Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket.
So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?

10, 20, 100?

Well, if we loaded up Ice Fortress, we could take out 2-300 per minisat.

Basicly, it's a nuke that detonates inside an array of x-ray tubes, shooting roughly 300 lasers out at once. Detonate this in a swarm of MIRV ICBM warheads and you'll take a fuckton out at once :)

Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket. So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?...The real problem is that it is so much cheaper to make decoys than anti missels - perhaps 50 times less expensive. The real warhead can easily simulate a decoy, so you must shoot every decoy down, even if you can recognize the incoming as "decoys."

Hence Ice Fortress.

I personally think we need to focus more on ionic shielding and then gradually ElectroMagnetic particle shields. Once we have those, who gives a shit how many missiles they launch? They can't harm us anyway :)

....Detonate this in a swarm of MIRV ICBM warheads and you'll take a fuckton out at once :)Laser not vey likely to hit even one (how do you aim the lasers?) Also the reflectivity of even thin evaporated metal film (essentially zero weight) is >90% so most of any laser beam that does hit will just be reflected, unless a longer duration laser beam is used to burn it off.

Not these lasers mate. They're in the x-ray spectrum. They superheat the insides of the missile, frying the delicate electronic and the secondary gyroscopic guidance systems. And when you have a few thousand warheads and decoys in space, a good percentage of those lasers will hit.

The other option is a powerful EMP blast to short them out, but most ICBM's are hardened anyway :(

Not these lasers mate. They're in the x-ray spectrum. ...If that is true, then scratch my comment about reflecting off metal film, but still you have the aiming problem. With any reasonable spacing between the decoys (one of which is the real bomb, pretending to be a decoy) the solid angle of the targets (decoys) is less than 0.000,01 of the total solid angle (4pi ster radians) when seen from the X-ray source. I.e. very small change of hitting even one decoy by randomly directed lasers.

So again I ask:

How do you aim the lasers, which are produced by a nucear blast? That nuclear blast surely destroys any aiming device you can imagine.

Summary: If there are nine real decoys and one bomb pretending to be a decoy, your chance of hitting it is about 1 in 10,000 tries!

The EMP has a better chance, but as you noted, that can be hardened against.

How about aiming before you set off the nuke? The schematics I've seen had a porcupine-like array of director tubes (some sort of X-Ray optical fibre?) covering 360 deg spherically, and the aiming was to be done against a swarm of missiles. Then the detonation would go off and take out tens to hundreds at once. In the concept video, of course, real life might have been different. :D
Multiple kamikaze one-shot firing platforms were "planned".

That was the idea mate.

Thing is, Ice Fortress is just the launch platform and can hold, I think, ten of these little nuclear bundles of joy.

Don't forget ground based lasers, plane based lasers, etc.

The best bet is EM Shielding or Particle Shielding

Particle Shielding would be easier- highly magnetize a bunch of shit, then use a very strong magnetic field to shape it around whatever you wish to protect. The mag field stabilizers have to be made of "buckytubes" to withstand the heat buildup and reduce the chance of electrical migration, but it's physically feasable to cover a small area (say a house) with a strong shield today. Just... it would take a lot of electricity :(

And if its that strong a magnetic field it'll probably rip out every red blood cell in your body.

It's a shaped field mate. I'm not 100% sure how they do it, but I've seen it done. And you would be fine- you can walk past a Particle Accelerator and have no adverse affects so unless you have an assload of Iron in your blood (and I mean like, 50x more than normal) you should be fine :) Remember, you have your own magnetic field (aura) protecting you. It comes with being a bio-electric being.

Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket.
So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?

10, 20, 100?

Maybe one, maybe not. Currently the US ABM solution is far from reliable against one ballistic inbound.

Against steerable MIRVs it's less than useless.

. you can walk past a Particle Accelerator and have no adverse ... Remember, you have your own magnetic field (aura) protecting you. It comes with being a bio-electric being.

WooWoo alert!

What a load of bollocks.

None.

Missile defense is a logistically impossible psuedo-scientific pipe dream of US Republicans late in the cold war.

Missiles are not a threat anyway. A 60's-era Russian nuke in the trunk of a car driven into the middle of New York City...that's a threat.

And if its that strong a magnetic field it'll probably rip out every red blood cell in your body.

Iron in its ionized form is not ferromagnetic.

WooWoo alert!

What a load of bollocks.

It's been known for a long time that living cells create electricomagnetic fields.

Why are we concerned with stopping ICBM's?

It would be pretty destructive if the Romans launched a wave of feces-laden arrows toward Chicago, too, but we don't build anti-Roman shit arrow defense systems for a simple reason -

There is no more Roman Empire and there is not going to be a shit-arrow attack any time soon.

Likewise there is no USSR and no one is going to launch ICBMs at us...ever. Their construction cannot be accomplished in secret. Iran is enriching Uranium probably to construct a tactical nuke capable of threatening Israel, which already has them. Same as the Cold War arms race only on a smaller scale.

If they developed the facilities to build strategic MIRVs it is unlikely - indeed inconceivably unlikely - that there would not be a worldwide military response.

We're not talking Bush rattling his cage here. We're talking China, Japan, France, Spain, etc. They'd be fucked.

Rogue states.

Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket.
So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?

10, 20, 100?

Well that's nice to know, however that's not really the current threat(briefcase nuke) to America.

Well that's nice to know, however that's not really the current threat(briefcase nuke) to America.

That's sort of the joke, isn't it?

Rogue states.

Rogue states are disadvantaged economically and politically. Their best strategy with regards to nukes is terrorism or commerce - either using them to garner political leverage or selling them for profit.

Again, the threat of ICBMs is nill.

WooWoo alert!

What a load of bollocks.

Explain or leave :) You have your options

Human body = being of bio-electric impulses and chemo-electric properties. That is how the nervous system works. Thus we have a magnetic field that surrounds us with varying levels of strength and effect, our aura. It is even "visible" sometimes to highly trained magnetic anomaly sweeps.

That's sort of the joke, isn't it?

Sort of, but frankly the U.S policy of MAD works as good as any "defense" system. And it's cheaper. You need to build some really damn good/fast deployment systems and have damn good intel of U.S strats and be able to clandestinely plan a "first strike" attack on the U.S, even then I bet they still have a good chance at delivering payback.

