Missile Defense

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain or leave

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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/20060...-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

 

Wow, good points.

 

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.

 

You were talking bollocks, what's to explain.

We do not have a coherent magnetic field.

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

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.