What kind of antimissle system does the US have

a reply to: Phage

You mean other than the researchers themselves admitting to it in emails they didn't secure well enough?

No proof at all you're right

a reply to: D8Tee

US has several anti ballistic missile defense systems.......

Most widely known is Patriot PAC 3, the anti missile version of Patriot Air defense missile

PAC 3 in original configuration had a range of 20 km (12 mi), an improved version with range of 35 km was recently fielded

Each launcher unit can hold 4 PAC 3 in each launch cell for total of 16 per launcher

PAC -3 is effective against short and medium range type ballistic missile

en.wikipedia.org...-104F_.28PAC-3.29

THAAD (Theatre High Altitude Air Defense) is a longer range anti missile system using X band radar trackers to detect and
track incoming missile

THAAD has operational range up to 200 KM

THAAD system was recently delivered to South Korea as protection against North Korea missile

en.wikipedia.org...

Finally have GMD (Ground base Mid course Defense) using long range interceptors based at 2 locations - Ft Greely Alaska
and Vandenberg Air Base California

GMD is designed to attack missile during mid course flight during ballistic coast phase

Currently deployed as deterrent against North Korea long range missiles launched against west coast of US

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: firerescue

Currently deployed as deterrent against North Korea long range missiles launched against west coast of US

Thank you for pointing that out, I was unaware of the system.

a reply to: firerescue

The GMD has been a disaster, to be nice. It was at about 50% on tests, with some of those missing so badly it's not funny. They've revamped the SBX, introduced a new EKV (that failed its first test flight), and made other changes, but it's got a way to go still.

originally posted by: joshysway
What kind of anti missle defense system does the US have to protect ourselves? I have to imagine there is a system in place that could not only being down any nuclear warheads headed towards us, but even destroy them seconds after they are launched. Is nuclear war less likely perhaps with potential technology we don't know about?

Multiple.

And in multiple theaters of operation.

Think bigger...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes hitting bullet with bullet lot more complicated than it looks...

a reply to: Phage

Oh OK,

Somehow I totally missed your apples to oranges post.

I read a pretty in-depth article specifically about how the whole nuclear winter could be caused if X megatons of Nuclear weapons were to be detonated over Y timespan. The article writer then goes on to talk about how this estimate was off by one or two orders of magnitude.

How either he or the people who originally came up with the math to back either set of calculations I do not remember exactly, but it seems like it involved data from several recent and thus well quantified volcanic eruptions along with similar data gathered from above ground nuclear detonation tests which also had pretty solid data gathered on them.

Essentially both the original nuclear winter theory and the later refutation are by their very nature apples to oranges deals in their own right because, as you rightfully pointed out, we don't have a historical cataclysmic nuclear exchange that we have data for.

That sort of leaves both sides of the coin thinly supported, however the refutation article essentially crunched the same numbers using the same comparisons and came up with way different results for what it would take in theory.

Where this connects with the hockey stick graph is we have hacked emails between the people responsible for publication of the hockey stick graph conversing amongst themselves about how the actual data basically wasn't "dramatic enough" and of them conspiring to sex up the graph and make it more dramatic "to get people's attention".

This pretty much squares with what is known about the original crew that came up with the nuclear winter thing. Though I confess to sympathizing with the people who came up with the nuclear winter concept back in the day.

Because the various strategic nuclear arms reduction treaties and testing bans are all inherently good things in my book. While I'm OK with MAD because it kind of sort of seems to have worked to at least limit major wars between major powers and limited the scope of proxy wars at least somewhat, I also believe that 3-6 times overkill on all key military installations and major population centers is plenty of nukes to keep around to ensure that MAD is a credible threat. Before the arms reduction treaties we were at more like 13+ times overkill though which to me.... Is just overkill... Hah!

Hopefully this post clears things up for you about how and why I chose to make the comparisons I did, especially since the comparison between the nuclear winter theory and the hockey stick graph is a pretty good one.

a reply to: joshysway


I would Surmise the U.S. Has Deployed Spaced Based Particle Beam Weapons already , but that Knowledge is Highly Classified . This Article Implies that they are Still in the Development Stage . Using the "Higher Ground " Analogy , Space Based Weapons Systems would be the Ultimate Defense against ICBM Attacks from Foreign Nations that Posed a Threat to the United States and it's Allies .








Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.
That’s the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book "The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future." Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the president’s science adviser under both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.







