|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten missiles? Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten interceptor vehicles: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Pat Flannery wrote:
: :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten :missiles? :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten :interceptor vehicles: :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst : Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 2, 10:17 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x... It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys and other penaids. In fact, it seems likely that the firing doctrine will still call for launching at least two GBIs against each ICBM in order to allow for boost-phase failures. So 10 GBI = 5 ICBM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Fred J. McCall wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: : :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten :missiles? :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten :interceptor vehicles: :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst : Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US. But not in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia into Europe. We say they are to intercept missiles flying from Iran into Europe or the US... then we also say that we are never going to let Iran have IRBMs or ICBMs....so building the European ABM system is basically sending them the message that we expect them to develop such systems and aren't going to stop them when they do...so they can go ahead and develop them without us stopping them. That's a great example of the kind of "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" logic the Bush administration is noted for. Who is our ally in the war on terror? Pakistan. Who developed the nuclear weapons technology that got leaked to Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Pakistan. Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast? Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 911 attack come from? Saudi Arabia. Where has heroin production gone through the roof? Afghanistan. Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to eradicate the poppy fields via military means? Us, of course. Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 2, 3:51 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast? Saudi Arabia. Who is our Anglo-Saxon friend in Europe? Britain. Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 12-21 attack come from? Britain. Where has heroin production gone through the roof? Afghanistan: former British colony Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to eradicate the poppy fields via military means? Britain. Time to deal with the Brits, it seems. Along with their toadies the Canadians. Shifty, weaselly *******s, the lot of 'em. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 3, 5:51*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: : :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten * :missiles? :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten :interceptor vehicles: :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x.... : Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US. But not in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia into Europe. We say they are to intercept missiles flying from Iran *into Europe or the US... then we also say that we are never going to let Iran have IRBMs or ICBMs....so building the European ABM system is basically sending them the message that we expect them to develop such systems and aren't going to stop them when they do...so they can go ahead and develop them without us stopping them. That's a great example of the kind of "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" logic the Bush administration is noted for. Who is our ally in the war on terror? Pakistan. Who developed the nuclear weapons technology that got leaked to Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Pakistan. Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast? Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 911 attack come from? Saudi Arabia. Where has heroin production gone through the roof? Afghanistan. Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to eradicate the poppy fields via military means? Us, of course. Pat I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real world scenario worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- tat game? Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
eatfastnoodle wrote:
: :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. : Why does Russia care? : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- :tat game? : Iran. : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? That single statement is a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia. : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such missiles. And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United States has given for their deployment. Funny how that works, isn't it? So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the immediate future? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
eatfastnoodle wrote: : :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. : Why does Russia care? Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern European countries more tightly to the US. : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- :tat game? : Iran. No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia and US were on good terms with each other. : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia. It's not just military, it's political. : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United States has given for their deployment. Funny how that works, isn't it? Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology with far higher success rate. So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the immediate future? No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non- stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its threat) -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
multiple universes? | DaveJr | Misc | 25 | September 6th 06 03:17 PM |
Soviet space interceptor missile | Pat Flannery | History | 2 | December 30th 05 07:31 AM |
Multiple Solos | readme_D0t_Text | History | 7 | October 4th 04 06:17 PM |
Multiple Engines??? | Charles Talleyrand | Technology | 125 | February 4th 04 06:41 PM |
Multiple systems - How are they determined to be multiple? | Chris L Peterson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | October 6th 03 06:47 AM |