I personally think missle defense is a waste of money, but whatever floats your boat. Probably only designed to protect strategic bases.

I've always figured that any state that achieves the ability to launch a ballistic missile will have also developed enough self interest to realize that firing on the US would be dumb.

Of course, the bad part of MAD is its prevention of us attacking them.

Iron in its ionized form is not ferromagnetic.
Does it need to be if the magnetic field is strong enough? Aluminium is affected by magnetic fields, is that ferro-magnetic (just asking)?

Heres a different perspective Roman:

The ABM shield is much more of an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one. Say we develop a ABM system that, at the most can intercept a dozen incoming ICMBs. You're right, thats not too useful as a defense when hundreds of missiles are inbound from Russia.

What is would allow, is the idea of US Nuclear Primacy. The idea that the US could successfully carry out a nuclear first strike that would destroy upwards of 90% of Russian nukes in their silos. With the majority of their missles destroyed, an ABM shield would be able to clean up any that the Russians could manage to fire off - leaving the US with minimal hits.

I read a good paper on US Primacy that braught this idea up not too long ago. The Missile Defense system makes much more sense as a offensive tool than as a defensive.

See what im saying?

Heres the article if anyones interested. Its pretty cool

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Wow, good points.

It's been known for a long time that living cells create electricomagnetic fields.

That wasn't his point though, he was alluding to the fact that the body has a coherent field that could protect it from charged particles. That is not true.

Explain or leave :) You have your options

You were talking bollocks, what's to explain.

Human body = being of bio-electric impulses and chemo-electric properties. That is how the nervous system works. Thus we have a magnetic field that surrounds us with varying levels of strength and effect, our aura.

We do not have a coherent magnetic field.

It is even "visible" sometimes to highly trained magnetic anomaly sweeps.

The electrical impulses in the body can be detected, yes, but that in no way implies;

you can walk past a Particle Accelerator and have no adverse affects ..., you have your own magnetic field (aura) protecting you.

The body has no ability to deflect charged particles using any innate magnetic field. To assert so is ludicrous, and you are a woowoo. Now, you may leave.

You can walk past a fuckin particle accelerator. I've done it, when it was in construction, and NOT FULLY SHIELDED, YET ACTIVATED. (the Leavenworth, WA accelerator). So you are wrong, I'm afraid. Oh yes, and I think you have been using the nasty form of this, your claims are so absurd. :m:

Missile defense is a logistically impossible psuedo-scientific pipe dream of US Republicans late in the cold war.

Missiles are not a threat anyway. A 60's-era Russian nuke in the trunk of a car driven into the middle of New York City...that's a threat.100% correct, but still incomplete.

On your first paragraph:
The Republicans, generally speaking, are financed by relatively few big donors, including companies* - In contrast to the Democrats that tend to get fewer big checks and more little ones. Thus, the Republicans have always been inclined to give taxpayer’s money to corporation and this is most easily done if the corporation is working on a project that can be sold as essential to the national defense.

On second paragraph:
Obviously a nuke off loaded to small boat near NYC from rich sheik’s ocean going yacht is more likely to get close enough to NYC to wipe it out than one sitting on top of a ICBM that a third world power has recently developed. Even the first couple of dozen tests by both USSR and US were only with about 50% chance of making it to orbit. If you had one or two nukes, what type of delivery system would you chose? One that had a good chance of failing to orbit or even get off a burning launch pad or one on the sheik’s ocean going yacht?
-----------------------------
*Alcohol from corn is the latest mutation of this abuse of the tax payer.

Even the first couple of dozen tests by both USSR and US were only with about 50% chance of making it to orbit.
Most don't, and aren't intended to, orbit. Hence the term "ballistic". FOBS was a later innovation.

US Primacy, sounds rather phallic to me...

Then again, the whole process of building missiles is hilariously Freudian anyway.

Most don't, and aren't intended to, orbit. Hence the term "ballistic". FOBS was a later innovation.I was not careful with my terminology - I should have said "failed", not "orbit," guidance and control as well as unstable combustion were complex problems in the early stages of development. My point should have been clear despite this lack of correct terminology.

That's how I took it really, but you used "orbit" twice, and you know what some on here are like for leaping on things they want to believe ...

You can walk past a fuckin particle accelerator. I've done it, when it was in construction, and NOT FULLY SHIELDED, YET ACTIVATED. (the Leavenworth, WA accelerator). So you are wrong, I'm afraid. Oh yes, and I think you have been using the nasty form of this, your claims are so absurd. :m:

Seems the beam damaged your brain, because you have the wrong angle on the debate. The claim was made by Kittamaru that the body is shielded from charged particles by some innate magnetic aura. This is just not true.

Doesn't matter how many times you use an appeal to authority fallacy relating your personal experience, it does not make Kittamarus claims true.

Heres a different perspective Roman:

The ABM shield is much more of an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one. Say we develop a ABM system that, at the most can intercept a dozen incoming ICMBs. You're right, thats not too useful as a defense when hundreds of missiles are inbound from Russia.

What is would allow, is the idea of US Nuclear Primacy. The idea that the US could successfully carry out a nuclear first strike that would destroy upwards of 90% of Russian nukes in their silos. With the majority of their missles destroyed, an ABM shield would be able to clean up any that the Russians could manage to fire off - leaving the US with minimal hits.

I read a good paper on US Primacy that braught this idea up not too long ago. The Missile Defense system makes much more sense as a offensive tool than as a defensive.

See what im saying?

Heres the article if anyones interested. Its pretty cool

[link removed for elite post count limiter]

edit: Geez, I thought you meant ABM=offensive, so therefore bad like most people mean it, apologies, I just read your post too fast and saw something that wasn't there. makes no sense to leave the post since it was a misunderstanding, take it easy ok, it was just an oversight..

Dude, get a fucking grip.

All I was saying is that its pretty bad ass that the US is developing a tool that would potentially allow us to win a nuclear war against the Russians. I'm all for US Nuclear Primacy. I don't know what about my post made you think I'm pulling for Russia.

dang dbl post.

Dude, get a fucking grip.

All I was saying is that its pretty bad ass that the US is developing a tool that would potentially allow us to win a nuclear war against the Russians. I'm all for US Nuclear Primacy. I don't know what about my post made you think I'm pulling for Russia.

