From: Robert Comer 

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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)

>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 & 500 miles would definitely cut it.
>
>http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424865&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.
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.

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.)

>(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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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...

>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.

>> 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. 

--
Bob Comer




On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:21:15 +0100, Ad
 wrote:

>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.
pdf
>
>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