This. In the age where our enemies have weapons that can kill millions in the blink of an eye, we need to focus on defenses to protect against those weapons, not weapons that can make bigger explosions.
When I was in the fourth grade I designed a military complexes in five parts, the function of which was to destroy any enemy in the world. One of the modules was based on emerging technology, one was based on an concept the military thought of and developed years and years later, one was an idea so terrible it hasn't been tried yet. One does not exist, to my knowledge, but may be a military secret.
Fortunately, of course for you, I began to wonder as I continued to grow, just what it was that lured me obsess over such things and I realized I did so out of insecurity and fear, insecurities and fears instilled in me from far far earlier in my childhood.
So I finally saw that the way to save the world from evil bad guys was not to destroy all life on the planet, except, naturally, myself, but to die to my fears, to accept the fact that I am totally unimportant, that my stupid fat-head ego is a nobody and not somebody you should die for so I can feel safe.
Fortunately, of course for you, I began to wonder as I continued to grow, just what it was that lured me obsess over such things and I realized I did so out of insecurity and fear, insecurities and fears instilled in me from far far earlier in my childhood.
So I finally saw that the way to save the world from evil bad guys was not to destroy all life on the planet, except, naturally, myself, but to die to my fears, to accept the fact that I am totally unimportant, that my stupid fat-head ego is a nobody and not somebody you should die for so I can feel safe.
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!
"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??
There was a Star Trek Episode (Old School) where they blew up a missle fired by an orbiting missle station or just from a missle. It was very much like this.
PricklyPete
Lifer
- Sep 17, 2002
- 14,714
- 164
- 106
It's not about having a big explosion, the Prompt Global Strike weapon has a conventional warhead and is designed to be able to hit a target very quickly. The idea behind the PGS is quickly and efficiently taking out sudden (fleeting) threat opportunities that arise from intelligence sources. It's just as valuable to take out a meeting of terrorist leaders or a known WMD location BEFORE we use a shield.
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,641
- 58
- 91
I know what you mean. I have screens I put over my food to keep the flies off when I barbecue, but I still use my fly swatter when I hear their telltale buzz.
How wouod you like for aniother nation to have this, and not us? Why would this not be a threat to others at the level of 'the final phase of one goverment planetary dominance'?
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Gotta agree with booboo on this one.
We can already kill people in vast numbers very quickly. Why spend a ton of money trying to speed it up a few minutes or increase body count? There are better investments right now such as alternative energy and energy storage.
This isn't about killing people in vast numbers or body count. Think of a UAV loitering over a combat zone. Information comes in that a key terrorist leader (or, say a group unpacking a SSM to launch) is at a certain place. The UAV is sent to the location a puts a hellfire on target. Well, a PGS is similar, in that the entire globe is the "combat zone" and as intel comes in this system can put a very accurate conventional warhead on a spot in >1 to 60 minutes.
This allows great flexibility. Instead oh having a lot of boots on the ground all over the world, which is a time consuming, invasive, painful process we enhance our intel and make the prompt strike when necessary.
There are arguments against it, but I just wanted to make sure you realize what it is...
That mindset is the problem, BUT the problem is in every country. Americans worry about it because countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria or some -ikistan former soviet country that now has nuclear missles is of the mind set of killing as many of their enemies as possible regardless if they are military or civilian.
I love to talk about weapons. It make my balls swell up to twice the size of my brain, large enough, in fact, that I can just begin to see them.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Ignore this doofus
PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect tyranny and crush freedom.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,502
- 1
- 81
OP,
Right now, the US can deliver nukes via B2 bombers, submarine launched ICMBs, Ship and bomber launched nuke cruise missles, etc. Why would the US need to create an orbital platform based nuclear capability?
Maybe, just maybe one could have justify this capability during the cold war but I doubt it.
Right now, the US can deliver nukes via B2 bombers, submarine launched ICMBs, Ship and bomber launched nuke cruise missles, etc. Why would the US need to create an orbital platform based nuclear capability?
Maybe, just maybe one could have justify this capability during the cold war but I doubt it.
It's not an orbital platform and it's not nuclear. I made that clear. As a matter of fact, under most current proposals, the missile would be flying so fast that kinetic energy alone would do the job normally reserved for the weapon payload, so no explosives would be necessary.
example
(true, early ideas included a military space plane... a reusable launch vehicle that could directly deliver precision guided munitions, however this was rather quickly shot down as an option. All current systems under consideration do not include an orbiting missile platform)
Another early idea was conventional Trident SLBM Modification, a way to very quickly place a conventional warhead accurately on a target. It never went anywhere with Congress, mainly over fears of countries like Russia thinking it was a nuclear strike.
There seems to be much more support in Congress for this type of capability now; it will be up to the Obama administration to put forth a technically and operationally viable concept that is also politically acceptable.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter