Continental Missles Defence System

[Saipan]

Most of the countries that USA befriends ended up attacked down the road.

Can you list them?

[Guest Derek L]

No a shield is hardly defensive weapon.

Have you ever read Greek mythology? I'd suggest reading the Iliad of Athena's Aegis. Be it a hoplon or a Guided missile cruiser, a shield is very much a defensive weapon, regardless if the end user is on the offensive or defensive.

It makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely

Did the Soviets use their weapons once Reagan started SDI?

and will quite likely start an arms race.

With who? Russia? China? Iran? North Korea?

[GostHacked]

Don't you ever worry about N. Korea or Iran getting ICBM's and shooting them at the US? But given their technologies, probably Canada and Mexico are at greater risk.

Not worried about them at all. They won't be the ones throwing the first volley. Both Iran and NK know that if they launch even one missile, they will be eliminated from the face of the planet. The USA and USSR both knew a nuclear war could not happen, because nuclear war is a NO WIN situation.

[Saipan]

Great Britain did, actually.

Then they retreated back to Great Britain?

[Guest Derek L]

Not worried about them at all. They won't be the ones throwing the first volley. Both Iran and NK know that if they launch even one missile, they will be eliminated from the face of the planet. The USA and USSR both knew a nuclear war could not happen, because nuclear war is a NO WIN situation.

Have you ever heard the term ‘Suicide-by-cop’? Ahmadinejad's ( and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the radical clerics) control of Iran is slipping from their control. When one believes that there doing God's work and upon death will enter paradise, I won't discount the possibility of a first strike.

As for North Korea, their leadership is just bat-shit crazy.

[Moonlight Graham]

I marched for peace, but to me a shield is a peaceful and non-offensive weapon. I'm all for it.

The problem is that it ups the ante. It actually creates insecurity because other countries feel threatened that they are at a military disadvantage because of the shield, so they they aim to produce their own. It can lead to an arms race and solve little in the process except waste money and cause international tension.

[Michael Hardner]

No a shield is hardly defensive weapon. It makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely, and will quite likely start an arms race.

When did the arms race stop exactly ?

[Bonam]

The problem is that it ups the ante. It actually creates insecurity because other countries feel threatened that they are at a military disadvantage because of the shield, so they they aim to produce their own. It can lead to an arms race and solve little in the process except waste money and cause international tension.

For one, it's not necessarily a waste of money. Developing an effective missile defense system helps to advance technology in a variety of fields which have civilian applications, whether it is autonomous computer control, rocket propulsion and flight engineering, high resolution sensor systems, etc. Secondly, the nation that actually puts in the R&D investment into developing such technology may not see it as a waste of money in the end, because exporting such technology can be very lucrative. Third, there is value to a defensive system which can actually safeguard you against the thread of nuclear weapons, even if it stimulates an arms buildup by rival nations. You never know when a situation might arise when missile defense may save you from a great loss of life.

[RNG]

For one, it's not necessarily a waste of money. Developing an effective missile defense system helps to advance technology in a variety of fields which have civilian applications, whether it is autonomous computer control, rocket propulsion and flight engineering, high resolution sensor systems, etc. Secondly, the nation that actually puts in the R&D investment into developing such technology may not see it as a waste of money in the end, because exporting such technology can be very lucrative. Third, there is value to a defensive system which can actually safeguard you against the thread of nuclear weapons, even if it stimulates an arms buildup by rival nations. You never know when a situation might arise when missile defense may save you from a great loss of life.

Plus the concept of war is way different now than in the cold war days. The problems now are rogue states and terrorists. We need different strategies now. And unlike some, it isn't Russia or China I fear, but Iran, N. Korea and even the AQ being able to buy/steal a medium range missile and fire it from Mexico or whatever.

[bush_cheney2004]

......Secondly, the nation that actually puts in the R&D investment into developing such technology may not see it as a waste of money in the end, because exporting such technology can be very lucrative....

Even without such exports, the US has actually achieved "total spectrum dominance" for sensors, processing, and communications. Starting with the telegraph and its inherent advantages during the Civil War, the Americans have wired this planet for land, sea/undersea, air, and earth orbit. Teaming with other nations (e.g. United Kingdom), the available bandwidth and traffic volume can be daunting.

[DogOnPorch]

What do you think of Trophy?

[bush_cheney2004]

What do you think of Trophy?

Great for IDF Merkava MBTs!

[DogOnPorch]

Great for IDF Merkava MBTs!

How about for the Stryker, etc? Or is America building its own system?

[bush_cheney2004]

How about for the Stryker, etc? Or is America building its own system?

Kinda..sorta...

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110301_trophy_osd_test.html

Edited May 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Kinda..sorta...

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110301_trophy_osd_test.html

Raytheon has Quick Kill:

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=368&pagetemplate=release

Considering they also make the missile defence interceptor and the Patriot, I think they've got the market covered

[DogOnPorch]

Kinda..sorta...

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110301_trophy_osd_test.html

Trophy is very Israeli specific, I suppose. But, anything that gives some of the lighter vehicles a chance vs RPGs (etc) and those nasty RKG-3s is a good thing.

ICBM defence is another ball o wax, though...decoys...counter meassures...high stakes if you miss.

