From: Robert Comer 

>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...

>(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.

>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.

>consider the geography of Azerbaijan.

I really don't know much about that.

>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)

>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.  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.

>How soon before the PRC & India start moving from 20 to 2000 warheads?

India, maybe never, China, they've already started.

>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.

--
Bob Comer



On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:58:24 +0100, Ad
 wrote:

>Robert Comer wrote:
>>> Impressive missiles in that case. Can catch a ICBM going somewhere else
>>> or a short range high speed asm/ssm/cruise coming straight at you.
>>
>> One type can't do that, but two types can -- we are developing more
>> than 2 types.  Heck, plain old vulcan guns stationed outside the
>> perimeter can protect from a lot of low level incoming.
>>
>
>Unless the vulcans are targeted first.
>
>(A) This is (I think) a proposal relating to the radar as the
>interceptors need a "bit of room to get started".
>
>(B) This radar station would be within easy reach of either Iran or Russia.
>
>>> There was a reason why Russia threatened the European sites with cruise
>>> missiles.
>>
>> Yeah, they didn't want the missile bases there.
>>
>
>Nope I mean there was a reason why they threatened low level terrain
>following cruise missiles.
>
>>> Also consider the geography of Azerbaijan. One could get very close w/o
>>> breaking the radar horizon.
>>
>> Yep, but it depends on just where you put it and if there is any
>> overlooking peaks...
>>
>
>consider the geography of Azerbaijan.
>
>>> But hey......if you were to adopt a layered defence you'd have to just
>>> about have to turn all of azerbaijan into a US base.
>>
>> I don't think that would be necessary, but don't we already have a
>> base around there somewhere?
>>
>
>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.
>
>> Besides, I don't really think it's necessary to have a fully wartime
>> ready installation, it's mere presence puts a kink in a few plans some
>> might have. (Not just Iran, but Pakistan, Syria, Israel, terrorist
>> groups.)
>>
>
>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.
>
>How soon before the PRC & India start moving from 20 to 2000 warheads?
>
>Did the SALT treaties (along with possibly the S/IRBM treaties) die when
>the US pulled out of the ABM treaty?
>
>Adam

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