Except ABM is of little strategic value against a well armed foe like Russia. It is easy swamped with decoys, and MIRVs and only works against ballistic threats, steerable inbounds cannot be intercepted. It also cannot stop cruise missiles.

ABM may provide some defense from a 'rogue state' which has only just developed ICBM technology, and is lagging the West.

Assuming they can make ABM actually hit the targets that is. It's not very reliable, and in one positive, only destroyed the target because a decoy drew the missile towards the real target. Not good, luck cannot be relied upon.

Except ABM is of little strategic value against a well armed foe like Russia. It is easy swamped with decoys, and MIRVs and only works against ballistic threats, steerable inbounds cannot be intercepted. It also cannot stop cruise missiles.

ABM may provide some defense from a 'rogue state' which has only just developed ICBM technology, and is lagging the West.

Assuming they can make ABM actually hit the targets that is. It's not very reliable, and in one positive, only destroyed the target because a decoy drew the missile towards the real target. Not good, luck cannot be relied upon.

Read Dub's link, it explains how the ABM could be used to block remaining missiles after a first strike against China or Russia. Another possibility is that we are taking a 'trust mad against non-religious fundamentalists' and 'trust ABM against religious fundamentalists that believe they go to heaven if they die trying to kill us' because the latter won't have the ability to overwhelm the ABM shield, probably ever if we add to ABM more than they add to their ICBMs, assuming we keep spending more money then them on defense, which is a certainty obviously, which may keep our ABM numbers + tech more advanced than the religious fundamentalist's ICBMs.

Read Dub's link, it explains how the ABM could be used to block remaining missiles after a first strike against China or Russia.

At this point in time, trusting the ABM system to provide protection after a first strike would be suicide, because it is just nowhere near reliable enough.

Russia has ABM too, the 'Galosh' system around Moscow. It works, because it uses a tactical nuke detonated in the upper atmosphere to destroy inbounds. It doesn't have to intercept accurately. It's pragmatic, better to have a small nuke detonate high in the atmosphere, than a big one at ground level.

The US system requires a very accurate intercept, which is proving a very hard task. If even one Nuke got through it would be a disaster. 9/11 showed us what panic and disarray can be caused by the destruction of a few buildings in a built up area, a Nuke landing could never be considered victory, even if the opposition cannot launch more.

If was a hypothetical discussion in that link anyway, the US aren't likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against China or Russia, and if they did, I think the International community, previous allies, might have something to say about that.

At this point in time, trusting the ABM system to provide protection after a first strike would be suicide, because it is just nowhere near reliable enough.

Russia has ABM too, the 'Galosh' system around Moscow. It works, because it uses a tactical nuke detonated in the upper atmosphere to destroy inbounds. It doesn't have to intercept accurately. It's pragmatic, better to have a small nuke detonate high in the atmosphere, than a big one at ground level.



It's not about the US nuking russia or china for no reason and hoping to survive, it's about making Russian and China scared that the US might do it so they will not be tempted to be militarily aggressive in their regions. And why do you say the moscow defense works, are you aware of test results and failure rates? If the US ABM works 2 out of 3 times, but the Moscow defense net works 1 out 150, or if Russia has openings in its early warning system that can be exploited to knock it out because it requires a centralized, possibly decapitated in a first strike authority or some other factor, then you couldn't say that theirs works or that ours is relatively a failure. I think US intelligence is of the opinion that Moscow's defenses are on the whole so underfunded and under-maintained that nothing high tech can be relied upon to work, and in the future this will be to the point that it's a non-factor in international affairs, and that China's never were any good and will probably not improve. High tech things like missiles have a finite unmaintained life span, and after a certain point you can for certain say none of it will work, and an ABM could be because of quantum luck of one missile working or whatever. I'm not a missile expert and neither are you probably, so you must admit this is possible and seems to fit the facts a little. I always thought the ABM was for Iran and suicide-enemies that have almost no missiles that may launch an unpreventable strike just to get to heaven, but the first strike thing looks plausible after reading that link.


The US system requires a very accurate intercept, which is proving a very hard task. If even one Nuke got through it would be a disaster. 9/11 showed us what panic and disarray can be caused by the destruction of a few buildings in a built up area, a Nuke landing could never be considered victory, even if the opposition cannot launch more.

If was a hypothetical discussion in that link anyway, the US aren't likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against China or Russia, and if they did, I think the International community, previous allies, might have something to say about that.

Oh, I think we all know they'd have something to say about it, do they ever not have something to say..but I digress. When you have a sucessful technological society, technology seeds technology, causing each generation to be exponentially or orders of magnitudes better in every regard than the previous, etc, other countries won't benefit because their lack of money insures that their tech-ability and know-how will be drastrically reduced eventually and ours will be drastically superior, not today, but eventually, maybe 10 years from now I would say. ABM could be developed to the point that nothing could get through, and decoy detetion science improved until decoys would be the maginot line, if the technology keeps seeding better technology while we keep pouring in funding while everybody else has to abandon advancement and probably even maintainance of out-dated and potentially useless against future US tech, missile tech one day. Most people wouldn't want to believe this right now, but I believe it does fit the situation well, and that can't be denied, whether the future will absolutely go down that road might be hard to tell for people like us, but it's a possibility we should acknowledge, and one the US govt would aim for as well.

On a related note, I wonder why the US doesn't implement something like the Russian shield, but instead of high-altitude detonations, why not detonate nukes in space next to the incoming warheads? They must not be in space long enough, or could easily be changed to fly thru the atmosphere more, anyone know? It would be safe and give us the option of surviving an unlikely though possible massive first strike by Russia if it could work..probably not useful for some reason though..

It's not about the US nuking russia or china for no reason and hoping to survive, it's about making Russian and China scared that the US might do it so they will not be tempted to be militarily aggressive in their regions.

Say what? If the USA has no intention of using nukes, it won't prevent a foreign Govt from a course of action. If they do intend to, they must be prepared for the reprisals, and there would be massive reprisals. Think 9/11 every day.

And why do you say the moscow defense works, are you aware of test results and failure rates?

