Missile Defense rendered useless
- Thread starter sandorski
- Start date
How is this anything new? Multiple warheads have always been the bane to anti-missile systems. That's why there is a multi-layered approach to ABM systems. First, you try to take it out when it's launching. If not, then the re-entry vehicles are soft targets, but are extremely fast and can manuver in a minor way. To hit them you fill the sky with flak, either to kill it with impact, or shockwave. Of course, you can't hit and kill everything, so it's a numbers game, as it has always been.
Nothing has changed in the equation.
Nothing has changed in the equation.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,719
- 46,473
- 136
This is an old technology, decoys and countermeasures mounted on ICBMs have been around for a while. The SS-24 is by no means a new missile, that would be like us mounting the MX series on rail cars and saying it's a new missile.
I have to wonder why Russia is so concerned about what really is a limited anti-missile defense system. It simply can't engage hundreds of separate missiles in a general exchange so the deterrent factor is kept intact. Or maybe a good percentage of the Russian missiles can't make it out of their silos and we both know it...
I have to wonder why Russia is so concerned about what really is a limited anti-missile defense system. It simply can't engage hundreds of separate missiles in a general exchange so the deterrent factor is kept intact. Or maybe a good percentage of the Russian missiles can't make it out of their silos and we both know it...
The missile defense system isn't designed to stop Russian missiles, so how exactly is it rendered useless?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,788
- 10,086
- 136
You?re right, some day North Korea will get this. One day we might actually deploy our program too, or an improved one. Not to mention it might be nice to make North Korea and other nuclear rogue states WORK a little to obtain a successful nuclear missile strike.
Looks like we?ve spent so little to get our program functioning, and have publicized it so greatly that Russia has created a counter to something that isn?t even deployed yet. Shows how much they care, and how much we don?t care. How tripe your imagination must be if you are incapable of thinking up ways to counter the Russian?s counter. We would merely need as many interceptor missiles as they nuclear missiles.
At what price do we intend to stop a nuclear missile from reaching us when we?re the target? I would spend billions, you apparently want to cancel the effort entirely. That?s nothing new, you always have even though the more defensive options we have the less offensive options we need.
not a big deal.
Look, Putin knows he needs to convince his people that Russia is still strong and proud, if not he will be out of a job and so will his cronies. Even if they aren't on top of the world, and they do portray that US as weaker to their own people, they cannot let their people catch on to the truth... far too many believe what the government tells them. 80+ years of doctrination do that to a population
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The Soviet Union bankrupted itself attempting to keep up with the Jones.
MIRVs are nothing new.
It is just a matter of either catching the missle before deployment of the warheads or being able to target each warhead with some type of destructive technology.
Unless their "new" system has a way to manuver the warhead upon deployment with intelligence; the same problem still exists.
And we have been developing the technology to counter act such designs.
MIRVs are nothing new.
It is just a matter of either catching the missle before deployment of the warheads or being able to target each warhead with some type of destructive technology.
Unless their "new" system has a way to manuver the warhead upon deployment with intelligence; the same problem still exists.
And we have been developing the technology to counter act such designs.
What rights of mine are stripped away from a missile defense system?
Drinking the koolaid a bit much this morning? Make sure the tin foil hat is properly secured before replying. The smoking man is listening to your internet posts.
Not that i'm intentionally taking another jab at Bush and Co again... but i think this is going to be another failure of this administration in 5-10 years. Russia is becoming more totalitarian each year, AND the dictators are becoming more popular, WITH the populace hating the Americans more and more.
But how much pressure can you put on another nation, especially one that you can't bully around, when you're invading nations yourself and destabilizing regions?
But how much pressure can you put on another nation, especially one that you can't bully around, when you're invading nations yourself and destabilizing regions?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
MAD or mutual assured destruction has been the foundation of the relative peace between superpowers. Even though Russian missiles are not targeted at the USA, it only takes a few minutes to add in any arbitrary targeting. LegendKiller is totally correct---any missile defense system just plays a numbers game and increase the number of nukes in the world. And given the state of the arts now---we don't even have the technology to reliably hit a single missile. A bunch of anti missile missiles might have a prayer of shooting down a single missile some nut job like N. Korea might try to use.
But in terms of countries like China and Russia---this new development will have little impact. If the USA acts like a nuclear nut case we can face nuclear annihilation. This was true 30 yeas ago, its was true yesterday, and its going to likely be true for the foreseeable future. Its just like me robbing a bank---if I do it they will put me in iron cages and feed me bad food. The trick in both cases is to not trigger the bad consequences by not engaging in the acts that trigger the consequences.
And fools who advocate spending ourselves into bankruptcy with a dubious anti missile system are arguing that you can rob banks if you exterminate the cops first.
But in terms of countries like China and Russia---this new development will have little impact. If the USA acts like a nuclear nut case we can face nuclear annihilation. This was true 30 yeas ago, its was true yesterday, and its going to likely be true for the foreseeable future. Its just like me robbing a bank---if I do it they will put me in iron cages and feed me bad food. The trick in both cases is to not trigger the bad consequences by not engaging in the acts that trigger the consequences.
And fools who advocate spending ourselves into bankruptcy with a dubious anti missile system are arguing that you can rob banks if you exterminate the cops first.
I agree with you. I think TheSlamma's reaction is a bit off, but I also think that Trianon isn't hitting it on the head either.
