Archive - National missile defense

[FW-190_Pilot]

Do you think this would acutally work? the system is expensive to equipped. They try different test and many of them has failed to intercept the hostile missiles. IMO, not only its waste of money and time, its encouraging the arm race among countries

(there is another thought from me, do you think those test results are true, maybe they did achieve sucess on those trail, but they still spread the news that they have failed it anyways, the purpose on doing that is to send a wrong message that the NMD doesnt work, so that other country would not feel the need to break the NMD with new missiles)

[Gen_Sandworm]

Hopefully as technology grows maybe the UN can invest in some type of world wide nuclear defense. Nukes need to be done away with all together. But this will probably never happen. So if you could get some type of “thing” that prevents them from being launched or destroys them right away it would be great.

On another note. I think the nukes keep the US and USSR from going to war. Mutually assured distruction can go along so…for now the problem is a bit of a catch-22.

[South_African_Milita]

The problem is, you have to destroy these nukes just when they are almost into space, or else if you destroy them too soon or too late, there is going to be some problems with radiation.

[Gen_Sandworm]

@South_African_Milita

The problem is, you have to destroy these nukes just when they are almost into space, or else if you destroy them too soon or too late, there is going to be some problems with radiation.

If the nuke doesnt go off then you wont have a problem with radiation. Remember that a nuke is a chain reaction and a by product of this is radiation. I imagine that most nukes are not armed untill they are almost at their target because if there were sometype of problem after take off you could blow your self up. And that would suck. :shock:

[FW-190_Pilot]

(there is another thought from me, do you think those test results are true, maybe they did achieve sucess on those trail, but they still spread the news that they have failed it anyways, the purpose on doing that is to send a wrong message that the NMD doesnt work, so that other country would not feel the need to break the NMD with new missiles)

nobody respond to that?

[South_African_Milita]

possibly, but I dont think it matters much. Though if George Bush is in power (and I dont know what u guys think of G.W.B.) and someone fires a missile, and the defence gets it, then you can use that as a good excuse to go to war (if they have oil :lol: )

[Komissar_Ombrok]

:lol: :lol: Yeah! Absolutely right! But to be more serios, the NMD is more powerfull as you think. In the Russia, at least, but i think USA also have something. Newiest anti-missile missiles is very good, they also used in anti-air defense military. In a fact, the missile must hit the rocket until it reach destination, and warhead would be combined in critical mass. In that case, even the hit was almost above target, the damage was less than small bomb. Falling metal junk, in real. And very small level of radiation from parts of warhead.

[crabtastic]

@Komissar_Ombrok

:lol: :lol: Yeah! Absolutely right! But to be more serios, the NMD is more powerfull as you think. In the Russia, at least, but i think USA also have something. Newiest anti-missile missiles is very good, they also used in anti-air defense military. In a fact, the missile must hit the rocket until it reach destination, and warhead would be combined in critical mass. In that case, even the hit was almost above target, the damage was less than small bomb. Falling metal junk, in real. And very small level of radiation from parts of warhead.

It would seem that most people here are woefully uninformed so please indulge me for a moment. NMD continues to be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. End of Story. The best chance to take ballistic missiles out is in the boost phase. (Big target, slow moving, fragile air/space-frame, lots of fuel, huge IR signature.) This is what the ABL, the PAC 3 and the mods to Aegis ships are geared towards. The big expensive project to hit re-entry vehicles continues to be little more than defense contractors milking the American taxpayer for all they’re worth.

Contrary to what earlier posts suggest, catching a missile in the boost phase is not likely to cause widespread radiological contamination, plus you could argue that it is poetic justice that whatever radiological damage is done will be done to people that launched the weapon.

[pdf27]

@crabtastic

It would seem that most people here are woefully uninformed so please indulge me for a moment. NMD continues to be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. End of Story. The best chance to take ballistic missiles out is in the boost phase. (Big target, slow moving, fragile air/space-frame, lots of fuel, huge IR signature.) This is what the ABL, the PAC 3 and the mods to Aegis ships are geared towards. The big expensive project to hit re-entry vehicles continues to be little more than defense contractors milking the American taxpayer for all they’re worth.

Contrary to what earlier posts suggest, catching a missile in the boost phase is not likely to cause widespread radiological contamination, plus you could argue that it is poetic justice that whatever radiological damage is done will be done to people that launched the weapon.

True… (can you feel the BUT coming on?)…
Hitting missiles in the boost phase requires that you get relatively close. This might be possible for North Korea, but not for Russia or China, and possibly not for Iran. Hence midcourse interception still has benefits - and also is able to defend against unexpected launches as it can be on permanent alert.
The big benefit is actually TO Russia and China, because of the way the missile logic works out. Basically, if one missile flies they all fly - so if either of them fires a missile by accident then they’re going to get hit by the full US arsenal. However, if the US can shoot it down in midcourse, they get extra time to react and can safely elect not to fire back. Hence, strange as it sounds, NMD actually makes the Russian deterrent safer. When the Chinese finally make their nuclear arsenal big enough that it isn’t threatened by NMD (which they are currently doing) they will be safer too.