Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 23, 2004, 04:25:11 PM
-
Good editorial:
Opinion: Missile defense milestone
Washington Times 03/23/04
author: James T. Hackett
Twenty-one years ago today, Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to protect this country from the very real threat of nuclear destruction. Determined political opposition and severe constraints of the ABM treaty delayed the effort until a president with the political courage to make it happen was in office. That president was George W. Bush, and now the first units of a national missile defense are about to be fielded. This year, 2004, is the year of missile defense.
In about 90 days, the first interceptor will be lowered into its silo at Fort Greely, Alaska, and shortly thereafter will be put on alert to begin defending the country. By the end of the year, six interceptors will be on duty in Alaska and four at Vandenberg AFB in California.
President Bush ordered an initial defense to be ready by Oct. 1, but the Missile Defense Agency plans to put the system on alert as soon as the capability exists to defend against a single missile, probably sometime this summer.
Ten more interceptors will be added in Alaska next year, plus 10 ship-based interceptors. Another 10, perhaps at a third site yet to be determined, are in the 2005 budget to be operational in 2006.
In less than one term, President Bush has gone from zero missile defenses to a system that will grow to more than 40 interceptors over the next three years. If he wins a second term, the system will be improved steadily in block upgrades to become a layered complex of land- and sea-based defenses, supported by space-based sensors and communications, to stop missiles in any phase of flight.
With oceans on both sides of the country, sea-based defenses are important but could not even be considered under the ABM treaty. President Bush's withdrawal from that treaty made sea-based defenses possible.
Next year, the big ABM radar now being installed on a seagoing platform on the Texas Gulf coast will sail around Cape Horn to the North Pacific, where it will operate near Adak Island, Alaska. Such a floating radar can go where the threat is greatest and avoids the need for another country to approve a radar base. A second sea-based radar is to be added later, probably in the North Atlantic.
In addition, the SPY-1 radars on up to 20 Aegis cruisers and destroyers are being upgraded for missile defense duty. The Navy plans to have five SM-3 interceptors on three Aegis cruisers "on alert" by early next year. Ten more interceptors will be added by the end of 2005, and 40 more over the next two years.
The SM-3 is a 3-stage interceptor that can stop the kind of missiles North Korea has tested. Aegis ships will play an important role in a worldwide network of missile defenses on land and sea. And allies that often dragged their feet, ranging from Japan and Taiwan to Canada, Australia and India, are now lining up to join the effort.
But why is all this necessary, considering the Soviet collapse and Russia's change to a friendly nation? In the 1990s, a new threat emerged as China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea tested ballistic missiles of increasingly greater range. India and Pakistan also tested nuclear weapons, and North Korea, Iran and Libya were secretly developing them.
Finally, North Korea's launch of a three-stage missile that could be modified to reach the U.S. mainland brought home the danger even to many opponents of missile defense.
Yet, President Bill Clinton continued embracing the ABM Treaty and declined to deploy defenses. When President Bush took office, he reversed that policy and began explaining the need for missile defenses to Russia and the allies.
Then September 11, 2001, showed the U.S. homeland was no longer safe. And three months later, Mr. Bush announced his withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
Since then, military action has enhanced diplomatic efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has been forcibly disarmed, and this helped Libya decide to end its weapons programs. Libya's cooperation has revealed a global black market in nuclear technologies.
Iran and North Korea are now negotiating, but both have missiles and nuclear programs, and both are unpredictable. Russia still has thousands of aging nuclear weapons and missiles that may fail (as three did in a recent exercise), and which are vulnerable to theft or diversion. China keeps producing missiles and threatening war over Taiwan.
The dangers remain. But missile defenses will protect this country and its allies, while reducing the value of such weapons to those who seek them. Ronald Reagan was right when he started the SDI program 21 years ago. And George W. Bush is right in making missile defense a reality.
James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times and is based in San Diego.
-
I thought the ABM system did'nt work. Don't sattellites already provide coverage of the Arctic?