I don't think anybody isn't taking this as a serious threat. However, it's not a threat that we haven't been under for the last 20+ odd years since MIRVs were invented. The risks and returns of a ABM system are well known, as are the attempts to defeat it. MIRV/MARV systems can somewhat defeat it, since they overwhelm an ABM system with too many targets that are difficult to hit. Add in rudementry manuvering and an ABM's job just became tougher.
Lets not forget that the Russians, despite a good oil and other natural resource economy, are still largely struggeling. They can barely keep their armed forces viable and most strategists agree that a significant portion of their ICBM force is either unworkable, or deteriorating quickly. The same can be said for the SL-ICBM, navy in general, airforce, and army.
It's just the way it works. MIRV technology is pretty advanced, China only has a small amount of ICBMs (less than 5 I think) that are MIRV, which only have 2-3 warheads each, and they are way far ahead of Pakistan and India, who are way far ahead of NK, who is still even further ahead of Iran.
All-in, this isn't a change from yesterday. The threat hasn't changed at all.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
More concerned about a NATO radar in Czech republic that will be constantly monitoring its airspace up to the Urals. The US made then USSR disassemble a radar in the far east that was designed to do the exact same thing under the ABM treaty.
Russia is also very paranoid about having a buffer zone around itself since in most wars it's been the vast expanses that stretched supply lines of enemies and made Russia so difficult to conquer. For example, Russia uses different gauge train tracks so that enemies can't use its railroads to supply an invasion. You may ask why are they so paranoid about getting invaded, and the answer is that every time they get invaded they suffer unimaginable casualties, and at this point, they don't really have that many people left to absorb them. So they don't want to take any chances. Another reason why they are paranoid about losing their nuclear deterrent, because they are simply not in a position to fight a conventional war and win. Of course, China is a bigger potential threat than NATO at this point, but they do have the buffer of Siberia for that.
The lack of logic in that statement baffles the mind.
The US ABM system isn't meant to deter Russia or China, and they both know it. This is just politics. Technology spreads and gets cheaper, event he smallest country will eventually have global reach. The goal here is to make those smaller countries question if any attack would actually be successful. It is a numbers game, but the current game is (for those that can) 'if I launch on Paris, I hit Paris' the new game is 'if I launch on Paris, I MAY hit Paris, but can gaurentee an overwhelming response'.
MAD only works when you presume both sides have the same desire to not be destroyed. That desire is clearly shared with Russa, China, Europe. But there are states where it's not as clear.
NMD is just another fools' paradise.
As a propaganda vehicle, it's excellent, because they're "working to keep America safe", even if it has a snowball's chance in hell of being effective.
The very existence of the program demands that our rivals develop potential countermeasures- meaning we'll be able to justify spending more on our own counter- counter measures, plumping up the coffers of the military supply industry...
And it's counterproductive from a strategic standpoint in the sense that it adds another variable, introducing greater chances for miscalculation by everybody... that's if it ever kinda sorta works at all...
The real answer lies in working towards fewer nukes worldwide, but that doesn't get voters' panties in a knot, and certainly doesn't fit in with the current methods of fearmongering used to get those votes...
As a propaganda vehicle, it's excellent, because they're "working to keep America safe", even if it has a snowball's chance in hell of being effective.
The very existence of the program demands that our rivals develop potential countermeasures- meaning we'll be able to justify spending more on our own counter- counter measures, plumping up the coffers of the military supply industry...
And it's counterproductive from a strategic standpoint in the sense that it adds another variable, introducing greater chances for miscalculation by everybody... that's if it ever kinda sorta works at all...
The real answer lies in working towards fewer nukes worldwide, but that doesn't get voters' panties in a knot, and certainly doesn't fit in with the current methods of fearmongering used to get those votes...
People for the system aren't woried about powers with hundreds or thousands of weapons. It's for powers with a couple. While the overall goal of fewer nukes worldwide is good and I support it, I'd sure like to have some recourse when someone eventually does something stupid.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Of course that is just cold war, in the box, thinking. These same rogue states can simply put their nuke in a container and ship it to its destination undetected. Unlike nuclear missile attack, which would be certain suicide for a country to do, this would provide deniability and make it more difficult to trace the source to strike back. Of course we continue to assume that they will fight us like USSR would have fought us or the way we want them to fight us, so we spend hundreds of billions on the least likely scenario, and much less on a more likely one.
Sure, and you presume we'd be the only target we'd like to protect. No-one in the thread is saying we should not try to stop seperate avenues. But if at some point down the line Israel and Iran decide to launch on each other, I'd be fine if we interveeded and intercepted both.
I saw this news earlier and I thought it was kind of funny. The Russians said that it will defeat all current and future missile defense systems. How do they know what we aill develop in the future?? Maybe they developed time travel too?? 
Wouldn't an ABM system need to be useful before it can be considred useless? After thirty years and over $100 billion, we're still only around 50% success when we know where the missile is coming from.
You're still trying to define "success" in terms of the whole thing actually working, Strk, which isn't the point at all- It gets votes and it makes money for the so-called "defense industry".
Within those parameters, it's a smashing success.
Within those parameters, it's a smashing success.
I can support NMD, just not any installations in Europe. Europe is neither stable nor a friend to protect. We might as well be putting NMD elements in Baghdad.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter