Missile defense system - whatcha think?

[XMan]

For? Against? Have no idea?

The interesting part about a well-executed defense system, is that it renders ballistic missile development, for the most part, obsolete. If a system exists than take down incoming ICBMs, then why bother developing ICBMs to shoot?

 

[DarK SagE]

I think that it's possible to saturate any such system. U send out a few hundred nukes and the system will have trouble shooting them all down.

 

[Capn]

The system isn't geared toward taking down a few hundred nukes, more towards any renegade state willing to launch a warhead at the US.

 

[Muerto]

Dark Sage is right about what he said. I don't think it could shoot down 200 or so nukes.

But more importantly, this is just a throwback of Ronald Regann's "Star Wars" defense system. That could have developed into another Cuban Missile crisis.

And realistically, I don't think it's necessary. With all the aircraft that the US has I don't think it would be too hard to build a missile that could be launched from a plane and shoot down a nuke. Add on to that the 300 or so ships in the US navy; if they were equiped with a similar missile I think they could do the job just fine.

In my opinion it's just a good way to waste money and aggravate other nations.

 

[Gunbuster]

Yup whats to stop someone from sending up 500 garbage cans attached to boosters with 5 real nukes mixed in.

But if we get orbital partical beam satellites like in bubble gum crisis lets go for it

 

[Capn]

Muerto, you seem to be confused. The missile defense system involves another weapon (missile) to shoot at the incoming nuclear weapons. The tracking system is the biggest holdup right now.

 

[Muerto]

But if we get orbital partical beam satellites like in bubble gum crisis lets go for it

How old are you?

 

[Muerto]

Capn

Tracking system? It's called NORAD.

 

[shiner]

The system proposed is not meant to stop a nuclear strike from a country like Russia or even China. It is designed to lessen the threat of a rogue nation, like Iraq, Libya, or North Korea, etc.. from lobbing a few nuckes our way. If our allies don't like it or other nations fear it well, FVCK EM!!! America first!

 

[AMDJunkie]

The best defense is a good offense. (we really need a demon/devil/evil grin smiley)

 

[Muerto]

What I was trying to say is that I don't think we need a specialized system just for shooting down rouge missiles.

Just develope a missile that can shoot down an incoming nuke, use NORAD to track it and transmit target data, then scramble some fighters and blow the thing out of the sky. Simple as that.

 

[shiner]

If you hit it while it's in the atmosphere, like with a fighter, you risk spreading uranium all over the place.

 

[Muerto]

So where do you think this proposed defense system will destroy it? In space? The radioactive particles would still come down into the atmosphere.

 

[Capn]

I suggest you read up on missile defense. You think that it's easy to make another projectile hit an icbm flying at something around Mach 20 hundreds of miles above the earth? Knowing the missiles are there is one thing. Hitting them with another missile is a totally different and arguably more complex problem.

 

[yakko]

What protection does a missle system offer? Timothy Mcvey could have got past any system we install.

 

[Muerto]

Well then how will we shoot them down? We don't exactly have lasers that can do the job yet.

 

[DarK SagE]

Muerto: SOmething like Norad is not what he meant by a tracking system. The missile has to be able to track the slightest changes in its targets velocity and adjust itself accordingly. It's very difficult hitting something flying that fast. Many people have compared it to hitting a bullet with a bullet.

Personally i dont think a missile weapon to take down another missile would be very practical. Instead something like a satalite based particical cannon should be implemented, however, this is also next to imposible for obvioiuse reasons.

Yeh scifi i know

 

[OS]

I think NORAD only provides estimates and does not give information accurate enough to shoot down incoming warheads.

 

[Stark]

So far, all we've done is waste lots of money with no positive results. The contractors who have developed the system have reported inflated results.

I think 60 minutes had a story on this a few weeks ago. Bush has said he will make missle defense part of his administration... I say we spend the money in much more beneficial ways.

 

[Muerto]

DarK SagE

You wouldn't have to hit the ICBM directly. If the defensive missile had a large enough warhead it would have to be within maybe 100 ft. of the ICBM to destroy it. And if many missiles were used, your area of effect would be increased.

I'm not saying it would be easy to hit an ICBM, but that seems like to only way that would be even remotely close to practical. And sattelite mounted energy weapons are obviously impossible like you said.

 

[Muerto]

Stark

That sounds like a good idea...

 

[Stark]

60 Minutes II story

 

[Capn]

The current system which isn't doing so well in testing last time I heard involves modified minuteman missiles. These interceptor missiles would be fired from land-based stations in places like alaska and wyoming (or something like that) and hopefully intercept warheads from rogue states (Iran, North Korea). I'm not sure if it'll ever work, but research should be continued.

 

[KarsinTheHutt]

Working NMD wouldn't be too effective against rouge states + terrorists, IMO.

If I was a terrorist with a nuke and intent to kill, I'd just float the bomb into a harbor on a tiny rubber raft...

NMD won't stop that.

 

[Caliber]

Well, missle defence using missle vs. missle is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, just damn near impossible unless you sink some serious money into it. And besides it would prolly be a lot easier for someone to just sneak the thing into the US via the border and detonating it from there. Not to mention that the remaining sub fleet we have would reduce the offending country to a mass of molten metal