Missle Deffense Systems?
greyfox5
Join Date: 2002-02-14 Member: 217Members
Join Date: 2002-02-14 Member: 217Members
OK, well, ive read all this high tech stuff, like the new plan (which will be in operation around 2006) is to mount a c-130 with a nose cone fitted with a massive mirror system, that will fire a laser and blow up a nuclear missle heading towards land. Why do we have to spend that much money? Billions and billions of dollers in cash are being wasted I thing.
Why cant we just modify a F-22 Raptor to intercept and destroy nuclear missles? Give it a more powerful engine, more speed, and lighten it up a bit by taking out the missle bay, and slap them on the side. Also we could use the silverfish fighter (forgot what its numbers were) could intercept Russian SATALITES during the cold war, why cant they intercept a missle? Basically they were refuled in mid-air, then afterburned it all the way up. They had a massive anti-missle rocket strapped to the, in theory, the pilot would release it, then get the hell out of dodge before the thing blew.
Is this possible? To just convert a fighter, not a transport plane to take out nuclear missles?
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Also, if you flew this fighter would you give up your life for your county if the missle system jammed on your plane, and the only way to stop a 10,000 or 20,000 megaton nuke from slamming into your country, would you do it?
I would.
Why cant we just modify a F-22 Raptor to intercept and destroy nuclear missles? Give it a more powerful engine, more speed, and lighten it up a bit by taking out the missle bay, and slap them on the side. Also we could use the silverfish fighter (forgot what its numbers were) could intercept Russian SATALITES during the cold war, why cant they intercept a missle? Basically they were refuled in mid-air, then afterburned it all the way up. They had a massive anti-missle rocket strapped to the, in theory, the pilot would release it, then get the hell out of dodge before the thing blew.
Is this possible? To just convert a fighter, not a transport plane to take out nuclear missles?
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Also, if you flew this fighter would you give up your life for your county if the missle system jammed on your plane, and the only way to stop a 10,000 or 20,000 megaton nuke from slamming into your country, would you do it?
I would.
Comments
The civilians below will be safe & all hunky dorey.
Come to think of it, cancel the funding for schools, police, and fire departments! We could really lower taxes then!
"YAY I can but that new car.....hey whats that.......fuc....."
I know they're up to no good <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, missiles are dumb. Send in assassins. Not only do they do the job much more cleanly, but they look cooler too (and noone innocent gets hurt).
Incidently, can someone PLEASE explain to me why they don't just do this to get rid of Saddam? They should have gotten Tony Benn to do it. A suicide bombing would have been quite funny...
<edit> And Bush too, for the pure sakes of raising the worldwide IQ average.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam is way too cautious, he is always somewhere else and surrounded by a whole load of guards. At least I thinks thats why!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam is way too cautious, he is always somewhere else and surrounded by a whole load of guards. At least I thinks thats why! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to mention that fact that if that happens, people say to themselves: "suicide bombing=9/11, 9/11=bad, USA=suicide bombing, USA=bad"
I don't the think the US wants that.
And if you did something as cheap as a suicide bombing, the entire country would plunge into a second depression because the gov. would have no more excuse to pay massive amounts to create military and military contracting jobs, and it's not as if the current administration knows anything else.
Can someone please logically explain this to me? I get the distinct impression that the US government is far, far too filled up with fear.
Can someone please logically explain this to me? I get the distinct impression that the US government is far, far too filled up with fear.
*shrug*. Sad but true.
Can someone please logically explain this to me? I get the distinct impression that the US government is far, far too filled up with fear. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, were gonna stop funding our army to feed poor people in other countries, that makes sence, do you know how many countries would love for the US to just stop funding its army...alot. what good is a rich country if its a defenceless one with lots of enemies. The US dose not have to give any money at all to anybody let me make that clear, what we do give is alot and often for nothing in return, I am personaly for putting an end to all forein aid and useing the money to better my country in any way shape or form.
Grrrr. I'm so **** at the world. Everyone's a freakin moron... <edit> Including me, I'm sure
I know they're up to no good <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, they're on to us! Quick, recall all our actors, singers, programmers, game designers, doctors, scientists, and engineers! And we were so close to making the world's biggest snowball too! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As to the missile defence stuff, I think the reason other countries oppose the USA making it, is for two reasons:
1) Its so expensive to research, test, build and maintain that not just any old country can get a hold of the technology.
