first launch which means they would be used only in response to a Russian attack.

Wrong.

If NATO strikes first, then Russia fights back, then they can be used.

And it's not wrong to have a missile shield. But don't put it up Russia's butt where they can be used to take out Russia's ICBMs when they are in their most vulnerable phase... when they launch.

edit on 20-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Well this is the point really. Each Russian ICBM has multiple independent warheads, and a number of decoys designed the give the same radar signatures. Figuring 4 (probably low!) warheads per ICBM and say, a dozen decoys, that's 16000 targets to shoot down on re-entry.

The ABM systems are deployed right on Russia's borders. They are there to target Russian ICBMs upon launch, not re-entry.

The fact that Russia has advanced ICBMs, doesn't in any logical way justify the US deploying an ABM system around Russia (and it does extend far beyond Europe). All this ABM system does is provoke Russia into further advanced nuclear missile development to counter the American/NATO threat.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Yeah when Russian citizens were starving in the 90's due to their collapse their military R&D was full steam ahead. Got to have some super weapons to defeat the Chechens with right?

Wrong. Most of Russia's R&D was put on pause.

And about MIRV... here's what Raytheon is developing.



That was 2 years ago.

Me thinks Russia will just get out of various nuclear arms treaties and start to put dozens of warheads per missile.

reply to post by wondera


Wasn't there that little rift with Afghanistan.... Oh, wait, that was an invasion.
People use the same verbiage with Iran "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over...blah blah blah"

I wonder if the bible meant, "Everyone would turn against America"

Originally posted by princeofpeace
NO, not all do, not at all. You've seen the latest weaponized versions? I'll dig up the literature and get back. Rain, nor sleet nor gloom of night stop them. They should be called the "Mail man" LMAO

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

Lasers are not magic. Tracking takes time and effort (machine or man), and the beam must be able to stay on each target until it is neutralized.

Aside from this, lasers have difficulty with humidity and clouds, to say nothing about rain and snow.

I am not aware of any optical laser that is not effected by the refractive properties of water droplets or dense water vapor. I await your response, though.