-
This kind of reminds me of how the Germans went around french fortifications. So they don't fire it as a missile, they just sneak it into the country. Can they intercept dirty bombs? How many intercontinental ballistic missiles do the terrorists have? Give the money to the CIA, that way we can destroy whatever they have as they build it. What i'm trying to say is we should improve our intel, knowing is half the battle.
-
The only improvements Bush is making is in the stock portfolios of his friends.. or maybe Cheney's friends.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The only improvements Bush is making is in the stock portfolios of his friends.. or maybe Cheney's friends.
And you'll continue to sleep safe at night, even with snide black helicopter remarks of your president. It is a wonderful country indeed.
-
And you keep that emergency kit ready for when the missiles come raining down.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And you keep that emergency kit ready for when the missiles come raining down.
Um, thats a earthquake/volcano preparation kit, and its called "common sense" when you live next to one.:eek: :cool: I know those two words escape you though, after all, you tried to play hero recently and you're middle aged, no?
-
maybe boeing will get a new contract.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Um, thats a earthquake/volcano preparation kit, and its called "common sense" when you live next to one.:eek: :cool: I know those two words escape you though, after all, you tried to play hero recently and you're middle aged, no?
There is no try, there is only do... or don't do, young Skywalker.
Who you calling middle aged?
-
:rofl :D
-
MT how where you playing hero?:D
-
Is it your contention that these "interceptors" were designed, built, tested and put into service all within the past 3 years?
-
You want the real story or the embellished version?
-
And you keep that emergency kit ready for when the missiles come raining down.
====
As if an emergency "kit" would be worth a hill of beans post apocolypse.
Putting money into defensive systems with hopes of defending against missle attack is fine but there are other defense realities that are just as vital, if not more so, than missle defense. I can only continue to hope that our strategic planners are earning their pay -but as I get older I become jaded to positive thinking simply for the emotional benifit of positive thinking. Things are probably more screwed up than I can imagine :eek:
-
How about Both MT?
Did I miss a thread?
-
of course those "interceptors" only work some of the time, when the target is already known and plotted and traveling at slow speeds.
-
Hopefully it will be more accurate than the Patriot 10% hit ratio.:rofl
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hopefully it will be more accurate than the Patriot 10% hit ratio.:rofl
You do know that the Patriot was designed for anti-aircraft and not anti-missile right?
-
Missile defence is a waste of resources and money and just another toy for the military to develop and spend money on. Plus it makes the administration look as if they are doing something about national defence.
The likelyhood of a bomb isn't going to come from a nation with ICBM's due to the reason it hasn't in the past 50 years even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It will come by terrorists and they aren't going to bother with an ICBM attack when you can simply UPS the bomb to anywhere in the world and set it off by a cell phone.
Unfortunetly this basic technology of the terroist leapfrogs that of any Missile Defence technolgy costing billions.
There is more chance today of a bomb nuclear,radiation or otherwise going off somewhere in the world then there ever was during the cold war and they certinly wont broadcast the event by launching a missile.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Missile defence is a waste of resources and money and just another toy for the military to develop and spend money on. Plus it makes the administration look as if they are doing something about national defence.
The likelyhood of a bomb isn't going to come from a nation with ICBM's due to the reason it hasn't in the past 50 years even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It will come by terrorists and they aren't going to bother with an ICBM attack when you can simply UPS the bomb to anywhere in the world and set it off by a cell phone.
Unfortunetly this basic technology of the terroist leapfrogs that of any Missile Defence technolgy costing billions.
There is more chance today of a bomb nuclear,radiation or otherwise going off somewhere in the world then there ever was during the cold war and they certinly wont broadcast the event by launching a missile.
...-Gixer
I'm assuming you've got a degree in world conflict and work in the pentagon?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html
http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/22/text/p6s1.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/30war2.htm
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You do know that the Patriot was designed for anti-aircraft and not anti-missile right?
Sure it is....:rolleyes:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/patriot/
-
Originally posted by Torque
Sure it is....:rolleyes:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/patriot/
Put down the google search and step away from the keyboard before you make yourself look any more foolish of something you have no clue about.
