From: Ad 

Robert Comer wrote:
>> Not that big a friend.
>
> Now that's funny.
>

No its not. Not unless you think killing service people of a nuclear power
with in excess of 2000 warheads is humorous. Once you hit a certain level
of deterrance then all else is irrelevant.

What is more relevant is that Israel has it's own nukes.

I am sure Iran has drawn the appropriate lessons. Is Moscow or NYC worth a
radar station? Never was in the past.

>> The Russians are much better at accepting body bags than we weak
>> westerners...
>
> Yeah, so?
>

So there is no reason to think they'd blink at losing a hundred ppl.

>> BMEWS = the existing Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. The closest
>> of which is just round the rigg head from me.
>
> Okay, gotcha.
>
>> Not against TFR missiles. There you'd be best off with open desert.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. but yes, it's easier to see them coming
> from further away so the response has to be quicker.  It's also a lot
> easier to hide things and harden them if they are in the mountains.
>

Errrmmm.......not in this case. The radar station is by it's nature an
exposed thing coz ....it's a radar station.



>> Huh? Why wouldn't it? It would give great sight into your interior where
>> missile silos tend to be (e.g. the dakotas). If tied to interceptors it
>> could well allow for "boost phase interception" which is
by far the best
>> as then any nasties tend to drop onto the launching country's territory.
>
> Because you don't intercept an ICBM from behind, no way, no how, they
> move to fast.  You have to intercept from the front and preferable at
> the apogee.  Our ICBM interceptors are mostly air launch tested right
> now, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what the end result will be.
> You'd have to have anti-missiles sitting right next to the silos to
> intercept them at the stage you're talking about, a 500 miles away
> wouldn't cut it.
>

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.

A very high acceleration missile can get high & actually be coming back
down at the ICBM while it's still picking up speed.

Oh & 500 miles would definitely cut it.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424865&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.p
df

However:

(A) An ICBM generation could be developed with a much higher initial
acceleration. There are some indications that the new Russian rockets are
of this ilk.

(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.


> The radar in a Europe based station could warn us quicker, but the
> interception is going to be sent from our soil if we are the target.

Why? You'd hit it/them at every possible point of intercept.

Frankly...large chunks of poisonous crap/junk hitting europe would be
better than hitting the CONUS.

Also 5 missles fired 3 hit over europe...much better odds at hitting just 2
as they head over the atlantic.

> A
> Europe based interceptor base is only going to cover medium and short
> range because it wont need to cover ICBM's. (because it would be
> useless to us)
>

Why? If Iran went for a polar route that might be true but anything headed
west would be covered.


>> However layered defence is often....offensive in more ways than one.
>> e.g. S400 missiles just south of the US mexcian border would put a huge
>> chunk of the US South west airspace into ....question
>
> It sure could, but if they let us inspect to make sure there were no
> offensive missiles?
>

Define offensive missiles.

If I completely dominate the airspace from say Mexico to Oregon then across
to the Gulf of Mexico is that offensive?

>> Given the US/West has been pushing a mostly self-serving
>> "anti-proliferation" agenda it looks a little......self-defeating.
>
> I agree with that, but I also think our current government, and that
> includes the armed forces people, are total morons.
>
> Personally, I figure if we have them, we can't say anything about
> someone else having them until someone starts using them.
>

as the only country wot has used em...

>> A H bomb is an H bomb. Oddly the PRC, Russia, India etc might be better
>> placed to survive a nuclear war than the US.
>
> 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.


>> Yeah but it works both ways. What this is is an invite for the world to
>> nuclearize as it's now becoming clear that the NPT & it's ilk were never
>> serious treaties anyway.
>
> Yep.
>

Adam

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