From: Robert Comer 

>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 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.

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.

>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.

>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...

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

Actually the MIRV's are still there on ours, just smaller.

>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...

>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.

>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.)

--
Bob Comer






On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:02:50 +0100, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:

>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=GetTRD
oc.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