From: Ad 

Robert Comer wrote:
>> Unless the vulcans are targeted first.
>
> Not easy to do at all.  Coverage would be my only concern, but if you
> have enough of them tied to an aegis type radar...
>

You'd be surprised.

e.g 3 waves where wave 1 & 2 get as far as they can while spewing lots
of chaff/silver foil. wave 3 carries high explosive esp percussion
detonation.


>> (A) This is (I think) a proposal relating to the radar as the
>> interceptors need a "bit of room to get started".
>
> True about the part that the missiles themselves needing to be further
> back, but I haven't seen anything discussing that.
>
>> (B) This radar station would be within easy reach of either Iran or Russia.
>
> Seeing as how Russia is going to be there using it too, they're not a
> concern, as for Iran, I don't think they have the tech yet to be a
> threat to it, and they would think twice about it anyway if Russia's
> involved.
>

Why? Israel has knocked out Russian crewed radar & intel stations in
Syria before.

>> Nope I mean there was a reason why they threatened low level terrain
>> following cruise missiles.
>
> I knew what you meant, but I don't share your concern about it. That's
> one reason you have the missiles further back, if the primary radar
> get's hit, you know you have incoming and you can deal with it.
>

I think Putin's idea would be that the next radar is the BMEWS line e.g. Fylingdales.


>> consider the geography of Azerbaijan.
>
> I really don't know much about that.
>

It's in the caucasus/kavkaz. A region given it's name by the caucasus
mountains wot are mountainous.

>> Ummmm.......In the same way Russia has a base in Cuba but it might be
>> tricky putting too much mil kit there much as Khrushchev &
Kennedy found.
>
> Russia's already got a major radar station there....  (This will
> replace that)
>

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.


>> Oh indeed. Or wrt the PRC, Russia & India etc it causes a major new
>> nuclear arms race as it means the only way a nuclear power can be sure
>> of beating it is to swamp it.
>
> The only missiles this installation will cover from china or India is
> anything targeting the middle east, Russia, or Europe, so I don't see
> the incentive for a nuclear arms race, but anyway, China is already on
> that road.

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 don't think India can do that kind of thing right now
> and they seem to want to expand their power economically, not
> militarily, anyway.
>

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.


>> How soon before the PRC & India start moving from 20 to 2000 warheads?
>
> India, maybe never, China, they've already started.
>

If this goes ahead then ........both will start in earnest.


>> Did the SALT treaties (along with possibly the S/IRBM treaties) die when
>> the US pulled out of the ABM treaty?
>
> SALT was never effective to begin with.
>

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.


Adam

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