Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

US Missile Shield: Reemerging Cold War, WW3, then New World Order?


Recommended Posts

Well, it is hard to when it is in our face all the time .... but go ahead and ignore Canada whenever you want.

But I choose not to ignore Canada....obsessing on America. It's fascinating! :lol:

America is only in your face if you choose but a single view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with HLS is , it is only as effective as we the people want to make it, our current system is one that we have decided we could live with, is it effective by no means, any determined attack could get through but it is one we had said we could live with and afford....

Could you imagine how much goods and service would cost if "we checked every truck, plane, train, and ship that entered Canadian space. Can you imagine how long airline lineups would be if they checked every bag,tote, pocket,etc on every person,dog, cat , mouse that boarded the plane.

one has to balance security with reality, So while we may want to slam HLS for not doing thier job, we should first ask ourselfs what is it we want out of HLS, and what are we willing to give up to get it.

Even prisons are not 100 % secure.

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Polichinel's secret that the real objective of this program is to develop technology to ensure US's nuclear dominance in the the era when emerging powers like China and India will come into prime. In their exalted minds, world designers a la Chaney, etc must have been dreaming of humanity's new gold age under America's thermonuclear axe, free of worries of mutual destruction. That's at the time when nuclear arsenals already capable of destroying all life 100 times over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was said that there is no way to tell or prove the difference between interceptor and nuclear missiles, the warheads can be interchanged, even after an inspection. This would give the US a first strike opportunity which they have craved since the end of WWII. And for detering, the CSO and SCO are responding with their own missile sheild. They have already scheduled meetings to discuss this topic which they have assuredly done before accepting the Missile Sheild as innevitable. It seems to have sparked a new arms race.

Not to mention, "Reports in Russian news media have suggested Russia is developing a nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of four tonnes, and a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile.

The Topol-M has a range of 10,000 kilometres, and have been deployed in silos since 1998. They reportedly can manoeuvre in ways that are difficult to detect."

ie. it can manoeuvre in ways difficult to detect (low level, s turns, avoiding EWS's)

Also, the 10 warheads could be released from the missile independently and autonomously, they are only installing 10 interceptor missiles...

this missile sheild is only a provocation, it doesn't protect anyone from iran's imaginary nukes. The interceptor can only be seen as an advantage in a 1st strike scenario. If Russia decided to nuke us those 10 interceptors would do shit all....

How about a larger version of THEL land based in GB powered by a nuclear powerplant...that would work. I guess theyd rather mount the Airborne Laser on a plane so if it gets shot down it spews highly toxic gases and liquids everywhere (unless they get a solid state laser instead of chem). I guess it makes more sense to cuz its mobile, but if they got that in the works, why the missile sheild???

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was said that there is no way to tell or prove the difference between interceptor and nuclear missiles, the warheads can be interchanged, even after an inspection. This would give the US a first strike opportunity which they have craved since the end of WWII. And for detering, the CSO and SCO are responding with their own missile sheild. They have already scheduled meetings to discuss this topic which they have assuredly done before accepting the Missile Sheild as innevitable. It seems to have sparked a new arms race.

America never planned for first strike. America was all about the 'you lose, too' response that will follow any strike attempt. Missile shields are intended to counter MIRVs. NATO no doubt still has smaller tactical nukes that it would use in a 'fire first' situation against superior enemy ground forces...not strategic targets. This policy is thought to have kept the peace for decades in the Fulda Gap. That the Americans feel the Hyrdogen Bomb is a bit of a white elephant shows that they have never been serious about a first strike against civilian targets. Save your breath re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki as that was WW2...not the Cold War.

Not to mention, "Reports in Russian news media have suggested Russia is developing a nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of four tonnes, and a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile.

Don't let the normally stupid media fool you. The Russians have had MIRVs for years, as well as the US/UK. The Topal is/was already a mobile system...just so you know. The Russians avoid set missile silos these days...like the Americans. Let's just paint a target on our backs...