Yes, two recent success of the Russian system;

http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/12/test_of_abm_interceptor.shtml

Whereas the US ABM system is still in development (Galosh has been in operation for a very long time) and is no use against MIRVing warheads. Some of the recent successes used balloons as decoys, or no decoys at all. Hardly representative of a real attack.

If the US ABM works 2 out of 3 times, but the Moscow defense net works 1 out 150,

If those were the numbers, but those aren't the numbers. Moscow has an operational missile defense system The US has a system in test. The proposed US system would breach the 1972 ABM treaty, btw.

or if Russia has openings in its early warning system that can be exploited to knock it out because it requires a centralized, possibly decapitated in a first strike

IF again.

Let's revisit this discussion if and when the US has a working ABM system that covers all of the US states, and has a capability to destroy all land based nuclear launch platforms, permament and mobile, and all submarines before a retaliatory strike can take place. The subs and mobile platforms rather being the fly in the ointment. We may not have unilateral MAD, but you still have a guaranteed nuclear reprisal. That, and the political reprisals, is what keeps the USA in check.

Decoys are a serious problem. (Much cheaper to make several dozen of them than even one Anti-ABM to shoot one decoy down.) Standard answer to this is you don't bother to shoot down the decoys. Instead you make a supper smart decoy discrimination system, but that also does not work, as it is relatively easy to make the real warhead simulate a decoy.

Summary:
Against an accomplished space-capable nation, Anti-ABMs are useless.

Actually, "worse than useless" as they do encourage a first strike, especially by a country like Russia, which still has lots of people living on the land. They would survive and either rebuild or use still large Russian army (many tanks etc. spread all over a huge land mass) to take what it needs from Europe. (In Contrast, not much the few American still living in US mid west could take for Mexico or Canada, even if they too had tanks, etc.)

Decoys are a serious problem.

Decoys and non-ballistic, steerable inbounds. And cruise missiles. Let's not forget submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles.

ABM is political bullshit, costly, ineffective and nothing more than PR. Let's face it, if and when it was tested, and it failed, America would no longer exist, so the President nothing to lose either way. He was never going to get re-elected.

Decoys and non-ballistic, steerable inbounds. And cruise missiles. Let's not forget submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles.

ABM is political bullshit, costly, ineffective and nothing more than PR. Let's face it, if and when it was tested, and it failed, America would no longer exist, so the President nothing to lose either way. He was never going to get re-elected.I agree. I have already noted the low probability of relative inexperienced nation, like Iran, getting success with ABM. They would be foolish to waste any they have that way when it could be delivered by ocean going private yacht to near NYC and then off loaded into the yacht’s small boat, piloted by suicide bomber for last 15 miles or so with much greater probability of success..

There are dozens of ways more reliable than an ABM for a simple nation with few bombs to set one off on NYC etc. Hell, less than 3% of the containers coming to NYC are inspected for nuclear device and then only after docked!

Say what? If the USA has no intention of using nukes, it won't prevent a foreign Govt from a course of action. If they do intend to, they must be prepared for the reprisals, and there would be massive reprisals. Think 9/11 every day.



Yes, two recent success of the Russian system;

post limit linkless version

Whereas the US ABM system is still in development (Galosh has been in operation for a very long time) and is no use against MIRVing warheads. Some of the recent successes used balloons as decoys, or no decoys at all. Hardly representative of a real attack.



This assumes ABM tech won't improve, it's conceivable with funding decoy detection can be perfected, you sound similar to people who just 1 year before the wright brothers flew in NC said that powered flight wouldn't happen for 1 million years. Money leads to progress, progress leads to victory, Russia probably will not be able to maintain what it has for long, in fact that link you provided said this was a test to see if they could extend their missile's operational life span, not for new or medium aged missiles, it's possible they use the current system for a few years then the missiles are worthless and they have no more money to continue with it. I'm just saying a reason ABM could be wanted by military leaders instead of just assuming it's automatically pork with no use.





If those were the numbers, but those aren't the numbers. Moscow has an operational missile defense system The US has a system in test. The proposed US system would breach the 1972 ABM treaty, btw.



Those are the numbers NOW, in a few years the missiles may be useless and Russia could be more desperate for money, or maybe they'll build some more, but if they can't afford more and they become useless in a few years, the ABM would be useful for insurance against a possible spare missile or two getting through a first strike against them. The US govt could calculate this to high degrees of confidence before acting, remember.



IF again.



Of course I'm saying if, because we don't have classified data that the US Govt acts on so we have to put it in hypothetical language, well you should, but for some reason you assume you know better even though you can't, I mean, what's the point of making up things in front of somebody who tells you that's what you're doing..



Let's revisit this discussion if and when the US has a working ABM system that covers all of the US states, and has a capability to destroy all land based nuclear launch platforms, permament and mobile, and all submarines before a retaliatory strike can take place. The subs and mobile platforms rather being the fly in the ointment. We may not have unilateral MAD, but you still have a guaranteed nuclear reprisal. That, and the political reprisals, is what keeps the USA in check.

Sounds good to me, but that means you would have to not make post saying ABM will never work and is pork, which I don't think you want to do because that's your gig, does that work on the girls btw?

Say what? If the USA has no intention of using nukes, it won't prevent a foreign Govt from a course of action. If they do intend to, they must be prepared for the reprisals, and there would be massive reprisals. Think 9/11 every day.



Yes, two recent success of the Russian system;


Whereas the US ABM system is still in development (Galosh has been in operation for a very long time) and is no use against MIRVing warheads. Some of the recent successes used balloons as decoys, or no decoys at all. Hardly representative of a real attack.



If those were the numbers, but those aren't the numbers. Moscow has an operational missile defense system The US has a system in test. The proposed US system would breach the 1972 ABM treaty, btw.



IF again.

Let's revisit this discussion if and when the US has a working ABM system that covers all of the US states, and has a capability to destroy all land based nuclear launch platforms, permament and mobile, and all submarines before a retaliatory strike can take place. The subs and mobile platforms rather being the fly in the ointment. We may not have unilateral MAD, but you still have a guaranteed nuclear reprisal. That, and the political reprisals, is what keeps the USA in check.

I agree. I have already noted the low probability of relative inexperienced nation, like Iran, getting success with ABM. They would be foolish to waste any they have that way when it could be delivered by ocean going private yacht to near NYC and then off loaded into the yacht’s small boat, piloted by suicide bomber for last 15 miles or so with much greater probability of success..

