From: Robert Comer 

>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 don't think it is.......

> I will take it that that is meant as humor.

Nope.

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

Not really, it's aim is to make sure nobody uses them -- conventional war
is still there and wont go away anytime soon.

>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.

Can't forget our aircraft either... (AWACS)  Both extremely capable systems.

>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.

I never saw any evidence of this happening on either side. (But I don't
have any current special knowledge, so who knows)

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

For now, yep.  I'm not so sure that problem wont be defeated eventually. 
Shielding is too heavy, so they'll always be vulnerable to some extent.

--
Bob Comer




On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:19:12 +0100, Ad
 wrote:

>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