NATO declares missile shield up and running

I don't buy that this is protect anyone except perhaps Raytheon and GE.
Missiles are so last century.
There are dozens of way a rogue nation could deliver a nuclear or biochemical warhead without them.
The biggest threat to the world is continued military spending which only increases debt and adds nothing of value to the economy.
You don't even have to use these weapons systems to commit suicide, just manufacturing them is enough.

reply to post by bjarneorn


You might want to read up on how nuclear weapons work before calling other people "ignorant".

They don't function like a normal bomb that uses a plunger type device to detect impact. But. let's pretend these "safety systems" can be disabled as you say and that a nuke works like any other bomb. By breaking the projectile, separating the components, etc you could still prevent it from exploding if intercepted within the right time frame.

Even if the bomb was manually triggered the impact of another missile into it going mach2+ would destroy the alignment of the shape charges used to compress the core and trigger the chain reaction.

We've had numerous "incidents" where all types of nuclear weapons have been in plane crashes, dropped into the Ocean, onto ice, rocks, dirt, etc and set on fire w/ Jet fuel. Not one of them ever detonated.

Plus, claiming anyone would disable the safety devices on a nuclear device is just asinine. What possible benefit would this give you vs. the risk of detonating one over your own country? Not only is it just not going to happen, the safety devices on nukes are part of the detonation mechanism required for them to function.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Of course America has a missile shield. It protects Washington, the military areas, and a few other areas in the country. I'm sure my area is probably not protected..

A missile shield will only get you so far. If a country launches lets say 800 nukes, the missile shield can't get them all, and the ones that do get through would assure heavy damage.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Of course America has a missile shield. It protects Washington, the military areas, and a few other areas in the country. I'm sure my area is probably not protected..

No area is really protected since these shields are far from perfect, throw enough at a target and they'll always get through eventually.

Originally posted by Razziazoid
A missile shield will only get you so far. If a country launches lets say 800 nukes, the missile shield can't get them all, and the ones that do get through would assure heavy damage.

You wouldn't even need that many for enough to get through, I would even dare to suggest that you could launch as little at 20 at one target like Washington D.C and it'll still be more than enough.

Some people vastly over-estimate the effectiveness of these shields.

Originally posted by Razziazoid
A missile shield will only get you so far. If a country launches lets say 800 nukes, the missile shield can't get them all, and the ones that do get through would assure heavy damage.

You wouldn't even need that many for enough to get through, I would even dare to suggest that you could launch as little at 20 at one target like Washington D.C and it'll still be more than enough.

Some people vastly over-estimate the effectiveness of these shields.

Originally posted by ecoparity

You might want to read up on how nuclear weapons work before calling other people "ignorant".

It's an ignorant position to take, to assume your enemies do not advance their weapons. It's basically the assumption that your enemies are beneath you ... third world style.

They don't function like a normal bomb that uses a plunger type device to detect impact.

A bomb is made to make the greatest damage available ... and a nuclear bomb does not do that by impact, but by detonation above ground. A good nuclear strike, would be detonate one in the upper atmosphere, to create an EMP pulse, basically knocking everything out and causing a hole in the ozon layer, frying you ... followed by tons of small nukes, spread over a large area.

As I said earlier, these devices aren't made to defend you or me ... because our enemies, like Russia or China, Europe or US would be perfectly capable of devicing means to outsmart this shield... after all, we're basically talking about mechanisms that are about 30-40 years old.

Ronald Reagan was a laughing stock, when he came up with the idea of "Star Wars", and I really don't think any parts of that idea are any smarter today, than then.

Wasnt HAARP also intented to disrupt/destroy enemy warheads? Russia had these crazy antenna installations at Sura right?. Besides i believe they're also at some point to disrupt enemy warheads, the difference with the cold war is that the military spending/arms race which Asktheanimals brought up is not at a right time for the US or any European country..

I see only two practical uses for a shield like this one.

A. A mobile one, used to protect a artillery, infantry or generally an invading force from retaliating strikes.

B. As a sales item, to sell to Saudi Arabia, and the likes.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Expect Poland to be smoked by a few Topol-M's. This anti-missile shield is an act of aggression. Why you say it is aggression? Because having an anti-missile shield defends against retaliatory attack which is the whole purpose of MAD. Now that if one side has a missile shield MAD is not gonna work. I wonder what the US would say if Russia lets say planted missiles in...Oh I don't know Cuba.

Of course it's an "act of aggression". When folks get aggressive with me, I'll give them something to be aggressive about. I'll defend myself VERY aggressively.

Anything less is a half-assed defense.

WHY would Russia put a missile defense shield - presumably to defend Russia - in CUBA? That's a LONG way from Russia, and Cuba isn't Warsaw Pact.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the missile shield will stop the first... dozen? 20? missiles?

