new russian weapon...US shield is useless

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Naso
Boroda, how many MIRV tha SS-20 had on board?

(Was the SS-20 the dangerous ICBM that was "traded" in exchange of the minutemans?).

Just checked a site for the MIRVs.

Amaizing is the MX (Lgm118A Peacekeeper).

Up to 10 x 300 KT MIRVs

SS-20 was traded for Pershing-2s in late-80s, it was a middle-range missile.

"Dangerous" ICBM with 12 MIRVs was SS-18 "Satan". At least half of it's payload was fake targets and ECM jammers.

I don't know exactly, but after American withdrawal from 1972 treaty many officials here insisted on withdrawing from the treaty prohibiting MIRVs. I don't know if they did.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Naso
What Yaeger said seem the more rational explanation.

The rest is an Area 51 guess.

Dunno about the black helos but I'm just about certain there are secret research and development areas.

BTW, an ABM system's effectiveness isn't necessarily dependent upon a potential enemy's awareness. It can also be effective by doing it's job and eliminating all missiles. I prefer the latter.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Boroda
Hmm. It's common knowledge that your attempts to build a working ABM system were a total failure since 60s. Last tests showed that not much have changed.

Hmmmmmmm third time I must correct you on this.  A very efficient system was operational in the mid-1970's, and was cancelled only due to political and economic forces.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nilsen10

A missile shield is a deterrent, and those dont work unless the "enemy" is aware of them.
 

A missile shield is not a deterrent.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Hmmmmmmm third time I must correct you on this.  A very efficient system was operational in the mid-1970's, and was cancelled only due to political and economic forces.

Mike, I enjoyed your links about Nike-Zeus and other experimental missiles, but I don't remember anything about operational (deployed) system that was supposed to cover North Dakota in 70s. AFAIK the whole 1972 treaty was suggested by Americans because they were afraid that Soviet first-generation ABM system could really protect us from massive launch. I also want to know more about that "political and economical forces".

Thank you for reminding me I mentioned your information in a recent ABM discussion, but it seems to me you didn't notice that.

[DoctorYO]

I dont think our broken Patriot mish mash is to deter Russia or China but more so to deter these fledgling archaic misslle programs that in include IRAN, DPRK, Osama Etc...

Patriot is a good system against aircraft so much so that they were used against slow moving missles such as scuds.. with limited success...

But Patriot is outmatched by hyper velocity weapons...  we have newer laser systems to take those out..  (THEL)

Still I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians get smart and steal stealth or develope it themselves, and start building their warheads around such technology..  Yeah well know a warhead is comming but do we have the technology to track such devices let alone lock them and destroy them with Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)... or another weapon..

Big problem with hypervelocity is tracking it..  IMO that is the problem..  Hitting a target going that fast is not...


Old news..



DoctorYo

[Nilsen]

Yes it is Hortlund

[Frogm4n]

The shield was never ment to work. It was just a money sink for our tax dollars. It was going to be voted down ,untill 9/11 ,and then bush snuck it through congress.  
Its free money for the millitary industrial complex that ike warned us about.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by AKIron
BTW, an ABM system's effectiveness isn't necessarily dependent upon a potential enemy's awareness. It can also be effective by doing it's job and eliminating all missiles. I prefer the latter.

Aircraft defence works with non-disposable returnable resources (aircrafts and crews), so ambushes to eliminate enemy ACs are as effective as point-defense. ABM simply has to be point defence and letting enemy know that we are capable of shieling it's initial strike and retaliating is vital for the decision of attack.

Sorry, explaining logical constructions in English isn't my best ability

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
Yes it is Hortlund

You seem unable to understand the most basic concepts of modern wafare. Further discussion on the topic is useless since it would be like talking to Boroda about Katyn.

A missile shield that is designed to shoot down incoming missiles is a defensive measure. It will work the same way whether the enemy knows of its existance or not. Frankly it will probably work better if the enemy is NOT aware of its existance.

This is something you are confusing with the MAD-doctrin that prevailed in the 70s and 80s.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Boroda
Aircraft defence works with non-disposable returnable resources (aircrafts and crews), so ambushes to eliminate enemy ACs are as effective as point-defense. ABM simply has to be point defence and letting enemy know that we are capable of shieling it's initial strike and retaliating is vital for the decision of attack.

Sorry, explaining logical constructions in English isn't my best ability

When you want to discourage your enemy from producing overwhelming numbers of ICBMs you persuade him that you won't develop an ABM shield and that there is no need for further escalation. When that enemy no longer exists you put up an ABM shield and let no one know of it's capabilities.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
You seem unable to understand the most basic concepts of modern wafare. Further discussion on the topic is useless since it would be like talking to Boroda about Katyn.

A missile shield that is designed to shoot down incoming missiles is a defensive measure. It will work the same way whether the enemy knows of its existance or not. Frankly it will probably work better if the enemy is NOT aware of its existance.

This is something you are confusing with the MAD-doctrin that prevailed in the 70s and 80s.

Funny logic.. by funny I mean ... flawed.

If you knew that every punch you threw at me would be blocked.. you would logically not throw any. Hence knowledge of the shield was as useful or more useful than the shield itself. Simple really. At least it's simple south of the Arctic Circle.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hortlund
You seem unable to understand the most basic concepts of modern wafare. Further discussion on the topic is useless since it would be like talking to Boroda about Katyn.

A missile shield that is designed to shoot down incoming missiles is a defensive measure. It will work the same way whether the enemy knows of its existance or not. Frankly it will probably work better if the enemy is NOT aware of its existance.

This is something you are confusing with the MAD-doctrin that prevailed in the 70s and 80s.

This is a kind of logics that will make a looney somewhere across the ocean start a full-scale nuclear war.

Developing a missile shield that your enemy is unaware of can have the only possible purpose: to stike first without being afraid of retalliation. A gangster buys a bullet-proof waist, that, as he believes, will protect him. Didn't you ever think why bullet-proof waist ownership is prohibited in many countries?

As for talking about Katyn' - it's useless to talk about it with you, not me.

[Nilsen]

You are either confused or you know very little about this stuff Hortlund. I suspect it is a mix of both.

Somehow i feel i need to explain it so even you can understand.

It is a deterrent because:

1) It makes your potential enemy aware that if he should fire a ballistic missile against you it will not reach its intended target and you will be able to retaliate.

2) The shield would make your enemy manufacture alot of fairly costly missiles to make sure that enough missiles gets through to get the job done. That in itself should make the enemy think twice before investing.

It is a reason for the shield to be a hot topic when it comes to nuklear arms reductions, and the reason is that...

...it is in fact a deterrent

was it simple enough for you Hort?

[midnight Target]

I think Hortlund is just doing an "expuriment"