There are dozens of ways more reliable than an ABM for a simple nation with few bombs to set one off on NYC etc. Hell, less than 3% of the containers coming to NYC are inspected for nuclear device and then only after docked!


Cargo checks can be instituted over night, an ABM system takes years, maybe they'll put them both into effect the same day, then the ABM wouldn't be so useless, right? Or is it still not worth it?

Decoys and non-ballistic, steerable inbounds. And cruise missiles. Let's not forget submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles.

ABM is political bullshit, costly, ineffective and nothing more than PR. Let's face it, if and when it was tested, and it failed, America would no longer exist, so the President nothing to lose either way. He was never going to get re-elected.


cruise missiles from where? Their bombers that will tangle with our f-22s? And their submarine fleet is pitiful and probably tracked every inch out of harbor, what do you think it will be in 10 years when Russia has more people and its maintanence keeps going down? I read a few years ago, when the US did a world-wide ping event on Russian subs, pinging everyone of them at once surprising the russians in each case, kind of puts things in perspective a little.

And no president gets re-elected 3 times, so what's your point? Democrats are better cause they can't get reelected either? Man, I swear democrats say the most retarded shit.. And computer simulations and testing can guarentee success of ABM eventually, it just needs money, progress and continual decline of adversaries. All what we see today.

Decoys are a serious problem. (Much cheaper to make several dozen of them than even one Anti-ABM to shoot one decoy down.) Standard answer to this is you don't bother to shoot down the decoys. Instead you make a supper smart decoy discrimination system, but that also does not work, as it is relatively easy to make the real warhead simulate a decoy.

Summary:
Against an accomplished space-capable nation, Anti-ABMs are useless.

Actually, "worse than useless" as they do encourage a first strike, especially by a country like Russia, which still has lots of people living on the land. They would survive and either rebuild or use still large Russian army (many tanks etc. spread all over a huge land mass) to take what it needs from Europe. (In Contrast, not much the few American still living in US mid west could take for Mexico or Canada, even if they too had tanks, etc.)


Are you a missile scientist then? Because I swear you're just some teenager that does mental copy-n-pasting of anti-american crap, but I might be wrong. Let me know. Anyways, ABM will improve because America has money pouring in, our adversaries don't have money to improve decoys, this you don't have to be a scientist to know, that means ABM will surpass decoys if possible and only a fool would say something consistant with laws of physics is impossible. It's a matter of how long, and will it be fast enough to be useful, the answer there is not known but it's good to hedge your bets for the worst cases, right?

Oh and whoever brought up the Anti-ABM treaty, I know you know the treaty was written with an exit clause that either side could use and the US already invoked this clause, so please stop being silly.

cruise missiles from where?

You seem to think the US defenses are perfect. It would only take a few to get through to really screw things up.

And their submarine fleet is pitiful and probably tracked every inch out of harbor,

Probably? You make very firm arguments, and base them on if and probably. Russians subs are not tracked at every turn, and while the US has an array of sonar buoys around the globe, these would soon be destroyed in wartime. A friend of mine works in submarine detection as it happens, and it is not a cut and dried affair. He cannot tell me much, but I do know that subs still have a tactical use, and are not made obsolete by any detection methods.

Oh and whoever brought up the Anti-ABM treaty, I know you know the treaty was written with an exit clause that either side could use and the US already invoked this clause, so please stop being silly.

That is just not true. Attempt to provide evidence, or retract this statement.

It's not an 'Anti ABM Treaty' either, the 'A' in ABM stands for 'Anti'! Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. The only caveat of note is that declared areas may be protected by ABM (hence Galosh around Moscow, and the failed system the USA installed around a Minuteman Silo in Alaska), but nationwide systems are prohibited. The USA may test it's ABM solution, but deploying it nationwide would be a material breach of the treaty. What would be the point in a treaty with an exit clause either side could just invoke at leisure!

Are you a missile scientist then? Because I swear you're just some teenager that does mental copy-n-pasting of anti-american crap, but I might be wrong.

Anti-American? Ah, I thought you were ringing out like some enthusiastic Patriot, and what with this, and the 'democrats say the most retarded shit' line you are losing some credibility.

You are full of jingoism, but pepper it with ifs and maybes.



Anyways, ABM will improve because America has money pouring in, our adversaries don't have money to improve decoys, this you don't have to be a scientist to know, that means ABM will surpass decoys if possible and only a fool would say something consistant with laws of physics is impossible. It's a matter of how long, and will it be fast enough to be useful, the answer there is not known but it's good to hedge your bets for the worst cases, right?

Listen kid, the USA had a previous anti missile system, the Patriot Missile Defense system. It sucked. It sucked lots. It wasn't even reliable against SCUD missiles. But you seem to think that a hypersonic target can be destroyed 100% of the time, if you spend enough money? The 'adversaries' of the USA do not have to 'improve' decoys, as the current ABM system cannot yet handle realistic attacks. Balloons are used. They do not move in a hypersonic ballistic trajectory!

Less ifs and maybes please, and more numbers. Real numbers, and real word examples. Build your argument on that, not "USA#1!" Rhetoric.

I've never understood why it should be hard to take out a ballistic missile. We already have missiles that can very reliably hit jet fighter aircraft, even though the aircraft is actively maneuvering to avoid the missile. Ballistic warheads travel in a very predictable arc. They might have some small capacity to change course as they fall, but it's nothing compared to the maneuverability of a jet. And the warhead won’t even be trying to jam/trick the missile with multi-megawatt ECM, like most modern fighters carry. So if we can hit a jet, why not a missile?

...So if we can hit a jet, why not a missile?We can hit them if we have good data on where they are going. The anti-ABM must get close to that trajectory because ot the high speed of the re-entering ABM. That ABM spend hundreds of tons of fuel and perhaps 10 minutes accelerating at several Gs to gain that speed.

If the anti-ABM can not get to near where the ABM will be, then the race is lost. That is the problem.

APL/JHU where I worked has hit 7 of 8 first trys with anti-ABM launched from Aegis ships! It is a "kinetic kill" system (No warhead as that adds too much weight for acceleration required in final maneuvers.) Thus, although collision hitting is amazingly difficult, it is "doable." - It is the getting to where you need to be on time that is hard, perhaps impossible if you think in terms of a warhead kill.

I've never understood why it should be hard to take out a ballistic missile. .... So if we can hit a jet, why not a missile?

Velocity. ICBM's are really, really fast. We are talking what, 6km/s, or more? ICBM's can be converted to use as launch vehicles for small payloads into orbit, so they move pretty quick!

At the speeds we are talking about, precision guidance of an interceptor is paramount. And we are talking about adding on the relative velocity of the intercept vehicle too here, which is also going to be pretty quick.

So you need precision radar, and really fast computers, to calculate the trajectory, plot the intercept, and steer a really fast interceptor towards a relatively small and very fast target. (a low yield MIRV (say, 300 to 500Kt, bearing in mind Hiroshima was a mere 20Kt) is a cone shape, about six feet long, and two feet in diameter at it's widest). A Soviet SS24 would drop 10 MIRVs at a time from one ICBM, and chaff, and decoys.

Therefore, there is a lot of work to do, and just one failed intercept is a very big problem.

Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket.
So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?

10, 20, 100?

Depends on what the missile defense technology is. And if you need to protect 100 nuclear missiles, then forget living on this planet, because the retaliation may make this planet unlivable.

There is research going on many fronts from sending blasts of hyper energy particle pulses to small rockets from space that would have very fast electronic guidance system to hyper velocity gatlin guns to chemical lasers....

We definitely need a missile defense system with advanced control systems...

Shame 'Snake' stopped posting, because this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6700585.stm

rather shoots this;

And computer simulations and testing can guarentee success of ABM eventually, it just needs money, progress and continual decline of adversaries. All what we see today.

down! The real situation is that Russia is modernising it's nuclear arsenal, not letting current stocks fall into disrepair. Sorry Snake, your intel is flawed.

That is exactly the reason, one needs a good missile defense system. I do not understand why a lot of non-engineers are against it. It is like saying, since we do not have a cure for cancer today, we should not search for one.

That is exactly the reason, one needs a good missile defense system. I do not understand why a lot of non-engineers are against it. It is like saying, since we do not have a cure for cancer today, we should not search for one.

Well, the ABM treaty prohibits the deployment of nationwide ABM for starters, so that will need re-negotiating with Russia, and as it has been mentioned several times, it's very hard to intercept all ten MIRVing warheads moving at over 6km/s.

If you really, really want the tax burden, go ahead, but like much of the SDI 'Star Wars' initiatives, something that sounds simple in theory proves to be quite tricky in practice, and even more costly. Various ABM projects were mooted under Reagan, and still are not in a deployable state, so do you really think it can be done?

Well, the ABM treaty prohibits the deployment of nationwide ABM for starters, so that will need re-negotiating with Russia, and as it has been mentioned several times, it's very hard to intercept all ten MIRVing warheads moving at over 6km/s.

The treaty expired in 2002 and therefore anyone can work on ABM systems. Do you think the Soviets and the Chinese are asleep at the wheel?

It is very hard for the politicians to design such a system - that much is true, but not to engineers.

If you really, really want the tax burden, go ahead, but like much of the SDI 'Star Wars' initiatives, something that sounds simple in theory proves to be quite tricky in practice, and even more costly. Various ABM projects were mooted under Reagan, and still are not in a deployable state, so do you really think it can be done?

Yes it can be done. The technology was not available during Regan era. Remember, military technology is always 15 years behind what is commercially available and can be adaptable. I am speaking from experience (from rocket science to nuclear engineering). If I can do it so can the Labs with a pile of PhDs. These days, commercial technology is ahead of the military ones thanks to past slowdown in the military technology.

I get really pissed when non-engineers talk about stuff they know nothing of - like the so called concerned scientists with degrees in biology and physics and anthropology...we are not here to master the genes or the universe - just basic, may be a little innovative engineering.

But to do it, never give the contracts to the old companies who are used to the old technologies, just like the FBI $379 million Trilogy project that was scrapped. Few years ago, I was in a defense contractor's show and found that they are just started to use multi-spectral technology while NASA has been using it for years.

i heard that putin has tested new missiles to counter the advancement of allied forces, he said he will continue to test missile ability for his growing army, to keep a balence in stratigic global warfare.

peace.

Putin is trying to dispell the notion that Russia is a has been. The oil money is not enough, so he wants to peddle armaments to whoever can pay. Also trying to gain political influence.

Is it working?

Putin is trying to dispell the notion that Russia is a has been. The oil money is not enough, so he wants to peddle armaments to whoever can pay. Also trying to gain political influence.

Is it working?

wanna test it? :p

lol :rolleyes:

Putin is trying to dispell the notion that Russia is a has been. The oil money is not enough, so he wants to peddle armaments to whoever can pay. Also trying to gain political influence.

Is it working?

i wouldent trust that entirely.

peace.

i wouldent trust that entirely.

peace.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4844743.html


evasion is not that tough of a thing. :cool:

yeah and the UN i mean (america) will come and say that the weapon is not allowed because it has an illegal range.

war is a joke nowdays, bunch of pussyfooting bastards, making weapons illegal because they are too good at destroying shit, what a crock of crocky crap.

"your weapons actualy kill people they must be banned, dont make us come their with our weapons and stop you"


peace.

yeah and the UN i mean (america) will come and say that the weapon is not allowed because it has an illegal range.

war is a joke nowdays, bunch of pussyfooting bastards, making weapons illegal because they are too good at destroying shit, what a crock of crocky crap.

"your weapons actualy kill people they must be banned, dont make us come their with our weapons and stop you"


peace.

Say to who? to Iran...go ahead...to North Korea? go ahead, to Russia? no way

RS-24 present thermonuclear pie.

Well, if Russia starts sabre rattling, then US will get closer to China....may be that is the Chinese plan....(Sun Tzu?)

Any nation capable of firing a rocket to US soil will be able to launch far more than just one rocket.
So, how many missiles can the missile defense system shoot down at once?

10, 20, 100?

Missile defense is impossible to stop. But what makes you think the wars of tomorrow will be fought with missiles? The next weapons will be nano, quantum, biological or chemical, and will be extremely difficult to stop and deal with.

Nuke's are an old weapon, seriously, now we have to worry about weapons we can't even see.

