From: Robert Comer 

>Not that big a friend.

Now that's funny.

>The Russians are much better at accepting body bags than we weak
>westerners...

Yeah, so?

>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.

>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.

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. 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)

>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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

--
Bob Comer




On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:01:56 +0100, Ad
 wrote:

>Robert Comer wrote:
>>> Why? Israel has knocked out Russian crewed radar & intel stations in
>>> Syria before.
>>
>> That's Israel and they have a big friend.
>
>
>Not that big a friend.
>
>> Iran's big friend is
>> Russia, so ...
>>
>The Russians are much better at accepting body bags than we weak
>westerners...
>
>>> I think Putin's idea would be that the next radar is the BMEWS line e.g.
>>> Fylingdales.
>>
>> ?
>>
>
>BMEWS = the existing Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. The closest
>of which is just round the rigg head from me.
>
>>> It's in the caucasus/kavkaz. A region given it's name by the caucasus
>>> mountains wot are mountainous.
>>
>> That's what I thought, mountainous is the easiest terrain to defend.
>>
>
>Not against TFR missiles. There you'd be best off with open desert.
>
>i.e. if you fly in a tfr (terrain following radar (but also could be
>lazer)) i.e. close to the ground path then you'd always have some nice
>chunk of solid stuff twixt detector & radar.
>
>>> They had a radar base in Cuba too. If the PRC put a Radar station in
>>> northern Mexico you'd be concerned. If they put in a radar station with
>>> a layered defense then I think that concern might rise to apoplectic.
>>
>> It wouldn't make strategic sense to put one there, it certainly
>> couldn't stop us from attacking china with ICBM's, but yeah, we'd
>> worry a bit because we wouldn't know what else they might be doing.
>
>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.
>
>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
>
>> We'd target the place with bigger than just cruise missile probably,
>> but I expect any military power to target things like that if they are
>> close.
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>>> Hum. So were you to have a similar base in oh let's see....Guam
>>> or....Japan & also a few ships with modified SAM &
Aegis then would the
>>> PRC & India get concerned?
>>
>> I think Japan already has them, don't know about Guam.
>>
>
>Were one to be a PRC (or an India) & were one to see these sites
>cropping up around one, one might be forced into "national defensive
>measures" e.g. massive proliferation e.g. going from say 20-50 delivery
>vehicles/warheads into the thousands.
>
>
>Given the US/West has been pushing a mostly self-serving
>"anti-proliferation" agenda it looks a little......self-defeating.
>
>>> Not entirely true. They are working on their mil esp their navy (e.g.
>>> introducing SSN & a new aircraft carrier) & their
strategic rocket
>>> forces....I mean space program.
>>
>> Still way behind...
>>
>
>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.
>
>
>>> Well my feeling is that the nuclear arms treaties are dead anyway (all
>>> of them inc the NPT) & that we should simply gird
ourselves for the fall
>>> out.
>>
>> Assured destruction is a pretty big deterrent for the small guys and
>> MAD is a pretty big deterrent for us big guys...
>>
>
>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.
>
>Adam

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