New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_...e_Defense.html

I wonder :hmm:

Stupidly expensive, doesn't work, even if it did work is no defence against a terrorist with a suitcase bomb (more likely than a terrorist with an ICBM), can lead to a false sense of security and complacently with dire consequences, can provoke another arms race if some countries feel they need counter measures just in case a day should come where it does work, etc.

Does work just not the way the US DoD is designing it. Ever head of the ABM-1B Galosh? You don't need to score a precise hit, just nuke the incoming while its exo-atmospheric.

I never knew that missile deployment could be determined by popular demand. :nope:

Since its DoD who gets to deploy it, then if their design doesn't work missle defence doesn't work and my point still stands. I did made some allowance that they may get it to work at some point in the future. Maybe.

Democracy in action ;)

New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

I can see in 10 years from now an ICBM-thread, either by North Korea, Iran, perhaps even a radicalised Pakistan, or a group of fanatical Muslim-extremists who, on a deniable mission, "capture" an ICBM-site in a "rogue"-state and fire a missile, after which they are killed by security forces in an attempt to prevent full retaliation from the USA (and gain access to paradise). In this scenario the Mossad or the CIA could be blamed afterwards as an extra.
Since New York might be an obvious target and has already suffered a blow in the past, I can understand the popular sentiment

Re: New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

I think the better deterrent is the tactical nuke equipped submarine. When you know that your country will cease to exist the moment an ICBM goes atmospheric there is no incentive to roll the dice. Of course retaliation of this type won't stop an inbound ICBM or deter an extremist group bent on self-annihilation.

I guess there's some merit to trying to defend against as many contingencies as possible. At the same time I don't see it working simply because these small groups, being engaged in an asymmetrical battle, tend toward lower tech methods (which is why I see a suitcase bomb being more likely). Also on 9/11, for example, they combined low tech methods (box cutters) with the seizure of American aircraft and its conversion into oversized cruise missles aimed at high value targets. In the words of Condoleeza Rice, 'nobody (other than Tom Clancy) could forsee terrorists flying planes into buildings'.

Its at least equally plausible, to your hypothetical scenerio, that they would instead seize an inadequately secured American ICBM installation and once again turn American technology upon itself. Or simply blow up a nuclear power plant to similar effect. And if the US persists in building small tactical mininukes, then these also might make for ideal weapons should a terrorist get their hands on one.

Bottom line is that its impossible for the US to prevent a nuclear attack of some kind should a sufficiently trained, financed, and motivated group achieve some means of launching one. This could take the simplest form of simply coming ashore or crossing one if its borders with a suitcase dirty bomb. Its only hope then is in the intelligence/policing arena where it could learn of such an attack before it happens and in time to stop it.

This may be because of the NOKO-CHINO effect. Along with the radical islamic terrorist states. Blocking is very much necessary as in boxing because the loss caused by a single NW is immense. Think about a situation in which 100 missiles launched and 100 cities destroyed. It is necessary to block as many as possible and eliminate the enemy. To eliminate the enemy only a limited number of NW is required. But it is necessary to have many ABM .

Re: New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

well Clancy and the writers of The Lone Gunmen

Re: New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

That's eerie when you read this (from the link):

"In a foreshadowing of the September 11, 2001 attacks, subsequent conspiracy theories, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the plot of the March 4, 2001 pilot episode of the series depicts a secret U.S. government agency plotting to crash a Boeing 727 into the World Trade Center via remote control for the purpose of increasing the military defence budget and blaming the attack on foreign "tin-pot dictators" who are "begging to be smart-bombed."

And then this tidbit:

"The cancellation of the show is considered by many to be somewhat mysterious, as its ratings were in fact higher than the first-season ratings of X-Files."

:hmm:

Re: New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

Kinda the same thing with Firefly. Really critical of big government and it was doomed to cancellation (despite the show's quality) before Fox even aired it. Hell same with Space: Above and Beyond, the AeroTech corp. sends colonists to two distant worlds to exploit new resources (namely a new fuel) and start a war with the Aliens who clamed those worlds. The Aliens (known by the slur “Chigs�) ironically prefer death to capture and use swords to butcher the dead and wounded, hang their desecrated bodies from trees or booby trap them - although unlike Islamic Terrorists they have no concept of an afterlife but like some Islamic Terrorists (among others) they took religious text literally (and believe that dead humans will in fact be resurrected and begin to fight again, so they cut out the heart, eyes and sever body parts).

Ok so they build this now three typhoons go out each carrying 200 warheads on each submarine, 600 warheads fired missile defence is overwhelmed.

It will take a temprature of 2 million degrees to stop the nuclear material detonating and more likely than not it will detonate in mid air which is better for the attacker even if it doesnt level buildings youve now spread radiation all over the place further than if it hit the ground.

Plus they have been working on this since the kenady days and there is not yet a laser that can reach tempratures of 2 million degrees.

Kap just getting nuclear material hot will not cause an explosion. If it a fusion bomb (most likely since they are the most powerful) the sphere of nuclear material must be precisely forced together by explosives, vaporizing it with another nuke will prevent the explosion as will damaging the more sensitive systems of the bomb.

And yes you could build three Typhoon SSBNs but then you have to hide them and protect them. You have to equip them. You have to train two crews. Oh and you might need to build three more since you can’t have all three at sea at once. Soon you will go bankrupt just trying to feed your people.

New Poll Shows New Yorkers Support Missile Defense
 

Kapitain might start building three plastic Typhoon SSBM's scale 1/700, train their crew and try to keep one on patrol 24/365.
Then slowly build them in larger scales...
Within ten years he may be just as much of a threat to New York as he is now to the General Topics Forum.
:D

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: