Well unless it shoots down the planes with that laser, most likely not at all But I reckon these things will fly in US airspace and if needed be escorted.Pubic wrote:
I wonder how effective that thing would be against jet fighters...RDMC wrote:
Saw this on discovery a few times now, it uses something like 3 different lasers to shoot down ballistic missles amirite? Looked pretty star wars-ish. And I liked itM.O.A.B wrote:
747 is being tested for an ABM defence platform.
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i … ser_lg.jpg
They hit the missiles on the boost phase, so unless it is Canada or Mexico launching the nukes they are going to have to move over seas. I believe the original intent was for the first one to be stationed in Japan to knock do DPRK's missiles. Also, I think I heard that theoretically these are capable of knocking out planes(fry electronics, blow fuel tanks/weapons, etc.) and are definitely capable of hitting cruise missile's, the only probably with the latter is that you have to first find the missile.RDMC wrote:
Well unless it shoots down the planes with that laser, most likely not at all But I reckon these things will fly in US airspace and if needed be escorted.Pubic wrote:
I wonder how effective that thing would be against jet fighters...RDMC wrote:
Saw this on discovery a few times now, it uses something like 3 different lasers to shoot down ballistic missles amirite? Looked pretty star wars-ish. And I liked it
I still believe that the only true way to do missile defense is with a variant of this system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ … nt_Pebbles
The SM-3 is nice, great for theater ballistic missiles, possibly even IRBM's, but its going to be marginally effective against ICBM's. SM-3 is still a lot better than the Mid-Course Interceptor though. That was very effective, but the cost was astronomical (cheaper to build a ICBM and silo than interceptor).
End of the day we aren't going to see large scale deployment of ABM system capable of knocking down ICBM's because its considered destabilizing. Personally, I'd rather see the Russians, French, Chinese, British, and US all with their own ABM systems, even if we have to fund them. I've never been a big fan of the whole MAD thing but for some absurd reason society accepts it as if its OK. Sure it has worked so far, but someday, some jackass is going to fuck up and we're going to hit the reset button to 10,000BC. Kind of like saying its OK that your neighbor has a gun pointed at your head because you have one pointed at his too. What happens if he flinches and fires?
50ish years from now I see the wide scale deployment of directed energy weapons, most of which will probably be capable of knocking down ICBM's. Hell, there's a directed energy weapon being developed for the F-35 that is designed to replace chaff and flares, instead it just blows up the SAM's.
I'm willing to sacrifice that there may be more large scale conventional wars if we get rid of nukes. Personally, I'd like to live to see my kids and grandkids, and I'd like them to live to see their grandkids. I'm not too willing to risk that the status quo is going to last indefinitely, especially since most experts seem to think the likelihood of nuclear was has went UP since 1989.
^ good post
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
" especially since most experts seem to think the likelihood of nuclear was has went UP since 1989."
Then why has the doomsday clock been turned back?
Then why has the doomsday clock been turned back?
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists should not even touch geopolitics. Hell, they include global warming in the doomsday clock. Frankly, they are a bunch of geniuses who are completely out of touch with reality. It sickens me because they are using their position to manipulate idiots who actually believe that the clock stands for something (this is not directed at you Trotsky).
Yeah the doomsday clock got a bit dodgy around 1990 when it quietly started to mean something rather different from nuclear holocaust...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yeah I sort of know, question was more about what your opinion about the BAS is.Commie Killer wrote:
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists should not even touch geopolitics. Hell, they include global warming in the doomsday clock. Frankly, they are a bunch of geniuses who are completely out of touch with reality. It sickens me because they are using their position to manipulate idiots who actually believe that the clock stands for something (this is not directed at you Trotsky).
I found this article rather interesting.
Study: Nearly a quarter of takers fails Army entrance exam
If the Army used to be the butt of jokes about taking all the rejects from our high schools, what'll we do now with the population of dim bulbs?
Study: Nearly a quarter of takers fails Army entrance exam
If the Army used to be the butt of jokes about taking all the rejects from our high schools, what'll we do now with the population of dim bulbs?
They flip your burgers.DesertFox- wrote:
I found this article rather interesting.
Study: Nearly a quarter of takers fails Army entrance exam
If the Army used to be the butt of jokes about taking all the rejects from our high schools, what'll we do now with the population of dim bulbs?
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
all branches of the armed forces use the same entry examDesertFox- wrote:
I found this article rather interesting.
Study: Nearly a quarter of takers fails Army entrance exam
If the Army used to be the butt of jokes about taking all the rejects from our high schools, what'll we do now with the population of dim bulbs?
Tu Stultus Es
^^^^^ ASVAB Waiver
STARK II is going into effect today, 1550 warhead cap. Thoughts?
