[Kosh]

Ok, so with the contraversy in certain European states, namely Britain, about deploying this in said countries, perhaps now is a good time to talk about this.


I am beginning to wonder if the "missile shield" is really about and not about offence. The US has stated that it wants total military domination of basically everything. One of the keys to this is developing the capacity to strike first with nuclear weapons and have a system (like said missile shield) that can effectively negate any sort of retialiation. The theory is to strike the countrie's nuclear arsenals to significantly lower their numbers, and then have the missile shield take out what few missiles are launched at the US in retaliation.

The consequences of this is that the US can basically do anything it wants, and every other country is merely a vassal state.

Thoughts?

[achtung]

Ok, so with the contraversy in certain European states, namely Britain, about deploying this in said countries, perhaps now is a good time to talk about this.


I am beginning to wonder if the "missile shield" is really about and not about offence. The US has stated that it wants total military domination of basically everything. One of the keys to this is developing the capacity to strike first with nuclear weapons and have a system (like said missile shield) that can effectively negate any sort of retialiation. The theory is to strike the countrie's nuclear arsenals to significantly lower their numbers, and then have the missile shield take out what few missiles are launched at the US in retaliation.

The consequences of this is that the US can basically do anything it wants, and every other country is merely a vassal state.

Thoughts?

You just summed up what every country dreams of, whether it's "right" or not.

I was discussing this with, of all people, my father last night.  They're doing it to get an edge.  Just like anyone else would.

Of course, I think we're getting close to that time when someone will "push the button", so you can take my words for what they're worth.

[Mefustae]

Of course, I think we're getting close to that time when someone will "push the button", so you can take my words for what they're worth.

And you're basing this on... what, exactly? Hell, we've only just shaken off the shackles of nuclear brinskmanship from the Cold War, so we're now a hell of a lot safer from nuclear destruction. Being a private citizen in the western world is now as safe as it's ever been, so i'll thank you not to scaremonger.

Regarding the "missile shield" technology; i'm yet to see any development that would make such a technology viable, let alone worry about the geopolitical ramafacations of such a system being built. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the last I heard about it was that the system was so inept that it had trouble intercepting missiles even when it knew the trajectory, payload and time of launch.

[TrashMan]

The missile shield is not a real shield anyway. It can0t guaranteee to stop all enemy missiles...and even if only 2-3 would pass trough, the consequences would be catastrophic..

So I don't see any danger UNTILL tehy invent a missile shield that can stop them all.

[Nuke]

no matter how good they make the missile shield, it wont stop a large scale nuclear attack 100%. it might keep countries with a small number of nukes from attacking successfully. even then theres still the fallout thats associated with shooting down a nuke in transit. the system is essentially useless. countries with huge arsonals arent a threat anymore. a terrorist nuke attack, or an attack from a country with a small arsonal, would likely smuggle the warhead in rather than putting it on a missile. the real purpose of the system is to demonstrate the size of the metaphorical american penis. nothing really stops a nuclear attack aside from mutually assured destruction. though id be highly concerned if we were the ones to start launching nukes. mad doesnt work if we can attack with impunity.

[Unknown Target]

IIRC wouldn't the nuke not, well, go nuclear if it was shot down in-transit? After all, it needs a highly controlled explosion to be detonated, a random one I don't think would do it.
Anyway, The missile shield is pretty useless at the moment, although I would be for it if other countries were allowed to develop it without US bullying (which is not going to happen).

[Mefustae]

I think he means the release of nuclear material in the upper atmosphere, disseminating radioactive debris over a large area. Anyone have any idea if there's any credence to that threat?

[Tyrian]

An interceptor missile would bring down a nuclear one utilizing kinetic energy.  The intercepting missile is essentially a rocket powered, guided bullet.  It aims for the area just above the motor flare, which is the fuel tank.  The impact of the missile destroys the rocket motor, causing the nuclear tipped missile to tumble out of control towards earth.  The uncontrolled descent causes the missile to break apart shortly after the mid-air collision, making it impossible to detonate the warhead in the air.

[aldo_14]

An interceptor missile would bring down a nuclear one utilizing kinetic energy.  The intercepting missile is essentially a rocket powered, guided bullet.  It aims for the area just above the motor flare, which is the fuel tank.  The impact of the missile destroys the rocket motor, causing the nuclear tipped missile to tumble out of control towards earth.  The uncontrolled descent causes the missile to break apart shortly after the mid-air collision, making it impossible to detonate the warhead in the air.

Are you sure?  - I thought the interceptor missiles used an explosive detonation to scatter shrapnel rather then a 'bullet', myself.

[Rictor]

I'm fairly certain that the latest generation Russian missles can easily evade the US' non-working missle-defense shield, so stationing it in Poland and the Czech Republic is....well, I don't know exactly what it is. Trying to piss of the Russians? Trying to waste large amounts of taxpayer money? Those are the only possible explanations.

The consequences of this is that the US can basically do anything it wants, and every other country is merely a vassal state.

In theory, yeah. And I would be pissed too, if I thought it had any chance of working. But almost any country that is likely to have long-range missles in the first place is likely going to have missles which can fly circles around the missle-defense systems. Hell, I doubt it could achieve a good result even against older, less technologically advanced missles (think Iran), much less those by the likes of Russia, China etc.

[Nuke]

An interceptor missile would bring down a nuclear one utilizing kinetic energy.  The intercepting missile is essentially a rocket powered, guided bullet.  It aims for the area just above the motor flare, which is the fuel tank.  The impact of the missile destroys the rocket motor, causing the nuclear tipped missile to tumble out of control towards earth.  The uncontrolled descent causes the missile to break apart shortly after the mid-air collision, making it impossible to detonate the warhead in the air.

