Missile Defense

[betsy]

Apparently, that's being talked about - according to  some pundits.

Quote

Paul Martin: Decision on ballistic missile defence might be different today

https://globalnews.ca/news/3761574/paul-martin-decision-on-ballistic-missile-defence-might-be-different-today/

 

They say the USA is not obliged to shoot down the missile aimed at Canada, that is true.

But some say, they'll shoot it anyway since they wouldn't take the chance that the missile might hit the USA.  I tend to believe that.    I think the USA is more likely to try to protect the continent.

Edited September 26, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Apparently, that's being talked about - according to  some pundits.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3761574/paul-martin-decision-on-ballistic-missile-defence-might-be-different-today/

 

They say the USA is not obliged to shoot down the missile aimed at Canada, that is true.

But some say, they'll shoot it anyway since they wouldn't take the chance that the missile might hit the USA.  I tend to believe that.    I think the USA is more likely to try to protect the continent.

 

It's important to recall that we specifically told the USA to take a hike and we didn't want their protection.

[betsy]

36 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's important to recall that we specifically told the USA to take a hike and we didn't want their protection.

I know.  But imho, the USA wouldn't be shooting down missiles (aimed at Canada) to protect Canada.  It's for the US' best interest to protect the continent and its allies.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

I know.  But imho, the USA wouldn't be shooting down missiles (aimed at Canada) to protect Canada.  It's for the US' best interest to protect the continent and its allies.

 

That's what they thought at the time, as well.

But you do know what other country developed this amazing technology...I assume.

We must not offend our Muslim hosts here in Canada.

[betsy]

I wonder if our government has made any preparations at all in case of a serious in-coming threat?  Especially when it pertains to civilians?  Provisions?  Do we even have any air raid shelters? 

I suppose subway tunnels can serve as shelters - better than nothing.

Edited September 26, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

I wonder if our government has made any preparations at all in case of a serious in-coming threat?  Especially when it pertains to civilians?  Provisions?  Do we even have any air raid shelters? 

I suppose subway tunnels can serve as shelters - better than nothing.

 

If you're dealing with deadly fallout...a subway hidey-hole isn't going to save you. But it would protect against the flying glass etc at the time of the blast.

Nuke Map can give you an idea how effects from nuclear explosions affect the areas surrounding ground zero. Megaton weapons are unbelievably huge.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Edited September 26, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[betsy]

We got a Subway where I am - but no tunnels.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

We got a Subway where I am - but no tunnels.

 

If you play around with NukeMap a bit, you'll see 'civil defence' is pointless after a certain yield is reached. You can nuke your hometown to get a better idea how FAR one has to be from...say...a 100kt ground burst...the average sized device these days. It ain't walkin' distance...

[DogOnPorch]

Plus...here's a good visualization giving us an idea of HOW MUCH fissile (as opposed to fissionable) material exists if we were to turn it all into FatMan sized weapons...20kt.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/world-fissile-material-stockpiles.jpg

 

[Rue]

I hear all this talk about missiles yes. All it takes is one North Korean with a nerve agent to fly to Canada or the US ad let off a deadly virus. So I wonder is this missile stuff just a cover story? I never understood in this day and age with what we know about viruses and deadly contagious agents we are still talking about inaccurate, clumsy missiles.

Maybe its chemicals the US is really worried about. How would we know?

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

I hear all this talk about missiles yes. All it takes is one North Korean with a nerve agent to fly to Canada or the US ad let off a deadly virus. So I wonder is this missile stuff just a cover story? I never understood in this day and age with what we know about viruses and deadly contagious agents we are still talking about inaccurate, clumsy missiles.

Maybe its chemicals the US is really worried about. How would we know?

VX is the poor man's Hydrogen Bomb...as the old saying went.

The British traded it to the US for the H-Bomb...the US did weaponize it...but found it impractical as it was just as deadly months after deployment as it was nice n' fresh.

Too deadly...

[Altai]

What if a country fires thousands of nuclear missiles at the same time ? Missile defence system are just capable to stop a few missiles. 

[DogOnPorch]

That's all NK has for now...a few.

But, it's a fool's game to think that missile defence will stop with 'just a few'.

[DogOnPorch]

To expand...throughout military history, some weapon has come along that allows dominance over the battlefield. Be it a 22' Macedonian pike or an English (Welsh) longbow...etc.

Eventually...even ICBMs can be made obsolete by the appropriate counters...

Edited September 26, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[ZenOps]

Arguably no missle defense system is adequate.  Take "Starfish Prime" for example.  The effects of that high altitude nuclear blast was evident a thousand miles away.  So technically, if a bomb was dentonated dead center over Toronto, it would probably completely destroy every single piece of electronic equipment in New York.

So, if the US does not shoot down nukes, they do it at their own peril.

As well, check the fallout pattern of the 100 or so above ground nukes that the US tested in Nevada (idiots BTW) the worst of which was "Sedan".  You can blame overeating on why the US has two to five years less lifespan than other first world nations, but I tend to believe its simply because of this map:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by ZenOps

[ZenOps]

ICBM is actually not the best technology,  SLBM are.  Not knowing the point of origin, and having it be several minutes closer to the intended target makes it much harder to hit.

I don't believe there has ever been an attempted SLBM interception, just for the simple fact you would be throwing your money away because its that much harder to hit than an ICBM.

 

[hot enough]

"Oh my god, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, commies are everywhere, we're all doomed!!"

Jesus H Keeeeerist on a popsicle stick, there are a lot of terribly goofy, wacked out people in Canada and the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, ZenOps said:

Arguably no missle defense system is adequate.  Take "Starfish Prime" for example.  The effects of that high altitude nuclear blast was evident a thousand miles away.  So technically, if a bomb was dentonated dead center over Toronto, it would probably completely destroy every single piece of electronic equipment in New York.

So, if the US does not shoot down nukes, they do it at their own peril.

 

Canada's defence deadbeat government doesn't even care, so no need to hope that the Americans do.

Much of New York's infrastructure would survive just fine, and we would get even better GTA jokes.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, ZenOps said:

....I don't believe there has ever been an attempted SLBM interception, just for the simple fact you would be throwing your money away because its that much harder to hit than an ICBM.

 

 

Interception of SLBM platforms is a primary ASW mission, with lots of resources dedicated to detection, tracking, and destruction.

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Interception of SLBM platforms is a primary ASW mission, with lots of resources dedicated to detection, tracking, and destruction.

Of course interception of submarines is a primary mission of anti-submarine weapons, by definition. But as to how well that mission goal is met... I don't think there's much capability to detect deeply submerged enemy submarines at this point. If any such technology exists at this point I guess it would be highly classified, anyway. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Bonam said:

Of course interception of submarines is a primary mission of anti-submarine weapons, by definition. But as to how well that mission goal is met... I don't think there's much capability to detect deeply submerged enemy submarines at this point. If any such technology exists at this point I guess it would be highly classified, anyway. 

 

I can assure you from personal experience on SSBN and SSN patrols, such technology most certainly exists, and indeed, much (but not all) of it is classified.   U.S. mission profiles and tactics are designed to minimize detection by enemy or friendly forces.   Being detected in real time or in post patrol mission analysis degrades scored effectiveness and survivability.

Such technology extends far beyond the specific ASW mission. 

U.S. SLBM platforms have a very specific strategic launch window that it is measured in minutes.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's important to recall that we specifically told the USA to take a hike and we didn't want their protection.

If that's the case its probably also important to recall how Canadians are often bullied and shamed into believing they need to ramp up our military spending because we rely too much on the US to protect us.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If that's the case its probably also important to recall how Canadians are often bullied and shamed into believing they need to ramp up our military spending because we rely too much on the US to protect us.

 

Canada bullies itself into shame by the way it funds its own defence and Canadian forces members:

• Payoffs for war criminals but no money for disabled or homeless veterans
• DART teams than couldn't dart anywhere during international disasters
• Canadian forces sent to desert wars in Iltis jeeps and green camo uniforms...what helicopters ?
• Broken navy ships that need a foreign tow home

Shame is cheap...much easier than paying up.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada bullies itself into shame by the way it funds its own defence and Canadian forces members:

• Payoffs for war criminals but no money for disabled or homeless veterans
• DART teams than couldn't dart anywhere during international disasters
• Canadian forces sent to desert wars in Iltis jeeps and green camo uniforms...what helicopters ?
• Broken navy ships that need a foreign tow home

Shame is cheap...much easier than paying up.

 

Canada's latest F-18 replacement candidate takes to the sky.

 

[DogOnPorch]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada's defence deadbeat government doesn't even care, so no need to hope that the Americans do.

Much of New York's infrastructure would survive just fine, and we would get even better GTA jokes.

 

Yes indeed. Starfish Prime was a long time ago now. Unshielded electronics still exist...but the ones that count were long ago hardened.