Author Topic: new russian weapon...US shield is useless (Read 6023 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #45 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:11:18 PM »

Yeager is right the shield is for a rouge nation launching a couple of ICBMs

Yes they have had Succesfull tests and and more than a few failures

The ABL (airborn laser) is a great system being tested but it is for "THEATER DEFFENSE" not national IE keeping ground forces from being hit with short/medium range chemical weapons and tactical nukes.

The missle shield is NOT a patriot system it is a highly integrated network of ground air and sea launched weapons systems guided by many ground and airborn radar tracking systems.

Quote

Uhhh . . . the "shield" is already useless. Remember the tests when they couldnt hit the incoming missle unless it had a homing beacon on it?

It is just a mishmash of patriot missle type elements that were hastily deployed. Frankly I havent heard much about it since 9-11

sorry strk this just screams HATE bush ignorance.

Hortlund · « **Reply #46 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:12:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny logic.. by funny I mean ... flawed.

You are funny...by funny I mean... [fill in blank]

Frogm4n · « **Reply #47 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:14:32 PM »

A rouge nation wouldnt launch an icbm. Why would they when they can stick one in a cargo container and blow it up when it gets under the golden gate bridge, or enters new york harbor. And they would have to worry about us fireing icbms at them unless we could find proof.

Hortlund · « **Reply #48 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:15:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10
blah blah

Quote

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.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #49 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:18:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
A rouge nation wouldnt launch an icbm. Why would they when they can stick one in a cargo container and blow it up when it gets under the golden gate bridge, or enters new york harbor. And they would have to worry about us fireing icbms at them unless we could find proof.

Umm....North Korea would rather use a missle to hit the golden gate bridge. Seems kinda single minded there. KInda like this:

Sept 10th 2001

"i dont think any terrorist would hijack 4 airplanes at once and crash them into the WTC pentagon and whithouse."

Not saying you ever said that but that's the attitude i'm getting from you. Just cause its never happend doesnt mean we shouldnt prepare for it.

Nilsen · « **Reply #50 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:20:38 PM »

With that reply I guess you have accepted that you lost this discussion Hortlund.

Boroda · « **Reply #51 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:26:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Umm....North Korea would rather use a missle to hit the golden gate bridge.

IMHO North Korea would rather use a nuke in a battlefield or against South Korean targets or US military bases.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #52 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:28:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
IMHO North Korea would rather use a nuke in a battlefield or against South Korean targets or US military bases.

agreed but a country with missles isnt going to use a cargo ship

EDIT

We are also talking about long range missles too wich would probaly not be used on south korea. They have short range weapons for that

Frogm4n · « **Reply #53 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:33:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
agreed but a country with missles isnt going to use a cargo ship

EDIT

We are also talking about long range missles too wich would probaly not be used on south korea. They have short range weapons for that

Why use a missile that would envoke retaliation when you can smuggle in an unmarked nuke.

Nilsen · « **Reply #54 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:37:43 PM »

I would say that your suggestion Frogm4n is the most likley...or a malfunction/accidental launch. Against the latter a working shield would be great.

WilldCrd · « **Reply #55 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:55:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Why use a missile that would envoke retaliation when you can smuggle in an unmarked nuke.

Actually no nuke is really "unmarked" radioactive isotopes have certain characteristics from where they where mined and refined. Also on each US border their are new radiation detection equipment both static and mobile. I have pics showing two helicopters on either side of the NJ tunpike with long white antenna's underneath they where flying on a HIGH alert day I later asked a state trooper about them and he comfirmed it. I've seen other things as well and watched on the discovery channel how the "scan" incommiing cargo ships. I'm not saying its impossible just that they ARE activly searching for this type of attack. Also regarding the ABM anyone of ya here latley they have perfected the laser fo the airborn antimissle laser? I just saw a show about that on the wings channel.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:04:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
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.

Here you go: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html

Cerceuilvolant · « **Reply #57 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:38:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
And they would have to worry about us fireing icbms at them unless we could find proof.

Since when Bush needs a proof to justify a war?

Wolfala · « **Reply #58 on:** March 30, 2004, 10:55:23 PM »

I did peer review for the Chair of the APS Study Fred Lamb on NMD. Its a 400 page 2 Vol read - but it can answer your questions on NMD and its feasability - or lack there of.

http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd03.cfm

Best,

Wolf

LAWCobra · « **Reply #59 on:** March 30, 2004, 11:06:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
A missile shield is not a deterrent.

But a panty shield is:aok