Late last year, speaking before the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Beason told his audience that laser energy, the power sources and beam control, as well as knowledge about how laser beams interact with Earth’s atmosphere, are quite mature technologies that are ready for the shift into front-line warfare status.
"The good news is that directed energy exists. Directed energy is being tested, and within a few years directed energy is going to be deployed upon the battlefield," Beason reported. "But the bad news is that acquisition policies right now in this nation are one more gear toward evolutionary practices rather than revolutionary practices."










www.nbcnews.com...

Missile defense, While the patriot act is still very well in used on the ground along with other newer version, US now have the star war program lasers operational 30 years after Reagan dreams

The last time it was tested was back in 2010, with what is call success and the government is still working on its improvements.

www.army-technology.com...

a reply to: joshysway

I would like to ask a question to those who are very smart. Does any ballistic missile exist, that can fly 5 km, green laser controlled, and can take out an individual, but can't destroy a building? (Russia)

thanks

a reply to: spidermastermind

Ok first off ballistic missile in such vague connotation refers to too many things to provide an answer here...

Going by other things you're saying later i am going to make a numbered list of your statements and give you an answer based on my interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any points.

1. When you say ballistic missile i think you are actually referring to any guided missile that's fairly fast, & jet rocket or etc powered.

2. You want to know specifically about guided missiles with around 5km effective range.

3. You say green laser controlled, which I'm thinking means you believe a visible green light targeting laser illuminates the intended target and the missile goes towards the illuminated target. (Laser guidance is nearly never done with steady state lasers visible to human vision though, however some IR aiming lasers can look green if viewed through night vision and are steady state always on rather than pulsed.)

4. I believe you want to know if anything out there matches your basic parameters above and either uses kinetic energy or small enough explosive charges to kill people but not bring down buildings.

In answer to your questions... Yes there's the Lockheed MHTK (MINI HIT TO KILL) which kinda fits since it's basic version has no warhead and is very small in length and diameter. Length is wrong though.

There's also Starstreak which kinda fits kinda doesn't especially since the range and likely guidance method are both off maybe.... That and it's 3 "darts" can theoretically destroy many tanks frontally.

Please help narrow it down further

a reply to: roguetechie

Thanks for your reply. A very dim reflector light is used through a telescope to activate a green bright laser beam, it switches on automatically when someone gets into this (nearly invisible) reflector beam. My question is: pen sized ballistic missiles exist, and do Russians have it?

a reply to: spidermastermind

No. Because thar wouldn't be a ballistic missile.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do the Russians own a Harrier Jump Jet?

a reply to: spidermastermind

No. They had the Yak-38, and Yak-141 in development but both were ended in 1991.

a reply to: spidermastermind

No... What you are talking about both on a system and individual components / piece by piece level doesn't exist and there would be no reason for it to!

Frankly, there's nothing about what you've described which is plausible in the least ( aside from being completely unworkable most likely as you've described it, not being useful in the slightest if someone stupidly spent the money to try building it, is stupid complicated and at best would work poorly, and did i mention it most likely wouldn't work yet?)

P.s. why would the Russians have harrier jets?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

If meteorites (high iron content) falling from space, still impact the ground within the United States, then how effective do you believe the 'technology' is?

Meteors don't have a launch signature and travel much, much faster than ballistic missiles.

Correct on both counts.

... but if Russia launched their 4,490 ballistic missiles each carrying an average of 20 MIRVs (that's 89,800 warheads), how effective a shield would a few thousand ship borne missiles be? Not to mention that the ships would have to be in close proximity to the launch locations and with only 84 equipped ships that leaves a lot of unprotected launches, and the anti-ballistic missiles would have to be launched only a few at a time from each ship.

If the Russians did launch such an array then we're all maggot anyways.... including Russia.

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

If meteorites (high iron content) falling from space, still impact the ground within the United States, then how effective do you believe the 'technology' is?

Meteors don't have a launch signature and travel much, much faster than ballistic missiles.

Correct on both counts.

... but if Russia launched their 4,490 ballistic missiles each carrying an average of 20 MIRVs (that's 89,800 warheads), how effective a shield would a few thousand ship borne missiles be? Not to mention that the ships would have to be in close proximity to the launch locations and with only 84 equipped ships that leaves a lot of unprotected launches, and the anti-ballistic missiles would have to be launched only a few at a time from each ship.

If the Russians did launch such an array then we're all maggot anyways.... including Russia.

Systema "Perimetr" from Wikipedia

a reply to: chr0naut

So, you concur ?

Sounds like trouble.

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: chr0naut

So, you concur ?

Sounds like trouble.

It's the maddest of Mutually Assured Destruction!