The Patriot was originally built nearly 40 years ago to shoot down aircraft. But just before the 1991 Gulf War, its manufacturer, Raytheon, modified the Patriot to shoot down tactical ballistic missiles.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
How about Both MT?
Did I miss a thread?
I posted it on the Checksix forum. The real story I mean. Thread titled "Interesting Lunch".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm assuming you've got a degree in world conflict and work in the pentagon?]
No it's just my opinon on the matter, are you ever able to have a debate without resorting to personal comments? If your looking for some more web sites for information on the subject read this one.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd.htm (http://)
...-Gixer
-
Aw man, I thought the Soviet Union was gone!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Put down the google search and step away from the keyboard before you make yourself look any more foolish of something you have no clue about.
If Raytheon modified it to hit missiles, shouldn't we expect a little more than 10%?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
If Raytheon modified it to hit missiles, shouldn't we expect a little more than 10%?
Perhaps, but then again maybe not. Like I said, it wasn't designed, maybe I should have clarified, originally designed to shoot down missiles. This latest stuff is.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm assuming you've got a degree in world conflict and work in the pentagon?
Cripes Rip that's hypocritical. You say that and then present your "expert" sources of "theaten" as an an actual threat.
I so happens that most think-tanks as well as DND have come to the exact same conclusion as Gixer.
You don't even actually believe that ICBMs are a great threat as a delivery system so I have no idea why you are arguing it.
-
Better to have 'em and not need 'em than the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Put down the google search and step away from the keyboard before you make yourself look any more foolish of something you have no clue about.
I dunno Rip you cut & paste and reaffirmed what i had previously written. That the Patriot is in fact an anti-missile system and not just an anti-aircraft missile system as Iron first mentioned. Then with your bbs wisdom you call me foolish. :)
Didn't Bush Sr and the Army ask for billions more while touting a 90% hit ratio after the Gulf War, it only took congressional hearings to get the actual ratio which was only 10% ;)
and you freakout aboot a BJ. :aok
-
I believe a certain amount of money should be invested in an anti defense missile system, however intel is our primary concern I think . Getting it accurately and in a timley fashion in order to secure all of us.
There are still some nations that might be encouraged to play nuke chicken witha few nukes that could be dettered with an effetive nuke shield, like those from NK and Iran. Though the latter has been said is due for a democratic revolution, when will that happen only the Iranians know....
-
Originally posted by Torque
I dunno Rip you cut & paste and reaffirmed what i had previously written. That the Patriot is in fact an anti-missile system and not just an anti-aircraft missile system as Iron first mentioned. Then with your bbs wisdom you call me foolish. :)
Didn't Bush Sr and the Army ask for billions more while touting a 90% hit ratio after the Gulf War, it only took congressional hearings to get the actual ratio which was only 10% ;)
and you freakout aboot a BJ. :aok
Not quite what transpired Torque. I said it was designed to be anti-aircraft, not anti-missile. You refuted that, even graced us with the rolley eyes. It was much later modified for missiles as Rip pointed out.
BTW, I dispute that 10% effectiveness, got a link?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
BTW, I dispute that 10% effectiveness, got a link?
The number is misleading. It complete ignores the fact that a salvo of 3-4 Patriots were usually fired at each target. Thus if the first hit, the reset would automatically miss due t change in jactory.
The Patroit missile system successully intercept between 40 and 70 per cent of the targets they were fired at. You can read about here, as well as U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations testimony.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
-
The 10% number was from GW1. Patriot has undergone an enormous amount of digital tech upgrades for anti-missle work since then. So that data from 13 years ago is pointless.
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-unit.htm (http://) has some good information on Patriot and just about every other military piece of hardware.
They also have alot of excellent powerpoint post operation briefing reports and documents from the different units in the last Gluf War and current operations in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/hotdocs.htm (http://)
As for the 10% I agree after all the developments it is a much better system. As it shot down a British Toranado quite successfully.
...-Gixer
-
I heard their IFF was not working... :(
-
Remember the falsified numbers of dropped SCUD's to the Patriot missile in 91.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Remember the falsified numbers of dropped SCUD's to the Patriot missile in 91.
