BF2S Forums Crippled Spy Satellite Taken out.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Hydrazine and top secret technology are two good reasons to shoot it down.  The US can take out satellites with air launched missiles, if we want to.  That technology has been around since the 1980s.  The US got pissed at China because they left a bunch of debris in a low-earth orbit...which is where we like to fly spy satellites.

And communications satellites... and video transmission satellites... and manned space missions...

Mek-Izzle wrote:

What I want to know:

- Why are Russia and China getting so angry? They've done this before, China did it not too long ago.
- Ok, so maybe it is just a test for an ASM. So fucking what if it is?
- Why can't the US just come clear if it is a test, there really is nothing wrong with doing so.

- because now their nuclear deterrent is basically worthless.
- it was an anti-ballistic missle test (asat stuff is old school, ABM shields are the new sexy.)
- it wasnt an anti-ballistic missle test (we were saving lives by taking out a toxic fuel tank.)

we can have our cake and eat it all we want.

Mek-Izzle wrote:

lol

No way in hell their nuclear deterrent is worthless by some paltry ASM/ABM missiles that have existed since the 80's or something. Not even the missile defence systems that will be put in Europ soone could stop Russian MIRV's, nothing can.

Their Nuclear Deterrent is still very much a viable deterrent I can assure you. All the countries deterrents are.

I'd be happy if it stayed that way. It would be worrying if a country became invulnerable to weapons of mass destruction.

i think the biggest threat is still SLBMs, very hard to defend against.  but icbms are relics, and abms are pretty successful against in-flight missles.  mirvs on icbms are worthless if the delivery system cant get over the ocean.

but you are right, no county will be invulnerable to wmd's, which is the reason for all of the fear and wars on the planet.

u know what's really scary?  the US has about 18 nuclear armed subs with 24 launch tubes each.  8 mirvs on each missle.  a grand total of 3456 nuclear warheads are in the ocean alone.  the w88 warhead has a 475 kiloton yield... the bomb that fell on hiroshima was a 16 kiloton yield.

Last edited by steelie34 (2008-02-21 13:32:31)

steelie34 wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

lol

No way in hell their nuclear deterrent is worthless by some paltry ASM/ABM missiles that have existed since the 80's or something. Not even the missile defence systems that will be put in Europ soone could stop Russian MIRV's, nothing can.

Their Nuclear Deterrent is still very much a viable deterrent I can assure you. All the countries deterrents are.

I'd be happy if it stayed that way. It would be worrying if a country became invulnerable to weapons of mass destruction.

i think the biggest threat is still SLBMs, very hard to defend against.  but icbms are relics, and abms are pretty successful against in-flight missles.  mirvs on icbms are worthless if the delivery system cant get over the ocean.

but you are right, no county will be invulnerable to wmd's, which is the reason for all of the fear and wars on the planet.

u know what's really scary?  the US has about 18 nuclear armed subs with 24 launch tubes each.  8 mirvs on each missle.  a grand total of 3456 nuclear warheads are in the ocean alone.  the w88 warhead has a 475 kiloton yield... the bomb that fell on hiroshima was a 16 kiloton yield.

ABMs don't go against the missile bodies, they go against the MIRVs. The only thing that was developed to stop a missile in boost phase was the Airborne Laser, which has been canceled.

ABMs in Europe would do nothing against missiles targeted at the CONUS.

Russia, China and a bunch of others would have complained if the US hadn't shot it down...especially if that fuel had landed in a city...they're just pissy that they couldn't do it.