From: Ad 

Robert Comer wrote:
>> Really. The Russians seem to disagree. Why have the sites in Vandenburg
>> etc if that were the case?
>
> Vandenburg is a training base, no active nukes, but that's besides the
> point.

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 was talking about Israel not having long range missile
> capability, but as you pointed out in another message, they do with
> the satellite launch vehicle of theirs.
>

Indeed. I'm sure they're very .....happy with the missile tech you transfer
to them in complete abrogation of the MCTR which you seem should apply to
all others.....given the existence or suspicion of a WMD program.

> As for whether the Russians think this new base is for theater only,
> sure they do or they wouldn't allow it anywhere near their country.
>

 I will take it that that is meant as humor.


>> D'you reckon the NK'er are going to float a barge off your east or west
>> coast w/o USN knowing?
>
> That's far more likely than a missile, but even then, I seriously
> doubt it, they know the penalty.
>

Oh indeed. The aim of nukes is to create peace through terror.


>> Just the antenna ? Blimey no antenna no radar station.
>
> Temporarily, and you know you're at war.  It's not going to be the
> only radar...
>

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.

>> Oh indeed. De-mirving them helped a lot too.
>
> Actually the MIRV's are still there on ours, just smaller.
>

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.

>> Esp shiny ones.....were one thinking about concentrated light.
>
> Wouldn't help against a particle beam and a pulsed laser with enough
> power, who knows what they may come up with...
>

spinning & shiny & chaff.

That's the problem with most of the ABM concepts.....they're much cheaper
& quicker to defeat than to design & build.

>> 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.
>
> Very true.
>
>> Trust me, you'd take every possible shot.
>
> No need to trust you on that, of course we would.
>

Which is why they want "forward positioned" interceptor missiles 
in Eastern europe & then possibly mid positioned ones in the UK.

Iceland would be good too.

>> A lot less US fatalities.
>
> Yep.
>
>> They're certainly working to make sure that is the case.
>
> Probably we are too.
>
>> Indeed but if I dominate 400 miles into the US then how do your missiles
>> get anywhere other than arizona?
>
> We have our ways.   (Same way as you said for Iran, except we are a
> whole lot closer to true stealth, and we have the surveillance and c&c
> targeting that Iran will never achieve.)
>

possibly. That is true in terms of a projected capability vs the iranian
projected capability but Iran on home turf vs the US on Iranian turf &
it's less of a gap (e.g. local fibre optic cables, humans on the ground
etc).

Adam

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