First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply us missile defense system might not work
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

outontheop wrote:


kinga750 wrote:

I guess the missile defense system is about not making it too easy. Nobody will surprise us with 500 missiles. We will see an attack like that coming (even if we can't do anything about it). However, a country could manage to fire one or a small number of ICBMs, or someone could shoot one off by accident. Also, missile defense gives us an excuse to set up military bases. Who doesn't like more US military bases?


DINGDINGDING! Give the man a cigar.

The system was never intended to defend against massive strikes from the likes of Russia or China; it was designed to defend against rogue states like north Korea who have limited warhead counts and missile airframes, and to defend against missiles being seized and fired by rogue commanders, terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers in unstable nations with poorly secured nuclear arsenals (Pakistan, I'm looking at you).

With a missile defense system, lone launches or small volleys can be shot down and the situation can be de-escalated diplomatically (or through the judicious application of precision fires and SOF teams). Without the missile defense system, the US looses a city or two and several million citizens, AND has no recourse but to fire ICBMs in retaliation.


Rujikin wrote:

The star wars system was a giant bluff designed to scare the soviets. It worked.


Yes, it was. And it forced the Russians to pour so much money into countering it that it bankrupted them.

Which is exactly what would happen to north korea or Iran if they poured the resources into building several hundred warheads to overwhelm the system (or even just several hundred missiles capable of reaching the US).

Assuming north Korea can get the missile off the launch pad without it exploding.
19810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

Rujikin wrote:


Assuming north Korea can get the missile off the launch pad without it exploding.


What's that saying about enough monkeys with enough typewriters in one room?
19377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/19/17
This-

The RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) is a ship-based missile system used by the United States Navy to intercept short-to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

1373 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ɪ ᴀᴍ ɴᴏᴛ ᴀ ʜᴇʀᴏ
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

my missile defense game is strong

good luck

25686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

Ranwolf wrote:
Either way I am not all that serious about that anyway. And more to the point the missile defence network ain't really working, hasn't even produce encouraging results . So why bother supporting it instead of trying something else? Not the idea I half jokingly came up with but something other then the quagmire missile defence is proving.


Dunno, but these defense programs are usually just a way of keeping a pool of scientists and engineers employed who constantly study those weapons. It would be pretty embarrassing to have no jobs in those fields and wind up in a war and have to hire Gender Studies students to build your missiles.
19810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

Kavalion wrote:



Dunno, but these defense programs are usually just a way of keeping a pool of scientists and engineers employed who constantly study those weapons. It would be pretty embarrassing to have no jobs in those fields and wind up in a war and have to hire Gender Studies students to build your missiles.


I suppose that is a valid enough point but if the money is going to be spent should not some sort of usable result be the end goal. And shouldn't a dead end be abandoned? I mean developing other projects keeps them employed as surely as working on dead ends no?
19810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

Augment wrote:


my missile defense game is strong

good luck



Female, check
Anime and or Manga fan, check

Hordes of lonely anime fans who are male, check.

I don't know about you lady but I wouldn't wager big cash on your odds. Numerically superior forces tend to win historically speaking.
18738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 4/19/17
pretty sure the old tube based nike ABM system did a better job of swatting missles out of the sky than this new THAAD thingie........
19810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/20/17

nemoskull wrote:

pretty sure the old tube based nike ABM system did a better job of swatting missles out of the sky than this new THAAD thingie........


I don't trust any system that relies on radar to guide itself. And the Nike ABM interceptors cost just as nearly as much as the ICBMs they were suppose to be defending against . Throw in the fact all the test data showed the interceptors only worked in swarms against a single ICBM let alone MIRV warheads and well that idea goes straight out the window.

Not that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense shows any more promise. I mean a ICBM is travelling hella fast after all and THAAD is basically trying to hit it with a glorified bullet.
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/17
Isn't this kind of the reason why the Obama admin was moving towards "left of launch" strategies? Direct interception is kind of on the nuts side when you consider the physics involved.
25686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/20/17

Ranwolf wrote:
I suppose that is a valid enough point but if the money is going to be spent should not some sort of usable result be the end goal. And shouldn't a dead end be abandoned? I mean developing other projects keeps them employed as surely as working on dead ends no?


Yeah, they'd have to think of better goals. I know there's also the "SUSTAIN" project that has the idea of transporting marines instead of warheads by rocket. It's hard to tell if any of these projects are meant to be viable goals, or if they're all really just meant to be studying how to deliver warheads without that being their stated purpose, so no one is alarmed.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.