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

Robert Comer wrote:
>> What is more relevant is that Israel has it's own nukes.
>
> Probably, but not very many, and other than aircraft, I doubt they
> have long range missile capability.
>

long enough for Moscow & St Petes.

>> I am sure Iran has drawn the appropriate lessons. Is Moscow or NYC worth
>> a radar station? Never was in the past.
>
> As I said before, this shield isn't for ICBM's, it's local theater
> only.
>

Really. The Russians seem to disagree. Why have the sites in Vandenburg etc
if that were the case?

D'you reckon the NK'er are going to float a barge off your east or west
coast w/o USN knowing?

>> So there is no reason to think they'd blink at losing a hundred ppl.
>
> Again, so?  We're more apt to have automated defenses. (Spending
> money, not lives), both can be effective.
>

Indeed. However losing a radar station is losing a radar station &
that's happened before to a ME 2nd rate power.

>> Errrmmm.......not in this case. The radar station is by it's nature an
>> exposed thing coz ....it's a radar station.
>
> Just the antennas, and while you can't hide them very well, having
> them knocked out puts you on war footing right away, and it's fairly
> easy to replace.  I would bet more than one antenna and you'd have to
> take them all out to stop that particular site. (not the missile site
> though)
>

Just the antenna ? Blimey no antenna no radar station.


>> Depends on the speed of lift off. i.e. many large missiles start off
>> slowly with much sound & fury (& heat) & then steadily
pick up speed.
>
> I don't think you've seen what we have had for the last 30 years or
> so, they're solid fuel, VERY fast launch, LOTS of thrust, fairly small
> missile, compared to the old liquid fuel behemoths.  They come out of
> the hole fast.
>

Oh indeed. De-mirving them helped a lot too.

>> Oh & 500 miles would definitely cut it.
>>
>>
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424865&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo
c.pdf
>
> Nowhere in there does it say the range of a boost phase targeting, but
> it's very interesting anyway, and it sounds reasonable that boost
> phase would be the best place to knock down a launch vehicle.  I just
> doubt it could be done with modern ICBM's like what we and Russia
> have.
>

Esp shiny ones.....were one thinking about concentrated light.


> Truthfully, I don't see how any interception is going to work well for
> anything long range until we have something a lot faster than a
> anti-missile missile. (particle beam, high powered pulse laser,
> something like that.)  (or killer satellites that will be sitting in
> the territory that ICBM's would be flying on the midpoint phase.)
>

Yup. & then it's a numbers game. The problem with post boost is that a
mirv'ed beastie could have split into lots of targets (inc lots of fake
ones) by then & you might have seen quite a few plumes to begin with.


>> (B) "Strategic depth". i.e. once you get over a given
distance then yes
>> it becomes hard/impossible. You'd have to put em up near the Canadian
>> border & then trust the Canadians.
>
> Not a problem, it's in their best interest for us to defend NA.
>

Indeed. So long as it is NA.

>> Why? You'd hit it/them at every possible point of intercept.
>
> Because I don't think you're going to get them in the boost phase
> unless it's an older tech launch vehicle. And you can hit them from
> here in the midpoint final phase.
>

Trust me, you'd take every possible shot.

>> Frankly...large chunks of poisonous crap/junk hitting europe would be
>> better than hitting the CONUS.
>
> A lot less fatalities, yes, but not really all that acceptable either.
>

A lot less US fatalities.


>> Also 5 missles fired 3 hit over europe...much better odds at hitting
>> just 2 as they head over the atlantic.
>
> Or even one hit over Europe, yes, that's much better, that's why the
> layered defense.
>

Indeed.

>> Why? If Iran went for a polar route that might be true but anything
>> headed west would be covered.
>
> Only if you can catch it. (probably you could with anything they might
> have anytime soon -- same for NK)  I was thinking more Russian ICBM's
> as non-catchable.
>

They're certainly working to make sure that is the case.

>> Define offensive missiles.
>>
>> If I completely dominate the airspace from say Mexico to Oregon then
>> across to the Gulf of Mexico is that offensive?
>
> High explosive or chemical payload, and no that would not be offensive
> in itself, you'd have to be able to deliver some kind of payload on
> targets.  And don't forget we have our own systems *with* offensive
> missiles...
>

Indeed but if I dominate 400 miles into the US then how do your missiles
get anywhere other than arizona?


>> as the only country wot has used em...
>
> Bogus attack on the US, we were the only one that had them so there
> was no assured destruction, now there is and we all live by the same
> rules.
>

Indeed. Balance of terror. t'aint gone away.

>>> I don't think so, but it really doesn't matter, a full nuclear war is
>>> going to cripple whoever on earth for quite some time, whether it's us
>>> that's crippled more or less is pretty darn irrelevant.
>>>
>> Yup.
>
> At least we agree on that. 
>



Adam

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