[Guest Derek L]

Trophy is very Israeli specific, I suppose. But, anything that gives some of the lighter vehicles a chance vs RPGs (etc) and those nasty RKG-3s is a good thing.

ICBM defence is another ball o wax, though...decoys...counter meassures...high stakes if you miss.

This is why the US is focusing interception in either the boost phase (take-off) or the terminal phase (reentry). Also, in relative terms, the cost of deploying space based weapons is extremely expensive, not to mention, space based weapons (in relative terms again) are more vulnerable to EMP and/or anti-satellite technology.

[Bonam]

This is why the US is focusing interception in either the boost phase (take-off) or the terminal phase (reentry). Also, in relative terms, the cost of deploying space based weapons is extremely expensive, not to mention, space based weapons (in relative terms again) are more vulnerable to EMP and/or anti-satellite technology.

They are also banned by international treaty, which the US has so far chosen to comply with. In any case, space based weapons are not really necessary for missile defense. Of course, space based surveillance systems are critical, but they are not themselves weapons.

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

Fun for the whole family, pick your city of choice, and see the blast radius of different size warheads.....

[Moonlight Graham]

For one, it's not necessarily a waste of money. Developing an effective missile defense system helps to advance technology in a variety of fields which have civilian applications, whether it is autonomous computer control, rocket propulsion and flight engineering, high resolution sensor systems, etc.

I know you're an tech guy, and this is true, but it's also ridiculous. You can fund other types of projects that will advance technology that don't involve starting an arms race. Let's go to live on Mars.

Secondly, the nation that actually puts in the R&D investment into developing such technology may not see it as a waste of money in the end, because exporting such technology can be very lucrative.

Great for companies selling tech...including arms dealers. Again, there's better projects to make money on.

Third, there is value to a defensive system which can actually safeguard you against the thread of nuclear weapons, even if it stimulates an arms buildup by rival nations. You never know when a situation might arise when missile defense may save you from a great loss of life.

There is value in this. But it may also be the cause of a great loss of life by creating a security spiral. I'm not saying there are no positives to such a project, i'm arguing the negatives outweigh them.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

I know you're an tech guy, and this is true, but it's also ridiculous. You can fund other types of projects that will advance technology that don't involve starting an arms race. Let's go to live on Mars.

Well, I'd be overjoyed if the US decided to switch a chunk of its defense spending to space exploration spending instead. Unfortunately, it's pretty unlikely. NASA is getting cut to hell amid the budget cutting process, and it's already been gutted over the last few years anyway. Military is pretty much the last place that keeps getting significant government research funding for advanced projects. The air force and the navy both have some pretty awesome research programs going on that are inspiring for me as a "tech guy".

Great for companies selling tech...including arms dealers. Again, there's better projects to make money on.

If the US wasn't selling this technology, someone else would be. Companies rise to the occasion to fill demand, especially if there's an un-exploited market segment. Advanded military technology is the one field where the US is probably farthest ahead of the rest of the world in, one of the few places where the high costs of labor and facilities in the US pays for itself.

There is value in this. But it may also be the cause of a great loss of life by creating a security spiral. I'm not saying there are no positives to such a project, i'm arguing the negatives outweigh them.

Biggest "security spiral" ever was the Cold War, and what did that lead to? It led to peace between two superpowers that were armed to the teeth and opposed each other's ideologies to the core. And it also led to the most rapid and amazing period of technological progress in human history.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know you're an tech guy, and this is true, but it's also ridiculous. You can fund other types of projects that will advance technology that don't involve starting an arms race. Let's go to live on Mars...

This is a sentimental idea that doesn't recognize the original intentions of unmanned and manned spaceflight....military applications and spying. Going to the Moon was the greatest cover story ever.

[Moonlight Graham]

Biggest "security spiral" ever was the Cold War, and what did that lead to? It led to peace between two superpowers that were armed to the teeth and opposed each other's ideologies to the core.

Peace? I wouldn't call that peace. Sure they never directly went at each other, they just ripped up the third world instead. Both sides also came an eyelash away from nuking half the earth if you remember.

[Bonam]

Peace? I wouldn't call that peace. Sure they never directly went at each other, they just ripped up the third world instead. Both sides also came an eyelash away from nuking half the earth if you remember.

Minor squabbles in the "third world" compared to what could have happened. WWII would have looked like a training exercise in comparison. And the point is they didn't nuke half the Earth.

[dre]

Have you ever read Greek mythology? I'd suggest reading the Iliad of Athena's Aegis. Be it a hoplon or a Guided missile cruiser, a shield is very much a defensive weapon, regardless if the end user is on the offensive or defensive.

Did the Soviets use their weapons once Reagan started SDI?

With who? Russia? China? Iran? North Korea?

Have you ever read Greek mythology? I'd suggest reading the Iliad of Athena's Aegis. Be it a hoplon or a Guided missile cruiser, a shield is very much a defensive weapon, regardless if the end user is on the offensive or defensive.

A shield can be either offensive or defensive. I suggest you read up on how and why the MAD doctrine works to keep the peace.

Did the Soviets use their weapons once Reagan started SDI?

The Soviets and the US signed a treaty banning such "shields" because both sides knew the danger presented by either side believing it could strike first and mitigate the counter strike.

With who? Russia? China? Iran? North Korea?

All of the above. In fact Russia is already building new missile systems designed to beat the shield.