Are you sure?  - I thought the interceptor missiles used an explosive detonation to scatter shrapnel rather then a 'bullet', myself.

well i saw a documentry on this theres actually 3 layers of intercept systems, for long medium and short range. the longest range system uses kinetic impact to destroy the motor. even so, if the warhead is altitude fused or impact fused it could still go off, depending on the trigger circutry. nukes are incredibly well built structurally, taking out the motor could still leave the device and trigger intact long enough to trigger detonation. could be the difference between hitting a rural military base and blowing up a densely populated city.

hitting the plutonium directly would turn it into a dirty bomb. so using explosives for intercept is risky at long range. at short range fallout from plutonium breakup is far more manageable, so explosives are used there. also at that range the intercept missile doesnt have time to build up suffietient velocity.

airborne laser attacks the fuel by burning into the propelant tank and causing it to blow up. i have a feeling nukes are designed to prevent fuel explosions from damaging the warheads. rokets have a tendency to blow up so you want to make sure you dont irradiate yourself durning a launch failure.

[NGTM-1R]

Are you sure?  - I thought the interceptor missiles used an explosive detonation to scatter shrapnel rather then a 'bullet', myself.

Some do, some don't. It depends on the generation and designers. I'm not sure which the currently in-service landbased version(s) do, but the SM-2 ER Block IV LEAP that the Navy designed uses an explosive.

I'm fairly certain that the latest generation Russian missles can easily evade the US' non-working missle-defense shield, so stationing it in Poland and the Czech Republic is....well, I don't know exactly what it is. Trying to piss of the Russians? Trying to waste large amounts of taxpayer money? Those are the only possible explanations.

Actually, your misappreciation is rather amusing. It works. Quite well. Well, some of it. The Air Force proved amusingly incompetent with their part of the project, but they seem to have a reasonable amount of their **** together by this point.

But anyways, placing the interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic actually makes them much more effective, because they can engage any missile launched from Russia (towards Europe anyways) while it is still in its boost phase of flight. They're much slower and more vunerable while taking off.

Actually it's rather decent of the US to move some of the shield there, because it really doesn't offer any protection to the United States. Any missiles launched from Russia at the US would go over the pole. The only people who benefit from having the shield in that part of the world are members of the EU or NATO.

In theory, yeah. And I would be pissed too, if I thought it had any chance of working. But almost any country that is likely to have long-range missles in the first place is likely going to have missles which can fly circles around the missle-defense systems.

ICBMs don't dodge, son. At most you have some dummy warheads on your MIRV. Much of the point of the interceptor program was to get it before it deploys the MIRV, so you're basically ****ed.

[Dysko]

But anyways, placing the interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic actually makes them much more effective, because they can engage any missile launched from Russia (towards Europe anyways) while it is still in its boost phase of flight. They're much slower and more vunerable while taking off.

For intercepting missiles while taking off, shouldn't the USA use the AL-1 (when if it will enter service)?

[Rictor]

I didn't mean literally dodge, I meant "generally prevent interceptor missle from striking."

Actually, your misappreciation is rather amusing. It works. Quite well. Well, some of it. The Air Force proved amusingly incompetent with their part of the project, but they seem to have a reasonable amount of their **** together by this point.

You must be looking at different tests than I am, because the last time I saw any info about it (which, I admit, was a while ago and only casually) the system had less than 50% positive hits under highly controlled circumstances, the likes of which couldn't be replicated in the real world anyway.

But I do admit that I'm not super-knowledgeable about the such things, so you may be right.

[aldo_14]

Actually, your misappreciation is rather amusing. It works. Quite well. Well, some of it. The Air Force proved amusingly incompetent with their part of the project, but they seem to have a reasonable amount of their **** together by this point.

But anyways, placing the interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic actually makes them much more effective, because they can engage any missile launched from Russia (towards Europe anyways) while it is still in its boost phase of flight. They're much slower and more vunerable while taking off.

The current NMD missile system isn't, AFAIK, designed or tested to engage missiles during the boost phase; for warheads launched in - say - Russia or China it's impossible to get launchers close enough to hit them in time.

[Bobboau]

regardless of weather or not the tests are showing it work now or not isn't that important, there are plenty of things that were dismal failures for a long time the someone figured out how the get working eventually, if we keep working on it and through enough money at it, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get a working system eventually.

[aldo_14]

Which I think'd be a very bad thing.  I mean, the last thing you want to do is remove the fear factor of nuclear weapons because, if the US does it, sooner or later Russia, China, etc will - and then it'll spread across the world and, on top, there'll be an arms race to develop un-interceptable nuclear weapons.

[Bobboau]

and there is nothing preventing these countries from developing this stuff in secret. the majority of the technical challenge is in the theoretical, on how to cope with the insane speeds involved, a large portion of the problems could be solved in a warehouse. and even then I don't like the idea of the enemy only holding back because of there fear of what we will do to them, it's only a matter of time before someone insane or stupid or desperate enough gets the ability to strike us with a nuclear missile, especially with the whole attitude of "everyone has a right to a nuke" that seems all the rage these days. I would like SOME plan B.

[aldo_14]

and there is nothing preventing these countries from developing this stuff in secret. the majority of the technical challenge is in the theoretical, on how to cope with the insane speeds involved, a large portion of the problems could be solved in a warehouse. and even then I don't like the idea of the enemy only holding back because of there fear of what we will do to them, it's only a matter of time before someone insane or stupid or desperate enough gets the ability to strike us with a nuclear missile, especially with the whole attitude of "everyone has a right to a nuke" that seems all the rage these days. I would like SOME plan B.

Hey, I don't want anyone to have it.......

[Bobboau]

well I don't think thats posable in the long run, so I would rather everyone had it than no one.