:lol:

The Topol-M has a range of 10,000 kilometres, and have been deployed in silos since 1998. They reportedly can manoeuvre in ways that are difficult to detect."

ie. it can manoeuvre in ways difficult to detect (low level, s turns, avoiding EWS's)

That's not how ballistic missiles work. They arc right up into space and then come on down like a returning space capsule. A sub-orbital flight. The Topal, Satan, et al are no different. They probably do have the usual dummy warhead technology plus a variety of electronic counter measures.

Also, the 10 warheads could be released from the missile independently and autonomously, they are only installing 10 interceptor missiles...

this missile sheild is only a provocation, it doesn't protect anyone from iran's imaginary nukes. The interceptor can only be seen as an advantage in a 1st strike scenario. If Russia decided to nuke us those 10 interceptors would do shit all....

How about a larger version of THEL land based in GB powered by a nuclear powerplant...that would work. I guess theyd rather mount the Airborne Laser on a plane so if it gets shot down it spews highly toxic gases and liquids everywhere (unless they get a solid state laser instead of chem). I guess it makes more sense to cuz its mobile, but if they got that in the works, why the missile sheild???

You simply don't know that. You and I are not privy to the state of the US ABM program. But here's an anaolgy for you to chew on. In the 1970s, the US Big Bird satelites could tell the brand of soda pop you were drinking from orbit. Imagine how far that technology has come today. Re: the ABM shield. The US has been working on this problem since the 1960s with various degrees of sucess. Imagine how far they've come in 30 years of solid R&D.

You can speculate that the Americans are fools to build a shield that will not work from the get go...but that doesn't explain why thousands of folks smarter than you and I are working on the problem and making progress. Are they just stupid morons while you have the answers??

;)

------------------------------------------------------

When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive.

---George W. Bush

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was said that there is no way to tell or prove the difference between interceptor and nuclear missiles, the warheads can be interchanged, even after an inspection. This would give the US a first strike opportunity which they have craved since the end of WWII

The below link discusses the differences in size and shape of ABM and ICBM, if your on the inspection team, you'll be very familar and would be able to tell at a glance.

ABM

abm system

Russian mis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The RT-2PM is a Russian single-warhead ICBM. It was designed to be road mobile and is mounted on a heavy truck (MAZ-7310 or MAZ-7917). Development began in 1977, flight tests of the missile were conducted between 1983 and 1987. After the first series of tests, the first missiles became operational in 1985. Full deployment of 360 missiles was achieved in 1996, and as of 2005 300 remain on duty.

The RT-2 is a road mobile 3-stage, single warhead ICBM. Its 29.5 meter length and 1.7 meter diameter are approximately the same size and shape as the U.S. Minuteman ICBM. It has a throw-weight of 1000 kg and carries a single warhead with a yield of 550 Kt and accuracy (CEP) of 900m according to Russian sources [as opposed to 300m according to Western sources]. Its road mobile capability gave the SS-25 an extremely high probability of survivability. It can fire from field deployment sites or through sliding roof garage bases. The SS-25 joined operational Soviet SRF regiments in 1985. A total area of approximately 190,000 square kilometers could be required to deploy a force consisting of 500 road-mobile SS-25 ICBMs. Mobile units require a much higher number of personnel for maintenance and operation than fixed systems. Consequently, the SS-25 was significantly more costly to maintain and operate than silo launched systems.

Topol Missile.

The Topol-M has a range of 10,000 kilometres, and have been deployed in silos since 1998. They reportedly can manoeuvre in ways that are difficult to detect."

Those clever Russians, they have mobile silo's? Actually the Topol is a portable missile, always has been, no silo's for these babies. The Russians have always favoured mobility over fixed assets when it came to their missile arsenal. They have also had MIRV's for a long time now, nothing new there for the Russians.

