Re: New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

Naaaw I think we can handle Kapitain if he ever came over here. I can make sure he never bugs any of us again... :arrgh!:

:P :-j

this has been most amusing indeed... i live in NY, and i was never asked this question...

the absurdity of the proposal is mind boggling... almost as mind boggling as the fact that all those NYers polled would that foster such a ridiculous solution, to a non existant threat would serve to insure our safety...

anti ballistic missile systems have been proven to be less than 100% effective... that means that even if the only nation capable of launching such a threat, the USSR, would be motivated to press the button, a few of those warheads would still penetrate the star wars shield and find their intended targets... only four such successes would put us in pretty bad shape... plus, the warheads that were successfully interdicted, what about the amount of nuclear debris that would be blasted, vaporized or fragmented all over the world...

but the discussion has already lept into the twilight zone... abms are geared to defend against incoming ballistic threats... in todays world of super quiet diesel subs and cruise missiles... suitcase or container dirty bombs, or biological threats... this whole discussion becomes an excercise in noise pollution...

how in h-e-two sticks is an abm system, no matter how effective, going to guard aginst the aforementioned, more likely contingencies...

we are indeed in sad shape when the words of dr. rice become the basis for sound reasoning or logical discourse...

--Mike

Now thats one very good point.

Three typhoons are active, Two are mothballed and can still be used they havnt yet gone through the breaking stage and one is defueled but can be reactivated.

The SS-N-20 nuclear missile if fired from home ports in russia can still hit targets in america (as said by USN defence analysts). meaning the submarines do not even need to go to sea. (we have known this for a good 15 20 years)

So that means to destroy it you would either have to send in a bomber (after the farnborough incident dont think you will bother) or send a submarine in.

Narrow straights, shallow water easy target might be able to hit one but then your screwd its got to get back out again past the entire northern fleet.

Now as of today Russia maintains a fleet of 16 SSBN's ready to deploy at some status (2 are still held by shipyard so numbers will drop to 14).

Submarines of the Delta IV and III and also the new borey are still active and can deliver 16 missiles each.

America has a good run seeing that each submarine it puts to sea carrys more missiles but those submarines still have to come out in the open ocean making them selves vunreble.

As to making a model 1/700 and trainnig the crew ive got one :|\ thinking of building a bigger one but my 7 foot long 688 is a big enough boat for me :up:

Thats why there are the "weapons that wait": mines. ;)

Diddo. :lol:

You know Kaptain...sometimes I wished you would do some research before opening your mouth. :roll:

Our "declassified" range for the Trident D-5 is 12,000km...not a problem from Bangor, WA.

Distance between Bangor, Washington, United States and Moscow, Russia, as the crow flies:

5214 miles (8391 km) (4531 nautical miles)

We'd use Daboob Bay to launch totally evading your SSN's waiting in wait in the Pacific Ocean.

or Kings Bay, GA...

Distance between Kings Bay Base, Georgia, United States and Moscow, Russia, as the crow flies:

5484 miles (8825 km) (4765 nautical miles)

The Jacksonville Naval Air Station would lay enough sonobouys from P-3's that you could walk across them. Not to mention the surface fleet prescence.

I don't think our ABM system is even 20% effective, the whole system, plus cost is absurd. PBS's Frontline (the best documentary series ever IMHO) did a great episode about the US ABM system, you can watch it online and they have a great site with gobs of info here>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/

the SM-3 has been tested (its ABM capable) and its worked in nearly every test.
;)
A ICBM is an expensive weapon! To counter and expensive weapon one must generaly built an expensive countermesure. :yep:

True, but the SM-3 is meant for use against theater ballistic missile threats (like Scuds), not ICBMs. The national system however, meant to defend against ICBMs, is, to be kind, inadequate and way too expensive. :down:

New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

There's a broad scala of threats faced by the US. From ICBM's to Antrax and dirty bombs.
All those threats must be covered. An ABM system does not have to be 100% effective against a massive ICBM attack with electronic support measures and decoys. That was yesterdays threat. Today rogue nations may try to hold the USA captive with the threat of firing a few not to sophisticated medium or long range ballistic missiles. Any ABM system will seriously undermine the credinility of such a threat.
And yes, like TLAM Strike said, it seems that the Navy's SM-3 "theater" ABM system is quite effective (and mobile!). Perfect to create a layered defense.

Sonar nukeing moscow is not enough you would have to nuke the northern and pacific fleets and the other bases inbetween.

"Cut off the snakes head and the body will die." ;)

He was using Moscow as an example Kap. :roll: :lol:

They could be used against a ICBM in 1st or 2nd stage flight from a forward deployed warship. ;)

Agreeing with the things that have already been said....

... this entire ordeal is based entirely on politicians trying to fool a naive public into thinking they are "protecting" America.

Any system currently implement has a 99.99999999% chance of failing and being a total waster of billions and billions while doing it. The technology is too immature. Needs decades of research before anything can be enacted.

I hate politicians... always giving out half-truths

Trouble with ICBMs, or indeed MIRV warheads is that you only need one hit to get the secondary affects of nuclear warfare, which is affecting public morale. Okay, admittedly in the case of nuking NY that's likely to not have the effect you really wanted (ie, just encouraging the US to nuke all of your cities in return) so at the end of the day you've have to be utterly insane to try and nuke the US...which leaves one candidate for that and they don't need ICBMs when a conventional dirty bomb or bio attack will have a similar attack on morale.
ABMs are useful, but not a catch-all and we mustn't always pile all our hopes and dreams on technology as we're due for a huge downfall when it lets us down.

someone wants a contract and the poll is there to confirm the need. I wonder of the costs of such thing and how it will be passed on to you, the taxpayer.
the crazy thing about these is it's obsolete as soon as someone makes a rocket smart enough to pass it - something the ussr used to do quite a lot in cold war.