Karaya
True but the point Grunherz was making and rightly so is that today the system has had alot changes since 91. I agree 91 it wasn't all that accurate. A good friend of mine was with the British army and in a radar station part of the SCUD early warning system in Israel at the time of the first Gulf War.
His comment was that it was a good system very capable of taking down aircraft but missed most SCUDS and he couldn't recall a single warhead being taken out. Only the body of the SCUD.
I think today it's a much improved system though any system will fall short when it comes to taking out missiles in flight. Even one as big as a SCUD.
True that the Patriot success in first Gulf war was well over hyped by the media and the military. But even 10% or what ever the figure was is better then nothing.
...-Gixer
-
a trillion dollar missiles shield will be fool proof against a suitcase bomb!!!!
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hopefully it will be more accurate than the Patriot 10% hit ratio.:rofl
Patriot is an anti- aircraft missile, 100% accurate. Placed into service in Gulf war one as a placebo against scud (useless as a flying bathtub) missiles. Still had good hits on them.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Patriot is an anti- aircraft missile, 100% accurate. Placed into service in Gulf war one as a placebo against scud (useless as a flying bathtub) missiles. Still had good hits on them.
Weaselsan, its not use, he enjoys his "America bashing" too much to argue facts.
-
We all know why Ronnie really wanted SDI :p
42nd United Nations General Assembly-Sep 21 1987
"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside of this world. And yet I ask - is not an alien force already among us?"
Fallston High School Harford County Maryland-Dec 4 1985
I couldn’t help but - when you stop to think that we’re all God’s children, wherever we live in the world, I couldn’t help but say to him (Gorbachev) just how easy his task and mine might be if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We’d forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this Earth together. Well I guess we can wait for some alien race to come down and threaten us, but I think that between us we can bring about that realization."
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hopefully it will be more accurate than the Patriot 10% hit ratio.:rofl
10% Patriot vs. Scud intercept ratio is highly overestimated. I bet Patriot is unable to intercept ICBM warheads.
The most difficult part of intercepting ICBMs is target selection. Soviet ICBMs carry huge load of fake targets, decoys and ECM jamming stations. The calculating machines used in ABM systems in Soviet times couldn't be compared to Patriot's "advanced" targeting computer based on 80386. "Elbrus" series were a good match for Crays.
Now - I want to know how many successfull intercepts were performed so far. How many of them were performed in "combat" conditions, including jammers and decoys?
Even if you'll reach 100% intercept ratio (that is next to impossible) - there is already an answer for this so-called "shield". Russian Strategic Missile Corps already tested a new warhead, capable of maneuvering in atmosphere at hyperconic speeds to avoid ABMs.
The whole "national missile defence" is a good support for your military-industrial complex, nothing more.
-
Sorry Boroda, but the REAL reason for our ABM/ Starwars sytem development was to assist the Soviet Union in going broke faster. Looks like it worked pretty well.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Patriot is an anti- aircraft missile, 100% accurate. Placed into service in Gulf war one as a placebo against scud (useless as a flying bathtub) missiles. Still had good hits on them.
Well according to Raytheon it was a little more than just a simple ABM placebo and it was redesigned back in 1984 to be an ABM.
"Patriot is a long-range, high-altitude, all-weather system designed to defeat advanced threats, including aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. Combat proven during Operation Desert Storm,"
Oversight Hearing on the Performance of the Patriot Missile- in the Gulf War," April 7, 1992
"Examination of the new analysis indicates that although improved in clarity and format, the revised assessment continues to suffer from many of the same deficiencies as the original assessment. The Army assessment does not support the overall effectiveness claim or the specific claims of the Scud warheads destroyed. The strongest evidence in the Army assessment indicates that the 158 Patriots fired during the war destroyed a few Scud warheads, although there are doubts about these."
What was that about facts Rip?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Boroda, but the REAL reason for our ABM/ Starwars sytem development was to assist the Soviet Union in going broke faster. Looks like it worked pretty well.