Well, if Russia starts sabre rattling, then US will get closer to China....may be that is the Chinese plan....(Sun Tzu?)


China is rational. China does what is in Chinas best interest. Actually the world is more complicated now than merely nation states, you have multi-national corporations and you have the types of conflicts today which we wont be able to pin on an entire country or group of people. Now, wars will be the sorta thing that will be lauched by rogue individuals, for whatever purposes they define.

Now we live in a world of pre-emptive strikes, where a war can happen whenever a group of people with power decide to launch one, for whatever reason, and it may not always be logical.

yeah and the UN i mean (america) will come and say that the weapon is not allowed because it has an illegal range.

war is a joke nowdays, bunch of pussyfooting bastards, making weapons illegal because they are too good at destroying shit, what a crock of crocky crap.

"your weapons actualy kill people they must be banned, dont make us come their with our weapons and stop you"


peace.

It's called an arms race. The only way to enforce that is to invent weapons capable of enforcing your ban?

See, this is how I can predict extinction weapons, because that kinda power actually could scare the entire world, at the same time it only makes things worse and only increases the likelyhood that they will be used.

Any nation who can afford more than a few nukes has probably forgotten that it is the United States, so I don't think it really matters!

Device fit for purpose!

The treaty expired in 2002 and therefore anyone can work on ABM systems. Do you think the Soviets and the Chinese are asleep at the wheel?

Expired? Not the way I read it, Bush declared his intention to withdraw from the treaty, there was no agreed 'expiry'. Putin is not happy with Americas actions, so much so he is threatening to aim nukes at European sites now.



Yes it can be done. ...
But to do it, never give the contracts to the old companies who are used to the old technologies....

Ah, but there is your political problem. Politicians award contracts and it's not always for the greater good, but for future recompense.

It still is however, a very difficult engineering task. If they genuinely intend to defend against fledgling nuclear powers such as Iran and Korea, then they may be successful, but I don't think it's worth the cost of pissing off Russia.

Expired? Not the way I read it, Bush declared his intention to withdraw from the treaty, there was no agreed 'expiry'. Putin is not happy with Americas actions, so much so he is threatening to aim nukes at European sites now.

...Well, I think the fact that the ABM Treaty has gone by the wayside... (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/jun/85955.htm)


It still is however, a very difficult engineering task. If they genuinely intend to defend against fledgling nuclear powers such as Iran and Korea, then they may be successful, but I don't think it's worth the cost of pissing off Russia.

It is not very difficult. I am an engineer, and I can design this with today's technology. Russia has been permanently pissed off since WWII. I do not think they have any more piss left...besides, what they are going to do? Nuke us? Actually they are threatening the Europeans. But MAD is still looming in the horizon.

Missile defense is great. We only have 50,000 or so illegals walking or driving across our border with Mexico every week or so. There's no way they could slip in a nuke or a hundred. Is there? We need to spend lots of dough on a missile shield. Nuts to the border.

It is not very difficult. I am an engineer, and I can design this with today's technology.

It's fine in theory, but just look at the test firing results, not encouraging at all. Let's make this clear, the game is hitting a six foot long, two foot wide cone travelling at over 6 km/s, surrounded by other MIRVs, chaff, and decoys.

So far, the tests against a single inbound are not reliable. The decoys used so far have been balloons, which do not mimic a ballistic trajectory.

It's not the design, it the practicality that is the hard part.

what they are going to do? Nuke us? Actually they are threatening the Europeans.

Being a 'European' I'm pissed off at Bush for starting off a cold war and getting missiles aimed at me.


But MAD is still looming in the horizon.

So what has Bush achieved with the missile defense program? Nothing but set us back against Russia. We are in a worse situation politically, and the damn shield does not work yet!

May be I should offer to do the shield design. But then the government will say, talk to Lockheed or CSC or some major prime contractor who has the lock on government contracts. And theywould say, we have so many people, they can do it by sitting in a bunker and using joy-stick to manually search for it. That is what they are doing now ...cheating...so no wonder the results are disapointing...Too bad.

I agree with phlogistician, it would pay off more just to keep good relations with Russia than to design an anti-russian defence system.

Then why Russia is building hypersonic ballistic missiles? Besides, what about China when they force you to learn Chinese? :D

Then why Russia is building hypersonic ballistic missiles?
Because Russia is an empire and their model requires them to expand.
Besides, what about China when they force you to learn Chinese?
I always like to learn something new. :D

But no, of course I recognize that the USA has to keep pace, I understand that,
I just wish that it wouldn't do it in such a "in your face" way.

WooWoo alert!

What a load of bollocks.

I thought the same, but thats not the only bollocks thats come out of him.

I thought the same, but thats not the only bollocks thats come out of him.

You know, I have seen very few posts from him. Turns out this is because he posts nearly exclusively in the 'Star Wars vs Star Trek' thread. Sheesh, he needs to get out more.

It is not very difficult. I am an engineer, and I can design this with today's technology. And 12 billion dollars later, we'll have something else that doesn't actually work.

How about you design something useful, that will accomplish a reduction in military threat to the US and increase our safety and power worldwide - a turn-key heat engine solar powered electrical generator with 72 hour max output storage capability that's a third less costly to build than the current ones.

For the money pissed away on fusion power and anti-missile defenses, we could probably have built a heat-engine solar array in the dry SW mountains capable of powering all of California, maybe even the US (since we'd have income stream to offset expansion costs). Then we wouldn't need the political food fight of dysfunctional anti-missile arrays surrounding Iran, and our Keystone Kommand wouldn't be putting its two bits into blowback slots and hitting jackpots all over the planet.

Putin is trying to dispell the notion that Russia is a has been. The oil money is not enough, so he wants to peddle armaments to whoever can pay. Also trying to gain political influence.

Is it working?

Russia is'nt selling the Topol-m or the new RS-24

Russian Designation: RS-12M1/-12M2 Topol-M

The Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.

The SS-27 is currently portrayed by Russian accounts as being immune to any ABM defense the United States can put into being. The missile is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of a successful targeting. The missile is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance; previous missiles could be disabled by detonating a nuclear warhead within ten kilometers. This vulnerability is the basis behind the use of nuclear ground-based and orbital interceptors, to detonate or damage the missile before it reaches its target. However, the SS-27 is designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts closer than 500 m, a difficult interception when combined with the terminal phase speed and maneuverability. While the boost phase is the most vulnerable time for the SS-27, it remains protected. Hidden safely within missile silos and mobile launchers, a successful boost-phase interceptor would have to be fired from near or within Russian borders or from space. And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.

