Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.
A shield is a pretty good idea, yet having the ability to neutralize a threat before "launch" is another layer of security.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
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 freedom and crush tyranny.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.
A shield is a pretty good idea, yet having the ability to neutralize a threat before "launch" is another layer of security.
Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?
You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.
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??
Originally posted by: Skoorb
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 freedom and crush tyranny.
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.
A shield is a pretty good idea, yet having the ability to neutralize a threat before "launch" is another layer of security.
Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?
You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.
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.
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.
A more effective missile shield would also upset the strategic balance.
I think the US should conduct R&D into building a Thor type platform but not deploy it to orbit unless we are reasonably sure someone else is going to or has.
None of the PGS systems under consideration are space-based (The US has agreements about the militarization of space)
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.
A shield is a pretty good idea, yet having the ability to neutralize a threat before "launch" is another layer of security.
Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?
You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
To put it simply the OP wants to build a Metal Gear.
"SNAAAAAAAKKKEEEEEEE!!!!"
Originally posted by: cwjerome
The idea for such a weapon has been tossed around but there has been little funding, mainly over fears that countries like Russia would be unable to properly determine whether an in-flight warhead was nuclear.
But the requirements for such a weapon are really starting to emerge. The idea is that the US should have the capability to attack and destroy any point on earth with a conventional warhead within 60 minutes on the low end and as quick as 300 milliseconds on the high end.
There is certainly a military requirement to take out "fleeting" targets in a very short time frame. The old way- using bombers to take out static targets- isn't as important today. The US has to be able to use its eyes and ears to track the asymetrical threats and respond to them in real time, such as a target of opportunity like a terrorist leader in a safe house or a WMD about to be launched from a rogue nation/group.
Intel, speed, and accuracy is the name of the game in our current threat environment. Obviously such a weapon would be used on a limited, high-level basis.
Short range (1000-2000mile) ICBMs with conventional warheads, hypersonic missiles that skirt the edges of space, and other systems are being studied.
What say you?
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I misspoke by using "inter-continental" (obviously, for shorter ranged) but the INF, if still even applicable, shouldn't apply because of a conventional warhead and different flight profile.
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
We have better things to do with our money than create new, innovative and creative ways to quickly kill people - especially with space based weapons.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
We have better things to do with our money than create new, innovative and creative ways to quickly kill people - especially with space based weapons.
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.
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?
That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.
The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
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 freedom and crush tyranny.
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
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.
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
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.