Sure, I know it. It was probably even more successfull then Khruschev's missile bluff of late-50s, when he declared that R-7 ("Sputnik" launcher, still in service as first two stages of "Soyuz") rockets were standing in our steppes "like candles"...
Did SDI include ABM projects? AFAIK it didn't, US was limited by 1972 treaty...
-
SDI was a research and development project and I believe the 1972 ABM prohibited deployment.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Patriot is an anti- aircraft missile, 100% accurate. Placed into service in Gulf war one as a placebo against scud (useless as a flying bathtub) missiles. Still had good hits on them.
100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.
No SAM can be "100% accurate" even agaist non-maneuvering target without ECM and stuff like flares or chaff.
IIRC Patriots intercepted about 3% of Scuds. Remaining Scuds that didn't reach the target exploded on start or felt apart in flight because the original Soviet design was "modernised" by Arabs to improve range. At least it's what I have read about it in Soviet/Russian military press in early 90s. At that times they had no reason to lie.
American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind. You simply don't have a nessessity to protect your home land from hordes of enemy planes.
-
100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.
very true.
American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind.
again true.
None of this means that the new technologies work/don't work.
Progress on the battlefield has been made recently by the US... tons of progress due to real battle conditions as opposed to theory.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
SDI was a research and development project and I believe the 1972 ABM prohibited deployment.
I don't remember any information about any American ABM projects in the 80s. Wasn't an American ABM programm abandoned in 70s after unsuccessfull attempt to shield "missile farms" in North Dakota? USSR deployed first-generation ABM system protecting Moscow in mid-70s, and by the late-80s we had a second generation system working.
The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.
Moscow ABM shield never was supposed to shoot down more then 5-10 enemy warheads. It was a protection from an accidental launch. Your attempt to cover the whole continent with an ABM shield looks funny. How many ABMs are you going to deploy? 110? Fired in salvos of two missiles (no less, otherwise it's all nonsence), reaching an improbable 100% hit ratio the whole system will be able to intercept 55 warheads, or 10-12 MIRV missiles. Looks like someone is fooling you guys. You'd better spend the money on something more usefull like public education.
-
As I remember it , the ABM treaty allowed a sheild around the capital of both countries, and a limited sheild around 'missle farms'.
To believe USSR did not protect its retaliatory capability I would think would be nieve. (Could be wrong however, they may have been fire on warning policy)
As it is a coastal city, DC is at most only a couple minutes from a submarine launched missle and to feild a missle interceptor with 70's technology that could identify, launch and destroy an incoming weapon in 60 seconds was impossible.
Moscow being maybe 1500+ km from a possible SLBM could have had faith in a system that had considerably more time to react. With the 1970's computing power however it seems unlikely either side could have intercepted incoming missles.
-
What they say the patriot is capable of today, and what it was capable of in 91' are apples and oranges. The patriot was moved to Isreal in gulf one to placate the Israelis to keep them out of the war. Anyone who wants to go back pre 91' and find anywhere the patriot is described as an ABM I would like to see it.
The specialized radar was of interest to some weapon designers,
but the patriot was designed to be a SAM.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.
No SAM can be "100% accurate" even agaist non-maneuvering target without ECM and stuff like flares or chaff.
IIRC Patriots intercepted about 3% of Scuds. Remaining Scuds that didn't reach the target exploded on start or felt apart in flight because the original Soviet design was "modernised" by Arabs to improve range. At least it's what I have read about it in Soviet/Russian military press in early 90s. At that times they had no reason to lie.
American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind. You simply don't have a nessessity to protect your home land from hordes of enemy planes.
Saddam would have loved to have your AA expertise when he was getting his military and infrustucture pounded into the sand by American airpower.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I don't remember any information about any American ABM projects in the 80s. Wasn't an American ABM programm abandoned in 70s after unsuccessfull attempt to shield "missile farms" in North Dakota? USSR deployed first-generation ABM system protecting Moscow in mid-70s, and by the late-80s we had a second generation system working.
The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.