2) A country that has Star Wars system in place AND offensive missiles of their own _might_ feel safe (impunity) in launching at other countries with no repricusions aka return fire.
Just look at many countries pre-disposition to using bombs of any kind and you might begin to understand how others would fear an anti-ICBM/R system being in place. Would people in the USA trust other countries to not use a defensive system in an offensive manner?
Personally, I think that an anti-ICBM/R system is a good thing. A system that is 99.99% efficient at rendering an incoming projectile of any kind would make a good case for removing nuclear ICBMs from their own arsenal and obsoleting others. But anything less than 99.99% would probably not be good enough for people when they consider that the biggest thing that can be thrown across the skies these days is a nuclear warhead.
But having an anti-missile system won't stop suitcase nuke aka WoMD (nuclear/biological/chemical).
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm#United%20States' target='_blank'>http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database...United%20States</a>
In a nutshell, the nuclear stockpiles of the U.S. and Russia outclass every other nation combined, many many times over. In addition to the raw number of weapons that a nation possesses, you also have to realize that a weapon means the "bomb" itself, and doesn't necessarily include a delivery system, (a means of getting it anywhere.) In terms of delivery systems, the U.S. and Russia have pretty much closed off all of the methods of delivery for other countries except ICBMs. (And suitcases, but those are not in the same league as a military-grade weapon detonated at altitude.)
1) Airplanes, submarines, ships- other countries can't utilize these with any degree of certainty because the U.S. controls the air and sea throughout pretty much all of international waters. (And yes, that pisses people off.) But the advantage to the U.S. in that regard is that countries like China, or Iran, or whoever can't develop a "secret" sub or bomber and expect to sail or fly it over to New York. The U.S. Navy completely controls the sea and air surrounding everybody. Obviously they aren't omnipresent, but their intelligence capabilities pretty much are, and they are properly spaced so that they can intercept any such attempt in the amount of time it takes to cross an ocean. There is always a chance that something somewhere will get through, but not great numbers, or with any degree of certainty. Not enough to base long-term strategy on.
2) ICBMs remain something that can go straight from a country's own airspace into space itself, and then re-enter over the target. That circumvents the problem of flying or sailing past the Navy. However, ICBMs are large- a rocket capable of carrying multiple warheads into space is larger than a SCUD that only needs to go several hundred miles. I'm not sure of this, but I think in some cases the rockets used to lift payload into space are the same as the ICBMs, at least in Russia's case. In general these things remain in silos, and aren't moved around daily on trucks. The problem with silos is that they can be targetted. I read somewhere that the U.S. and the Soviets had pretty much targetted all of each other's silos, and were ready to destroy them with sea-launched nukes from ballistic missile submarines. Thus, one country could take out a lot of the other's silos without launching any of their own ICBMs (which due to the travel time would give the other side plenty of time to launch). But a sea launch from close by could possibly beat the response time. Of course, the remaining problem is what to do about the enemies submarines that remain, who are fully capable on their own of destroying civilization.
In fact, the real upper hand of nuclear brinksmanship lies in the use of submarines. "Upper hand" meaning having any chance whatsoever of not getting hit back. I don't know about Russia, but I think the U.S. has 14 or so boomers, 7 assigned roughly to each ocean (Atlantic and Pacific), and rotate them something like 4 on, 3 off. No one knows where they are, so their threat is omnipresent. Each carries 24 ICBMs (sea-launched Tridents I think), and each missile has multiple warheads that are independently targetted (within a radius of the missile re-entry). Not sure how many, I think it is between 8 and 10. So lets go with ten, and assume that each submarine has the ability to launch 240 independently targetted nuclear weapons with little or no warning.
That situation, mirrored in some fashion by the Russians, and to a smaller degree by the British and perhaps the French, is the real iron fist that makes up the nuclear hand of power. Submarines! The use of ground-based ICBMs is somewhat of a fallback, and used for posturing, because everyone knows that within seconds of whoever it is that fires first, most of those silos will be giant holes. It is NOT certain that there will be time to fire back, given that for the sake of sanity there ARE safeguards in place that must be removed prior to launch. The only way to ensure you have the ability to return fire is to have boomers at sea, hidden, but publicly recognized.
Countries that don't control the sea don't have that ability- China, India, Pakistan, etc. The only ace they will ever have will be their ground-based ICBMs, of which they don't have very many, and with which there will be time to respond. That's the whole idea behind the current missile defense plan. A plan that can in limited fashion shoot down slow ICBMs in limited numbers. If you look closely at the ICBM launcher capability of these countries, the number of launchers is much lower than the number of weapons. Most of their weapons are fitted for use in aircraft, or short-range missiles- in other words, a deterrent against invasion. When you consider that a country like China may only have the ability to launch 5 or 6 ICBMs, give or take re-tooling some of their space launch vehicles, an idea like missile defense starts to make more sense, and seem more realizable.
It is laughable when a country like Russia whines about the destabilizing effects of a missile shield. Their basic gripe is that anything that helps the other guy in any infinitesimal way hurts them in an equally tiny way. Russia, like the U.S., has a ridiculously high number of nuclear weapons they are capable of delivering, numbering in the tens of thousands. No missile shield that has a 75% chance of shooting down 1 or 2 rogue ICBMs from the nutjob in North Korea is going to to even put a dent in a full salvo from Russia.
I think the idea is that since there are a lot of countries that are about to enter the year 1950 and will have a limited ability to launch one or two missiles, we may as well see if we can't try to shoot them down, since in such small numbers we have a realistic chance. My feeling is that if a given system is only 51% effective, build about five redundant versions to put next to it, and you get a shotgun. But I need a little more specific data before I go to Congress.
Actually, I think that site stays current. It says the info was last updated Feb. 4th, 2003. If my memory serves me, a year or so ago I remember the numbers were higher for the U.S. and Russia. I don't know what the numbers were in the height of the Cold War, but remember that the numbers you're seeing now are after years and years of disarmament agreements.
** Here we go. Found an article that states that in 1986, the combined number of nuclear weapons in the world was 70,000. I'll go out on a limb and say that most of those were probably either U.S. or Soviet.
<a href='http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200203/21/20020321p2a00m0oa013000c.html' target='_blank'>http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200...0oa013000c.html</a>
I think the idea is that since there are a lot of countries that are about to enter the year 1950 and will have a limited ability to launch one or two missiles, we may as well see if we can't try to shoot them down, since in such small numbers we have a realistic chance. My feeling is that if a given system is only 51% effective, build about five redundant versions to put next to it, and you get a shotgun. But I need a little more specific data before I go to Congress. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. So the big stalemate of the Cold War nuclear arms race is really broken by putting atomic bomb carrying missiles on submarines and hide them all over the world. Solves the Total Retaliation problem. Of course only if you can prevent the enemy from doing the same.
And since USSR went bankrupt there's a hegemony at sea by US Navy. So an attack plan on USA by conventional means would mean having to start knocking out patrols first to make it easier to travel by sea. Lol, it reminds me of an old MB game, Fortress America. when you think of it it's very very far fetched (but twas a lot of fun to play).
Again this brings me back to Iraq. Why is it so important to defang Saddam when the nutter in Korea is probably more dangerous? Why not defang him? Can anyone give a reasonable explanation on that?
The stalemate remained because both sides had submarines. But it DOES put a twist in the situation when you bring newcomers into the game- they can't play by the same rules.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And since USSR went bankrupt there's a hegemony at sea by US Navy. So an attack plan on USA by conventional means would mean having to start knocking out patrols first to make it easier to travel by sea. Lol, it reminds me of an old MB game, Fortress America. when you think of it it's very very far fetched (but twas a lot of fun to play).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a total hegemony of air, land, and sea by the US in conventional terms, and redundantly reinforced with the nuclear ability to destroy anything or everything. When the USSR folded, massive amounts of military resources that had been allocated to countering all the various threats were suddenly freed up for use anywhere.
An attack on the U.S. by conventional means would have a lot of challenges, because the various forces are arrayed to compliment each other. Sea patrols are protected by aircraft. Aircraft have limited ranges due to fuel consumption. They can only be refueled by landing at outside bases (fighting our ground forces), landing on carriers (most countries don't have any, but they'd be sunk at the dock by our subs), or by mid-air refueling jets (again faced by the problem of air superiority.) And in the end, if somehow all of this were overtaken and the coast of America was in sight, some military guy somewhere would press the button and everyone would exit the stage.
To put it into game terms, or even NS terms, America is spawn-camping most of its enemies. They can move within a few feet of their hive, but outside are so many damn turrets and grinning marines that its a turkey shoot. The only thing working for them is that America doesn't have enough soldiers to occupy huge expanses of land, so they are reasonably safe in assuming the U.S. doesn't plan to invade and occupy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again this brings me back to Iraq. Why is it so important to defang Saddam when the nutter in Korea is probably more dangerous? Why not defang him? Can anyone give a reasonable explanation on that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're just doing what's easy. Saddam is a threat at some level, and he's weak right now, and I guess they think it'll be some kind of power play for the Arab world, though I question that wisdom. On the other hand, North Korea may be more dangerous, but not at all easy to deal with. They have a million men in their military, and will be able to decimate half of South Korea before we can stop them. It's like having two assignments due in a week- one is to visit a chocolate factory, and the other is to write a 30 page paper on the history of tax changes. Most people would opt to to visit the chocolate factory first, because it's easy and fun, and they have to do it anyway. And then they'd put off the research paper a bit, in the hope that maybe their teacher would change it, or cancel it, or just die. Hell, the only reason I'm posting so much tonight is that I'm procrastinating.
So in NS terms, the World Trade Center attack where a couple of xenociding skulks who actually managed to sneak into marine base and hide and await the perfect moment? Bad pun indeed, but there is one part where diplomacy counts - a term not really translatable to NS. The reason USA can have a hegemony in air, land and sea is because they have lots of friends who allow them to have bases. Without bases in all corners of the world, all USA could do was to keep the Caraibean, Atlantic and the eastern Pacific ocean clear of skulks. Sorry, hostiles <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> So as long as USA have friends, and it seems around half the world likes USA enough to support the Iraq war, there'll be no "skulk in the pantry". I believe my own government (Denmark) supports it with many other small sized members. Plus the new applicants.
Side story here. My dismay for french politicians grew to new heights when their President chastized the new applicant countries for being "rude" when they signed the letter of support for the Iraq war. And alluded that it would cost those applicants their place in EU since the ratification was still missing. Clearly that grinded against the french presidents feeling of superiority that these..... newcomers.... had the audacity to speak open their minds in a pretty black and white case. So they must be punished.
(I still cannot fathom WHY the french are against the war in a Real-politik sense. They got economic interests perhaps?)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They're just doing what's easy. Saddam is a threat at some level, and he's weak right now, and I guess they think it'll be some kind of power play for the Arab world, though I question that wisdom. On the other hand, North Korea may be more dangerous, but not at all easy to deal with. They have a million men in their military, and will be able to decimate half of South Korea before we can stop them. It's like having two assignments due in a week- one is to visit a chocolate factory, and the other is to write a 30 page paper on the history of tax changes. Most people would opt to to visit the chocolate factory first, because it's easy and fun, and they have to do it anyway. And then they'd put off the research paper a bit, in the hope that maybe their teacher would change it, or cancel it, or just die. Hell, the only reason I'm posting so much tonight is that I'm procrastinating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh Im in procrastinationland myself. Power play of the Arab world. Many have pointed out that a war on Iraq might easily turn into a civilian blood bath - and that will in turn create many more rabid fanatics who only wish to see Great Satan USA burn and suffer. The oppressed of today will give birth to the rebels/insurgents/terrorists of tomorrow. That is my biggest concern for the proposed Iraqi war. If USA manages to break the back of the Iraqi military by psyching them up with MOABs, I'd say great. Then we could see the regime replaced with a new.... erm - democratic regime (fat chance!) - and perhaps a very little reaction from fanatic nationalists/muslim right-wingers.
(I still cannot fathom WHY the french are against the war in a Real-politik sense. They got economic interests perhaps?)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
exactly <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm</a>