As for highly manouverable ballistic missiles, well, perhaps a little more info on how ballistic missiles work is in order. A ballistic missile by its very nature can not fly "low" do "s" turns or jump up and down in glee. The very use of the word ballistic should be indicator enough for you. I don't know where your info came from but it might as well have been a Dick and Jane reader for all its value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once (and if) the technology reaches a point of usability there's no chance in a hell that some administration won't try to install it in massive numbers, capable of interfering with the AMD doctrine. Of course, the rest of the world (China, Russia) won't sleep quietly knowing that Americans carry the ultimate argument, without having to worry about being on the receiving end. Here you go, the recepy for the new massive arms race (till new balance is reached). What it'll be? More nukes? More sophisticated means of delivery? Weaponization of space? Only god knows (if they still care).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once (and if) the technology reaches a point of usability there's no chance in a hell that some administration won't try to install it in massive numbers, capable of interfering with the AMD doctrine. Of course, the rest of the world (China, Russia) won't sleep quietly knowing that Americans carry the ultimate argument, without having to worry about being on the receiving end. Here you go, the recepy for the new massive arms race (till new balance is reached). What it'll be? More nukes? More sophisticated means of delivery? Weaponization of space? Only god knows (if they still care).

Once again, Russia (and a few others) has its own ABM missile shield program. It even has a working one around Moscow. This so-called new arms race has been going on since the Cold War. The media would have you think that everyone else is sitting on their azz planting flowers for the next Woodstock festival while America beats the drum towards a new Cold War. Guess again.

-------------------------------------------------

Your Ad---This Space

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those clever Russians, they have mobile silo's? Actually the Topol is a portable missile, always has been, no silo's for these babies. The Russians have always favoured mobility over fixed assets when it came to their missile arsenal. They have also had MIRV's for a long time now, nothing new there for the Russians.

As for highly manouverable ballistic missiles, well, perhaps a little more info on how ballistic missiles work is in order. A ballistic missile by its very nature can not fly "low" do "s" turns or jump up and down in glee. The very use of the word ballistic should be indicator enough for you. I don't know where your info came from but it might as well have been a Dick and Jane reader for all its value.

Agreement. See my post on page 2.

-------------------------------------

Is this your pen??

---Sam 'Ace' Rothstein: Casino

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, Russia (and a few others) has its own ABM missile shield program. It even has a working one around Moscow.

They don't have any (unless you can show otherwise) that would protect the country's territory. US shield is intended to protect the entire territory. Which is a huge difference from the AMD point of view.

Finally, has anybody noticed that the Cold war was, supposedly, over? Why risk initiating a new one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What the heck is the AMD point of view?

Thats easy. AMD has always structured its data pipeline far more efficiently than Intel. Intel has always used a significantly longer data pipeline than AMD, they merely ramped up the clock speed to make up for the inefficiency.

The newer Intel chips now utilize a pipeline similar to that of AMD. Combine that with a larger L2 cache and they have managed to wrestle the performance crown from AMD who held it for about 9 years.

So the AMD point of view could be said to be "more with less".

There, is that all clear now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't have any (unless you can show otherwise) that would protect the country's territory. US shield is intended to protect the entire territory. Which is a huge difference from the AMD point of view.

Finally, has anybody noticed that the Cold war was, supposedly, over? Why risk initiating a new one?

It's a fact. Moscow's ABM shield. I was alive during the 'Cold War'. How'z about u?

Re: protecting a country's terriory. There we go again. War must be "fair"...what ever the heck that is.

The 'Cold War' has not ended. However there are levels of co-operation not seen in the past re: Russia getting along with the rest of the planet. The space program to hockey players. Red China is more your worry there in regards to the 'Cold War'.

-----------------------------------------------

Russia. The largest collection of white folks in the world.

---Richard Pryor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: protecting a country's terriory. There we go again. War must be "fair"...what ever the heck that is.

War doesn't have to be. I thougt it ended with the collapse of Soviet empire thouugh. Differences may (and certainly will) remain but it would do us all a lot of good if we finally learned to resolve them without resorting to a threat of annihilation (whether mutual or not).

The alternative of having to construct yet another level of offense / defence barricades over what already exists on this poor planet, is truly mad and suicidal. The fact that it comes from the only player who had a window of opportunity to turn this page, is really disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that it comes from the only player who had a window of opportunity to turn this page, is really disappointing.

Yes...I know. It's a damn shame war isn't fair. We should just send the generals out in a field and have them hit themselves (and others!) on the noggins w/ clubs...eh??

:lol::lol:

The Soviet Union collapsed due to trying to keep up with ol' Ronnie Raygun's Star Warz. That plus Chernobyl. Game, set, match. However, since Russia made out pretty good in this deal, things are more like Europe than ever. Let's hope Islam doesn't get in the way there, too (fingers crossed).

---------------------------------------

Look up. Look wayyyyy up.

---The Friendly Giant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I find much reason to have a good laugh about. In a few decades, the planet (and the near space) covered in a network of missile launch platforms, in triple (or more) numbers and variants. That's progress, that's how we'll be spending our limited resources in the 21 century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are treaties re: putting nukes in orbit and keeping them there. However, we'll see who breaks those rules. It's unlikely to be any of the major players if past behavior is any indication. As you may or may not be aware...once in orbit and with a manuever system allowing orbital plane shifts, a nuke could be dropped anywhere...that is: range becomes irrelevant. Iran, oddly enough is pushing technology in that direction. Either that or they want to go to the Moon all of a sudden.

------------------------------------------

One of these days, Alice...pow...right to the Moon.

---The Honeymooners

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread......lots of good stuff but a few misses as well. My 2 cents worth based on many years of baby-sitting The Bomb :

1. The United States has always had a first strike option, and it was formalized and coordinated through several iterations of Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) going back to President Eisenhower. The politics of MAD will only admit to launch on warning (LOW).

2. The USA also developed/deployed ABM weapons systems (e.g. Nike Zeus/Spartan/Sprint). Going back to WW2, solutions have been sought for detection, data processing, and kill vehicle. The lads in white smocks have come a long way since slide rules:

3. Ballistic missiles with thermonuclear warheads are fascinating exercises in applied physics. They do not have much in the way of aerodynamic magic tricks, but a re-entry body or pentaid can do some neat things.

4. Treaties and protocols are subject to violations and change. The Americans learned to play bargaining games with their technological gains and deeper financing. The force-counterforce paradigm still applies.

5. Russian launcher mobility was partly driven by American accuracy. Smaller CEP trumps megatonnes in the opening round against hardened targets and defense suppression (particularly back when much of the throw weight was to be delivered by manned bomber).

6. The proposed US "shield" is a layered approach against boost, mid-course (ballistic), and terminal phases against high probability threats.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up BC-2004. I was always impressed by the Sprint missile. The name really says it all.

:)

------------------------------

Before all else, be armed.

---Niccolo Machiavelli

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats easy. AMD has always structured its data pipeline far more efficiently than Intel. Intel has always used a significantly longer data pipeline than AMD, they merely ramped up the clock speed to make up for the inefficiency.

The newer Intel chips now utilize a pipeline similar to that of AMD. Combine that with a larger L2 cache and they have managed to wrestle the performance crown from AMD who held it for about 9 years.

So the AMD point of view could be said to be "more with less".

There, is that all clear now?

hahaha

thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for clearing that up BC-2004. I was always impressed by the Sprint missile. The name really says it all.

:)

No doubt....acceleration to Mach 10 in 5 seconds with a small nuclear warhead as the payload is very impressive to the generals, but then the bean counters and peaceniks had to ruin all the fun with an ABM treaty! :lol:

So in retrospect, this kind of US weapons development has always put Soviet/Russian panties in a bundle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt....acceleration to Mach 10 in 5 seconds with a small nuclear warhead as the payload is very impressive to the generals, but then the bean counters and peaceniks had to ruin all the fun with an ABM treaty! :lol:

So in retrospect, this kind of US weapons development has always put Soviet/Russian panties in a bundle.

Yeah...and we got stuck with the Bomarc.

:lol::lol:

----------------------------------

It's not the heat. It's the humidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...