What about the other thousand after that?

What "thousand"? If someone has a thousand to concentrate on you, you'd better be running... and hiding...


What happens if who ever is attacking, launched missiles at the anti-missile shield FIRST, and then send their nukes flying?


There will be a lot of pretty lights in the sky.

The rockets red glare

The bombs bursting in air

Will show through the night

if the flag is still there.

Pro Tip: when someone tries to overcome your defenses, you should take that as a sign that you are under attack, and act accordingly.

sense = 0

I... can't. I just can't. that was too easy - a "gimme".

The whole idea of a defence shield just doesn't work, what is stopping a country (Russia for example) from just launching a couple of dummy missiles and following it up with a real launch?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by beezzer

 

No your not unless you are a rocket scientist who is an expert in these things. The US did not make an ABM because to USAF planners it was better to have no defense at all than to have one that would create a war. That is part of the MAD doctrine.

Rocket scientists don't make the treaties - politicians do. Politicians don't fight wars - soldiers do. Now in this dance of death, they ALL have their particular parts to play, each has their own field of expertise, but the problems arise when one goes to treading the turf of one of the others, which they have no knowledge of. This leads to toes getting stepped on in the dance of death. When toes get stepped on, mistakes are made and the dance becomes much less efficient, MUCH more deadly to bystanders.

Rocket scientists need to stick to designing rockets. they need to leave politics to politicians, and fighting and war planning to warriors.

I have no doubt that beezzer FAR outstrips all the rocket scientists I know, with the possible exception of one, in the knowledge of how to prosecute a war. I wouldn't trust beezzer to build me a nuclear missile, and I don't trust rocket scientists to run my wars.

I knew a guy a long time ago that worked for Stanley. He made hammers. he made LOTS of hammers. That didn't mean he knew how to build a house with one.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by neo96

 

Not in MAD Doctrine. Both sides in the 1970s looked at the situation and determined that ABM shields were offensive because it made MAD less effective and thus was born the ABM treaty.

But we aren't operating in a MAD environment any more. the Cold War is over. Come on in out of the Cold(War). Bring the Russian with you - they have perfectly good vodka!.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Don't confuse an EMP burst w/ an air burst - one is much, much higher than the other.

Only an insane, dictator / fundamentalist type nation would attack w/ an EMP burst. It will affect their own country if they're anywhere near the target.

A normal air burst is detonated between 5 and 1000 feet. That's well within even the kinetic kill range.

Some of the systems we've developed are able to intercept while the missile is in boost phase (low orbit) and as I mentioned, the latest and greatest technology doesn't use kinetic intercept. It uses high power "radio" transmissions to either destroy the missiles electronics or take them over (hacking the missile). Even our aircraft EWOs have had this capability for a very long time.

Besides, it's not just nukes these systems are intended to defend against. So far, the only real life use of ABM defense has been against conventional explosive "Scud" missiles.

If we're going to talk wild eyed, sci fi scenarios then perhaps some mad genius could invent a steam punk, all mechanical payload ICBM but a kinetic kill would still take it out and I highly doubt even a Swiss watchmaker could devise a timing devise precise enough to actually detonate one (even the original bombs required electronic firing circuits, so I won't lose much sleep over this no electronics, all mech nuke of yours). Regardless I'm fairly sure the current chemical lasers some of these ABM systems use would melt the missile into a useless blob of expensive rock.

Everyone is so busy debating the how that they're all missing the "why". There's much, much more to this deployment than the obvious topics being discussed here so far.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


A one man army, but doing very well, and I applaud you.

Wish I could help you out but I'm no expert in the arms race. I will say this, though- I do not consider Russia to be an imperialistic threat, though I certainly do understand why Russians consider the US and NATO to be an imperialistic threat.

A map of US military bases posted on this thread would be a good illustration of who's threatening who.

There was a time when the US did have some moral integrity, but we've lost that. I hope we can get it back someday.

Seriously people I don't wish anything upon anyone if there shield up so be it. It's only a shield it's not a missile being fired at a country. I say to all these country's sell all your missile's and shields and weapon's and build better relations with all other country's and work on space travel. Just think unlimited resources and a future for your kids and growth for the world economy. If we together we could get there with time nothing is easy but it can be done.live love laugh

Hmmm. So the Missile Shield is up and Running. Must be out for a morning jog

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Expect Poland to be smoked by a few Topol-M's.

Smoke what in Poland? Bomb a few SM-3s as a symbolic act?

The missile shield's command center is in Ramstein, Germany which is full of U.S. personal at the USAFE HQ AC Ramstein.

I don't think Putin is crazy enough to attack the biggest USAF base outside the United States right in the center of Europe.