The SS-27 can strike any target within the continental United States. The deployment from hardened silos and hidden TEL vehicles makes it nearly impossible to successfully prevent launch and current ABM technology is insufficient to prevent its successful impact. As a solid propellant design, it can be maintained on alert for prolonged periods of time and can launch within minutes of being given the order. Its confirmed single 550 kT warhead is sufficient for the depopulation of cities, which combined with its survivability, makes it an ideal retaliatory weapon. The SS-27 enables Russia to guarantee a successful nuclear response.

This is more reason to boost the missile defense system. Or act like Mayans with their 40,000 soldiers who were no match for machine guns and quickly disappeared.

The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko developed a plasma weapon capable of killing any target at altitudes of up to 50 kilometers. Engineers and scientists of the institute in cooperation with the National Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, and Central Machine Building Research Institute prepared a concept of the international experiment Doverie (Trust) for testing of the Russian plasma weapon at the American ABM testing ground in the Pacific Ocean together with the US. The cost of the experiment was estimated at $300 million. According to Academician Avramenko, the plasma antimissile weapon would not only cost tens times less than the American SDI, but would also be much simpler in development and operation. The offered joint project could save expenditures on development of its own plasma weapon for the US. The plasmoid based on the energy of ground super-high frequency generators or laser (optical) generators creates an ionized territory in the trajectory of a warhead and in front of it, and completely disrupts the aerodynamics of the object's flight, after which a target leaves its trajectory and is ruined by monstrous overloads. The killing effect is delivered to the target at the speed of light. [..]

For practical purposes plasma weapons have already been created in Russia. Their action is based on focusing beams of electromagnetic energy produced by laser or microwave radiation into the upper layers of the atmosphere. These beams would be able to defeat any target flying at supersonic or near-sonic speeds in the near future. A cloud of highly ionized air arises at the focus of the laser or microwave rays, at an altitude of up to 50 kilometers. Upon entering it, any object--a missile, an airplane, is deflected from its trajectory and disintegrates in response to the fantastic overloads arising due to the abrupt pressure difference between the surface and interior of the flying body. What is fundamental in this case is that the energy aimed by the terrestrial components of the plasma weapon--lasers and antennas--is concentrated not at the target itself but a little ahead of it. Rather than "incinerating" the missile or airplane, it "bumps" it out of trajectory.


The press reported in very considerable detail on the April 1993 meeting of the presidents of the USA and Russia in Vancouver. But one thing remains not entirely clear: Had Boris Yeltsin proposed to his American friend the idea of carrying out the major experiment "Doveriye" ("Trust") in the vicinity of Kwajelein Atoll, initiating a joint effort to create a global antimissile defense system. It was not until summer of that year that 21ST CENTURY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, the well-informed journal of the American military-industrial complex, finally informed us that there had in fact been a conversation on this topic between the presidents. What did the politicians talk about? What kind of experiment is this?


Academician Ramiliy Avramenko, the chief designer of the Scientific Research Institute of Radio Instrument Making and the scientific director of the efforts to create plasma weapons in Russia, feels his brainchild--the plasmoid--to be invulnerable. Besides that, in his opinion plasma ABM weapons will not only cost several orders of magnitude less than SDI, but will also be many times simpler to create and control.

A plasmoid has a dual purpose. Such a unit can be used to "patch" ozone holes in the atmosphere, and to knock space garbage out of orbit.

According to dependable information our scientific proving ground has already conducted tests in which a projectile flying through plasma discharges was deflected from its normal trajectory and self-destructed.

Tests on a Russian plasma weapon run jointly with the USA against real targets--ballistic missiles and supersonic airplanes--were initiated by Russia's most prominent scientists--Nobel Prize recipient and creator of lasers Academician Aleksandr Prokhorov, Russian Academy of Sciences President Yuriy Osipov, and plasma researcher Academician Andrey Gaponov-Grekhov. That is the "Trust" experiment. Scientists from the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics at Arzamas-16, the Central Institute of Aerohydrodynamics, the Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building in Kaliningrad, in the Moscow vicinity, and the Scientific Research Institute of Radio Instrument Making took part in its development.

Russia would be able to deliver components of the plasma weapon to the USA's ABM test range in the Pacific: microwave generators and a few tens of thousands of phased arrays. The United States would supply its electronics and computers, in which it has the lead. The missiles could be launched both from our country and from American missile test ranges.

In the opinion of our scientists the experiment could cost around $300 million. This by the way is four orders of magnitude less than what was planned in the USA's budget for creation of its own plasma weapon. Russia doesn't have this kind of money now. That's why our country suggested to the United States back in 1993 that we join efforts to create a global ABM system. Experts also feel that were the USA to continue working on this problem on its own, the expenses would total $30 billion, with no firm certainty of success. As far as we know, Bill Clinton hasn't yet communicated with Boris Yeltsin regarding the "Trust" experiment. Possibly because the Russian plasma weapon is based on discoveries in several areas of science that are deeply developed in Russia but have not yet been sufficiently studied in the USA. And no politician or scientist likes to show his ignorance.

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=329&linkid=2545

Russia is'nt selling the Topol-m or the new RS-24


Who Russia is going to sell the nuclear tipped ICBM to? France?:confused:

Who Russia is going to sell the nuclear tipped ICBM to? France?:confused:

Iran, of course.:rolleyes:

Who Russia is going to sell the nuclear tipped ICBM to? France?:confused:

No one, can you read?

I can read, can you elucidate?

And 12 billion dollars later, we'll have something else that doesn't actually work.

I can give you a 50% discount and it will work. But, you have 60 days to take the offer. Then price goes up to $12 Billion

I can give you a 50% discount and it will work. But, you have 60 days to take the offer. Then price goes up to $12 Billion

Sounds like the sales pitch for all of the SDI stuff that never worked.

I can read, can you elucidate?

No but I can make darn good balloon animals.

Sounds like the sales pitch for all of the SDI stuff that never worked.

Not from my workshop! Nepotism is big in military