Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 117

Thread: US downs missile with new interceptor

  1. #41
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    How many of these tests were against multiple launches with MRVs equipped with decoys?
    How many countries have that capability? Us and Russia? I don't think we're trying to destabilize our relations with Russia.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Multiple Re-entry Vehicles are not complex, infact most are spoofs. One excellent spoof for high orbit is a mylar balloon with a eqiv to 60 watt heat source. Once the spoof is found out, ie as it re-enters the atmosphere, the real warhead's terminal dive is ridiculously fast, no chase kinetic warhead will catch it. As far as accuracy, it is a nuke not a J-Dam, no need to hit a window or air shaft, just get close enough to any city as the majority of civilians live in the surrounding communities anyway.

    Cluster launch is another low tech way to saturate an area, the ship launched missile can't chase a ballistic missile across the Pacific Ocean, the intercept window is limited.

    But again what nation, as it will take considerable resources to build, test, and arm such a missile will consider a gnat attack knowing full well the reciprocal fly swatter will end that nation as more than the world's night light?

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    While that is indeed true, it makes no sense to spend money on a system designed to stop an attack that will either never come or will come in such force that it is completely unstoppable. I STILL don't get how we haven't gotten nuked by a smuggled device as our ports and borders were (and in some cases still are) horribly equipped to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material into the country. It is far easier, practical and more likely to succeed for a nation to smuggle weapons into the country and deliver them by van then it is on top of a questionable missile.
    Several quick points:

    1. As far as I know, this system is aimed at addressing a narrower issue (potential small-scale missile attack), not dramatically transforming the global balance of power by making larger nuclear arsenals e.g., Russia's, irrelevant.

    2. The system is aimed at reducing the risk of a small-scale attack, not eliminating all risk.

    3. If the system is effective, it will be more difficult--not impossible--for a rogue state to attack the U.S. or U.S. allies. The U.S. has the geographic depth to absorb the kind of attacks you describe. Although areas hit by such attacks would suffer catastrophic damage/casualties, national survival would not be threatened.

    4. The logistics involved with the kinds of attacks you describe are not seamless. Arguably, missile attacks might be easier to pull off, as one doesn't have to worry about smuggling and assembly, all of which create opportunities for detection. Indeed, the complex logistics involved with such attacks have likely contributed to the lack of such attacks even with the widely-documented security flaws you described.

    In short, far from seeking to transform the global balance of power, the system is intended to provide some additional insurance against a small-scale missile attack (intentional or accidental). Investing some resources in defensive capabilities, rather than relying strictly on offensive ones, gives the nation greater flexibility and enhances its security. Nothing the nation does can eliminate all risk.

  4. #44
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Hare View Post
    Our military advantage over the two countries in question is so insurmountable at this point, our progress and research could likely remain stagnant for years to come without worry. Not that it would be advisable mind you, but new developments such as these are hardly necessary at the given moment.
    New developments are always necessary; otherwise you may end up with something similar to a French WWII Maginot Line defense that is ineffective and outdated.

  5. #45
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Is this another of those tests where the interceptor "knows" where the missile is headed, the missile is designed to be recognized, and there are no decoys to confuse the interceptor?
    No, they put explosives in the target and blew it up to make the interceptor look good.

    Sent from my blasted phone.
    Last edited by American; 05-12-12 at 10:42 AM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #46
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    As long as it is only to protect against a few missiles from a "rouge nation" and not other world "super powers" it's a good thing.. Deploying anti-missile systems in large numbers to defend against a major attack is no longer a defensive move and will ignite a new arms race. China only has a few dozen ICBM's now but watch those numbers climb if we ramp up this system. Mutually Assured Destruction has worked quite well at preventing a nuclear Holocaust for 75 years and we are mutually reducing our numbers of warheads even. I would not want to mess with it now.
    Any missile defense system can be overpowered by sheer numbers so it is pointless to try and make us unbombable.
    A missile defense system is similar to a bullet proof vest. When a law enforcement officer wears a bullet proof vest, it is known that it will not stop all bullets and it doesn't cover everywhere, but it is a bad choice not to wear one.

    Missile attacks are the increasing threat (short range and long range), missiles are relatively cheap and that is what we have to design systems to defend against both for short range and long range missiles. Additionally, I have always found it somewhat sickening that if nuclear missiles were launched at the United States, there is very little we can do to defend ourselves. So an anti-missile shield would be a good thing.

  7. #47
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    The SM-3 is a clear improvement in addressing missile defense during the boost phase of an ICBM. Missile defenses become much more important as the world enters the era of proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile technology. The alternative to missile defenses is to absorb and accept the vaporization of NYC and Washington, DC.
    If these missiles use radio guidance, what's to stop someone from just making the warhead more stealthier, making it invisible to radar?

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    It still amazes me sometimes how some people think. Yeah, I know, after all this time, it shoud not be surprising.

    There are those that argue that the money is better spent elsewhere. However, no nation can survive for long without the ability to defend itself. America would in no way be worse off finacially or functionally if all of welfare and most, if not all, social programs are removed, it would be in very dire straits if all of Defence is removed.

    Then there are the "it doesn't really work, so we shouldn't pursue it" crowd. There has never been nor will there ever be anything that works at 100% the first time it is tried. But, we know, that no matter what field you want to apply it to, that you cannot reach your goal without first starting down a path leading to it. Karl Benz was not sucessful the first time he tried to make an automobile. Robert Goddard was not sucessful the firsttime he tried to make a rocket. The Wright Bro. were not sucessful the firsttime they tried to fly an airplane. Etc... Where would the world be if these and others had simply said "it doesn't work" after earlier attempts and chose not to continue?

    And there are the "we don't really need that crowd". It cost far more if we wait until we need it to even start to develope it. America, to date, has never entered a war that it was prepared to fight at the beginning of hostilities. Due to increased power, range and effectiveness of modern weapons, when the next big one starts, we very well may not have the time to ramp up to meet the challenge.

    Any costs that increases our capabilites to be more accurate, better equiped, reduces the amount of time necessary to sucessfully win a war and increases the chances of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines will come home alive is beyond any reasonable doubt worth it. Especially when compared to something like Welfare. Every Senator and Congressman should vote on military projects as if it is their children's lives at stake.

    We can greatly decrease our military costs, while maintaining capabilites and even increasing them, if we redo how the military is funded and how it is forced to do business.

  9. #49
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Waste of tax dollars.

    A nuclear attack from Iran or North Korea (which won't actually happen) will not come via missile. It will come via panel van.

    Anti-ICBM defense is nothing more than corporate welfare.
    Yeah, all they need to do is spend several weeks sneaking a nuclear weapon the size of a person onto hostile foreign soil without being detected. Way easier and far more effective than just firing a missile from thousands of miles away that will reach its target in less than twenty minutes. If you don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds through the upper atmosphere the "panel van" might be a useful technique. There are about a dozen other good reasons why what you are suggesting is completely absurd for countries with the capability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  10. #50
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: US downs missile with new interceptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    Like entitlements?
    Yes.

    54321
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •