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.

The cost? I'm not sure when that Frontline documentary was made (no earlier than Bush's first term though) but they cited 65 billion spent on it already with projected costs to run to 200+ billion. Its the single most expensive US weapons program. And it doesn't work.

Is that just for the bush term?

Shhesh starwars was going on way back in the days of kenedy in the 60's immagine how much they have wasted.

It goes back a ways... the documentary noted that Nixon was the first President to implement a missle defence system and that the same day it went operational Congress voted to shut it down. It remained operational for an additional six months before being mothballed.

Its an excellent documentary and very informative, tracing its roots from then up until the current system the US has deployed as a "limited operational test vehicle".