Moscow ABM shield never was supposed to shoot down more then 5-10 enemy warheads. It was a protection from an accidental launch. Your attempt to cover the whole continent with an ABM shield looks funny. How many ABMs are you going to deploy? 110? Fired in salvos of two missiles (no less, otherwise it's all nonsence), reaching an improbable 100% hit ratio the whole system will be able to intercept 55 warheads, or 10-12 MIRV missiles. Looks like someone is fooling you guys. You'd better spend the money on something more usefull like public education.
I'd like to see the tests in which the Soviets were able to demonstate the ability to intercept an ICBM and/or warhead back then or at any time.
Also, our ABM system is just what we told you people it was going to be.....a DEFENSE AGAINST ROUGE STATES like N. Korea in a limited attack. We have repeatedly told your government and the world that our system would be only to guard against the new reality of a limited attack coming from a rouge state.
Nobody thinks the ABM system is a shield that can stop hundreds of warheads at once.
You mentioned that your ABM system was in place to protect Moscow's 10 million people? If anything they probably deployed whatever ineffective system they thought they had to protect the Kremlin at...... best.
So far almost everything the Russians have put up against US equipment has proven to be an utter failure in combat....including tactics. Baghdad (edit) was said to be one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and equipped with the latest Russian equipment, training and advice. The US came in and made that defense look like joke.
-
"equipped with the latest Russian equipment"
sorry this is bs. they have much better first line stuff.
we would not fair as well against it. want to find out invade russia.
-
NUKE, the US is the best at alot of stuff, but they aren't best at everything. That's okay though, they are still the best and have the best in alot of cases. You don't have to take it so personally.
When you think that yours is the best just because it's yours you risk falling into a trap of overestimating your ability or underestimating your opponents. You are sounding ideological.
"I'd like to see the tests in which the Soviets were able to demonstate the ability to intercept an ICBM and/or warhead back then or at any time."
That is a ligitmate question. Until it is answered than than possibility exists that such a system existed, but it is neither proved nor disproved.
"If anything they probably deployed whatever ineffective system they thought they had to protect the Kremlin at...... best."
See that statement? That's a wild assumption that has no basis anywhere in reality. It a complete figment of you imagination. You have not data to back it up whatsoever.
-
nock nock..anyone home.
Big news. GWB rips up treaties..thats a new one.
Hes real brave to do so sitting on by far the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world..
Wonder how he will like it when north korea has a simular capability?
oh ya thats right. 40 interceptors is enough to make it so that a minor nuclear power cant nuke you but of course..they would need a thousand such interceptors to stop the US.
At the same time bush ratles the sabre to get coutries to comply with the "nukes only for america" treaty..he rips up the ABM treaty..
what a guy!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I remember it , the ABM treaty allowed a sheild around the capital of both countries, and a limited sheild around 'missle farms'.
To believe USSR did not protect its retaliatory capability I would think would be nieve. (Could be wrong however, they may have been fire on warning policy)
1972 ABM treaty allowed only one region to be protected by ABM systems. The treaty also limited other defence systems like long-range early warning radar stations. The choice of the region to protect was left to the treaty members.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As it is a coastal city, DC is at most only a couple minutes from a submarine launched missle and to feild a missle interceptor with 70's technology that could identify, launch and destroy an incoming weapon in 60 seconds was impossible.
Moscow being maybe 1500+ km from a possible SLBM could have had faith in a system that had considerably more time to react. With the 1970's computing power however it seems unlikely either side could have intercepted incoming missles.
By 1975 Soviet ABM system (first generation) was able to refrain from using nuclear charges and switched to conventional warheads because the accuracy was enough to knock enemy missiles directly. AFAIR the upper interception range was 300km, lower was 5km.
After NATO deployed medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe - Moscow was only a couple of minutes from launch sites.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Saddam would have loved to have your AA expertise when he was getting his military and infrustucture pounded into the sand by American airpower.
It's pretty easy to "pound into the sand" someone who doesn't have a decent anti-aircraft infrastructure and is limited to the equipment that is 30 years old.
You never were at war with a country that has a full-scale aircraft defence system. Even Vietnamese, using Soviet missiles that were already outdated (S-75) scored an impressive number of victories, mostly because of exellent tactics and planning, combined with superior training of the personell. Just remember, there were no Soviet advisors in Iraq. Even in Lybia, 1986, an S-200 long range missile complex, fireing "from the wheels" and not even properly deployed, fireing one missile per targeting station (according to the regulations S-200 fires 2 or 3 missiles in a salvo) shot down two American planes, one missile per hit. In Syria, 1982, Soviet advisors had a long kill list using outdated S-75 in manual targeting mode, relying on high mobility and a good position choice.
It's easy to wage war on amateur cowards.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'd like to see the tests in which the Soviets were able to demonstate the ability to intercept an ICBM and/or warhead back then or at any time.
First successfull ICBM intercept was performed in USSR on March, 4th, 1961. Russian sources say that this result was repeated in the US only in 1984. But IIRC Funked gave me links that Americans did the same thing in early 60s.
Since late-60s ABM systems were tested in a Sary-Shagan SAM test ground, tested on massive ICBM launches from Kap. Yar. Real launches, real missiles, with all the fake targets, decoys and ECM jamming stations.
Originally posted by NUKE
Also, our ABM system is just what we told you people it was going to be.....a DEFENSE AGAINST ROUGE STATES like N. Korea in a limited attack. We have repeatedly told your government and the world that our system would be only to guard against the new reality of a limited attack coming from a rouge state.
Nobody thinks the ABM system is a shield that can stop hundreds of warheads at once.
Look, your theoretical intercept capability is only 55 warheads. No sane person will ever start a nuclear attack without being sure he has a chance to knock out your retaliation power. So, we can assume that the best anti-ICBM weapon is an ICBM, that you have plenty.
Originally posted by NUKE
You mentioned that your ABM system was in place to protect Moscow's 10 million people? If anything they probably deployed whatever ineffective system they thought they had to protect the Kremlin at...... best.
I have already said that the estimated Moscow ABM shield capability was 10 enemy warhead. I doubt that it is possible to make a better shield now, and American failures in this field are a good proof. If you have a protection against an accidental launch - it is reasonable to protect a 10-million city, because your missile positions will be a target for massive launch and the best way to save them in this case is to make them leave the silos... The problem is that someone (i will not point my finger) thinks that a few dozen ICBMs are more valuable then 10 million human lives.
Originally posted by NUKE
So far almost everything the Russians have put up against US equipment has proven to be an utter failure in combat....including tactics. Baghdad (edit) was said to be one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and equipped with the latest Russian equipment, training and advice. The US came in and made that defense look like joke.
"with the latest Russian equipment, training and advice"!?!? Please enlighten me on this subject. I didn't know that Iraqi had S-400 "Triumph" SAMs, Su-30 planes, Ka-50 tank killers and "Smerch" rocket launchers.
-
"So far almost everything the Russians have put up against US equipment has proven to be an utter failure in combat....including tactics. Baghdad (edit) was said to be one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and equipped with the latest Russian equipment, training and advice. The US came in and made that defense look like joke"
Think that is totally incorrect. For one thing it dosn't matter what you give the Iraq's or any Middle East country their not exactly professional soilders. My dad fought Egyptions in the 50's with the British Army and thought they were the worst soilders he ever came across.
Iraq certinly didn't have the latest in Russian equipment. I think
China has almost completed a new SAM defence network via fibre optic across the country. I can't recall the exact term but I think it's referred to as Level 2 or something.
Some military Analyists have been quoted as saying that if it's true and when it's online makes any penetration by conventional aircraft close to impossible. Only Stealths have any chance.
I think if the US ever had to go up against China or even North Korea they'll find that Russian and Chinese equipment very effective indeed.
Wouldn't be suprised if Chinese military technology has caught up with western in another 20 years. And probably pass it as well. In some areas Russian/Chinese equipment is the best available.
...-Gixer
-
You know boroda is right. Defeating the 1991 iraq in a war is close to beating up on mexico. Defeating a 2003 iraq was like fighting bolivia. Why else would we attack iraq over N. Korea that has WMDs in development. It would be a easy and fast war.