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Part of me thinks this is a good thing, less nuclear weapons, less things that can go wrong.
Flipside, not much has gone wrong with nuclear weapons, No major accidents, no random explosions. What if we don't have enough warheads in the case of a global thermonuclar war I would definatly want enough weapons going off to ruin whoever the fuck started it.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Part of me thinks this is a good thing, less nuclear weapons, less things that can go wrong.
Flipside, not much has gone wrong with nuclear weapons, No major accidents, no random explosions. What if we don't have enough warheads in the case of a global thermonuclar war I would definatly want enough weapons going off to ruin whoever the fuck started it.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
1550 is still quite a lot of warheads. I'd seriously think twice reducing that a great deal more though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well considering the Minuteman III missile can carry up to 3 MIRVs each with a alleged yield of 330KT (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had an average Kiloton yield of 19.5).Spark wrote:
1550 is still quite a lot of warheads. I'd seriously think twice reducing that a great deal more though.
They could stand to reduce it more. We also have 450 of the missiles not counting the submarine launched ones. The amount of weapons the entire world has is a bit overkill., we have more than enough to demolish the entire planet several times over.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
There is really no need for more then a couple hundred strategic warheads. Mount them on accurate launchers with multiple delivery systems (ICBM, SLBM, Bombers) and you have survivability so there is always a chance of a counter strike. The number will keep going down for a couple more decades, but I don't really see nukes disappearing anytime soon.
Tactical warheads are another thing though, those are absolutely useless. You start dropping those and the next thing you have full scale strategic nuclear war on your hand. No legitimate use. Politicians in the cold war we're so delusional that they actually believed they could use a few (read 100 or so) without the risk of full scale-world obliterating war. Once those are gone I'll feel a lot safer.
Tactical warheads are another thing though, those are absolutely useless. You start dropping those and the next thing you have full scale strategic nuclear war on your hand. No legitimate use. Politicians in the cold war we're so delusional that they actually believed they could use a few (read 100 or so) without the risk of full scale-world obliterating war. Once those are gone I'll feel a lot safer.
I agree, Commie Killer.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a risky strategy, but as long as the actors remain rational, it works. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle either. Therefore, nuclear states are likely to remain so to prevent major war with other states.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a risky strategy, but as long as the actors remain rational, it works. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle either. Therefore, nuclear states are likely to remain so to prevent major war with other states.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2010-12-29 23:32:02)
yeah tactical delivery systemsCommie Killer wrote:
There is really no need for more then a couple hundred strategic warheads. Mount them on accurate launchers with multiple delivery systems (ICBM, SLBM, Bombers) and you have survivability so there is always a chance of a counter strike. The number will keep going down for a couple more decades, but I don't really see nukes disappearing anytime soon.
Tactical warheads are another thing though, those are absolutely useless. You start dropping those and the next thing you have full scale strategic nuclear war on your hand. No legitimate use. Politicians in the cold war we're so delusional that they actually believed they could use a few (read 100 or so) without the risk of full scale-world obliterating war. Once those are gone I'll feel a lot safer.
perhaps the most interesting use of a nuclear weapon... nuclear air to air missile] rocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2
and the nuclear air to air missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon
only purpose of these is to shoot down bombers AFTER the shit hits the fan, still a bit overkill if you ask me.
Last edited by Trotskygrad (2010-12-31 18:14:59)
Karbin wrote:
AIR-2 Genie dropped from service in the early '80'sTrotskygrad wrote:
yeah tactical delivery systemsCommie Killer wrote:
There is really no need for more then a couple hundred strategic warheads. Mount them on accurate launchers with multiple delivery systems (ICBM, SLBM, Bombers) and you have survivability so there is always a chance of a counter strike. The number will keep going down for a couple more decades, but I don't really see nukes disappearing anytime soon.
Tactical warheads are another thing though, those are absolutely useless. You start dropping those and the next thing you have full scale strategic nuclear war on your hand. No legitimate use. Politicians in the cold war we're so delusional that they actually believed they could use a few (read 100 or so) without the risk of full scale-world obliterating war. Once those are gone I'll feel a lot safer.
perhaps the most interesting use of a nuclear weapon... nuclear air to air missile] rocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2
and the nuclear air to air missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon
only purpose of these is to shoot down bombers AFTER the shit hits the fan, still a bit overkill if you ask me.
Nuke Falcon dropped from service in the early '90's.
this is like a pace wet dream
Only if airplanes are involved.11 Bravo wrote:
this is like a pace wet dream
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
yeah I never saw pace in the "Post your gun" threadUnkleRukus wrote:
Only if airplanes are involved.11 Bravo wrote:
this is like a pace wet dream
and I know that they were dropped from service.