From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Robert Comer wrote:
>> I mean that Vandenburg is part of this missile shield thingy which given
>> the size of the pacific means that the shield is aimed at ICBM
&/or SLBM.
>
> I don't think it is.......
>

Ummm.....yes it is......

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041026220727.gn5ql5n3.html

"Two Aegis destroyers already are operating in the Sea of Japan, their
powerful tracking radars serving as the leading edge of a system of
ground-based interceptor missiles centered in Fort Greely, Alaska and
Vandenburg Air Force Base, California ."

>>  I will take it that that is meant as humor.
>
> Nope.
>

Oh Lord.

Why do you think they're so dis-chuffed with the sites in the Czech
republic & Poland?

Ever heard of the INF Treaty?

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf1.html

"TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE ELIMINATION OF THEIR INTERMEDIATE-RANGE AND
SHORTER-RANGE MISSILES

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and
Shorter-Range Missiles, commonly referred to as the INF (Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces) Treaty, requires destruction of the Parties'
ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500
and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and
support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.
"

Given that....

>> Oh indeed. The aim of nukes is to create peace through terror.
>
> Not really, it's aim is to make sure nobody uses them -- conventional
> war is still there and wont go away anytime soon.
>

peace through terror.

>> Indeed not. However it may be the only one between Iran & Fylingdales
>> excepting some Aegis etc ships you might have floating in the eastern
>> med/black sea.
>
> Can't forget our aircraft either... (AWACS)  Both extremely capable
> systems.
>

Indeed. However the megawattage involved requires a ship or a ground station.

>> The idea in the mid 90'es was that the numbers of warheads per missile
>> should steadily decrease.
>>
>> There is a treaty limit on 10 but the concept was fewer warheads per
>> missile (as a way of showing willing wrt lowering tensions)  with thus
>> more room for decoys.
>
> I never saw any evidence of this happening on either side. (But I
> don't have any current special knowledge, so who knows)
>

The UK has 1 warhead per trident.

The US & Russia took similar measures (not to the same degree but to a degree.

>> spinning & shiny & chaff.
>>
>> That's the problem with most of the ABM concepts.....they're much
>> cheaper & quicker to defeat than to design & build.
>
> For now, yep.  I'm not so sure that problem wont be defeated
> eventually.  Shielding is too heavy, so they'll always be vulnerable
> to some extent.
>

Nah. WRT directed energy weapons, it's easy to build a lower powered system
& then test your missile designs at close range & thus to develop
effective counter measures.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5