US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

[phongn]

In a word, bullshit. A poor rogue state which doesn't have an ICBM force to begin with will not even bother with that method of attack, and a serious enemy will simply work on an arsenal large enough to swamp the system as well as methods for attacking the vulnerabilities.

Perhaps my phrasing was poor. I was referring to states such as the DPRK which may have a limited ICBM capability but not such a large arsenal as to swamp 150-odd ABMs.

PLC at a 1950s level is sufficent for nations such as India or Pakistan, who in any case are far more a threat to each other than us. And if Russia let loose an accidental launch on misidentification, it would involve far more missiles than a mere handful.

I meant if we misidentified a launch for whatever reason (perhaps the Russians were using one of their modified SLBMs for satellite launching and we determined it was instead a real SLBM).

In point of fact, it is more likely to succeed, and the point still stands: it is a method of attack against which an ABM system would be useless.

The US has a bunch of handheld radiation detectors produced en masse for inspecting each and every freighter (you only have to get close) and the border crossings. The probability of intercept is certainly greater than that of an ABM-less US; and we've made it harder to nuke the US.

ABM is useless against a bunch of nuclear attack methods - covert, bomber, cruise missile, orbital satellite or what-have-you. But at least it can defend against the ballistic missile threat.

And this Leap of Faith is based on...?

Compare the US GDP versus some other nations that field ICBMs. Lets look:

USA: $10.4 trillion
China: $5.7 trillion
India: $2.66 trillion
France: $1.54 trillion
UK: $1.52 trillion
Russia: $1.35 trillion

It's the "rest as needed" which is going to be the financial and technical bitch.

Yes, it is going to be expensive and a technical challange, but hardly insurmountable. And how much of the usual quoted NMD price is from the dual-use systems such as SBIRS?

No, actually. Without actual performance data, the uncertainty remains, no matter what the specs may say.

Even if tested under ARES EMP simulator and such?

Take a look, mate; the present ABM tests are being conducted under wholly artificial experimental conditions and the present administration is proposing to begin deployment on a system which will have very little experimental verification behind it. The thinking is clearly not geared toward what would actually be faced in a warfighting environment.

Okay, I'm not too gung-ho about the current testing schedule either, especially as the previous tests - while verifying performance - have not gone into more sophisticated tests, which I do hope will happen. (As for the C-band beacon, IIRC they've stopped doing that, but I'm looking more specifically for that).

Apparently the Bush Administration believes that we need ABM now, so they are willing to push in a partially-tested system while continuing various other tests (and fixing problems if needed) while scaling up. It's not something I totally agree with but there is a testing system going on.

[Vympel]

This is something of a strawman seeing as the US system is clearly not intended to defend agaisnt an al-out nuclear attack by Russia.

It was merely an example.

[Vympel]

Btw, the Airborne Laser is less than irrelevant. It's an anti-theatre ballistic missile system (i.e. SCUD type), not part of NMD. It's designed to destroy weapons in the boost phase, not the terminal attack phase, which is the only phase in which you have a realistic chance of intercepting anything given the strategic conditions.

[MKSheppard]

Btw, the Airborne Laser is less than irrelevant. It's an anti-theatre ballistic missile system (i.e. SCUD type), not part of NMD. It's designed to destroy weapons in the boost phase, not the terminal attack phase, which is the only phase in which you have a realistic chance of intercepting anything given the strategic conditions.

If you put it close enough to an enemy nation, you can shoot
down their ICBMs, because in boost-phase virtually everything
looks the same.

[MKSheppard]

Deegan, I tire of your bullshit. I went and proved that the GBI was cheeper than a comparable ICBM by a factor of 14, and yet you keep going onto tangents trying to ignore that inconvient fact, trying to factor in the
cost of building new radars to support/replace old cold-war ballistic
missile tracking radars; stop fucking around and put solid concrete
numbers that prove that you can build enough ICBMs to swamp
a comparable GBI system that is 14 times cheeper to build a missle for.

[phongn]

Ever changing the goalposts, aren't you?

Look, you said that originally we'd have 500-odd warheads crashing down on American infrastructure. I had misinterpreted that to read as "500 hits on cities," for which I apologize if that's not what you intended. But if we add in all those other targets that we now have to hit - your 500-hit strike won't do as much damage. I'm not changing the goalpost, I'm keeping them as where you put it. Either we're hitting all the cities with high airbursts to rather negative effects and allowing the bombers to do multiple sorties, or we're hitting many of the B-52/B-2 capable airfields as well to stop that - and reduce the general devestation on the cities.

The tenor of your statement, for a start. You seriously imagine a depression is comparable to a nuclear strike?!

No, a nuclear strike would be far worse than the Great Depression. I had meant to say that such a strike would throw the US into a very severe depression - in the broadest negative-GDP sense.

For which you have nothing beyond "wishful thinking" as a support.

Better "might get a more favorable spread [to the US]" than "every warhead hitting the US."

Past history is actually a very good gauge on which to base hypothetical models of the future.

Well, for many defense projects they have failed, or were cancelled, or weren't even real, but in this case, doesn't the laser program past history (ALL) actually support the real, workable system (ABL), even if they were experimental?

A difference which makes no difference and therefore meaningless.

What, that Clinton was seriously considering deployment? With all that testing going on, how could Russia come to the conclusion that "no, there won't be a system deployed." That's a big assumption to make on their part, even after the non-result that was the 1980s SDI.

No, how they increased from the advent of MIRV to the onset of START.

But strategic warhead levels had been increasing anyways, MIRV or no MIRV, especially in the USSR.

That was not the FUCKING POINT —the point was that the one reason why strategic force levels did not increase at a far greater pace was because of foregoing an ABM race alongside the arms race.

Or it was simply because both sides decided to curb the insanity a bit and implement SALT. Isn't that just as reasonable an explanation?

Your argument is that the ABM Treaty slowed growth from a possible geometric explosion; my argument is that it was more SALT (of which ABM was a component) was what slowed it down.

[Vympel]

If you put it close enough to an enemy nation, you can shoot
down their ICBMs, because in boost-phase virtually everything
looks the same.

Close enough in this instance is at best a few hundred km away, if that- remember it's designed to destroy missiles like the SCUD etc. that pose a threat to US front-line forces- it hangs behind the front-line to attack them (see fancy diagrams advertising the system) The chances of getting a big 747 close to any ICBM launchers is practically nil.

[MKSheppard]

The chances of getting a big 747 close to any ICBM launchers is practically nil.

Not with North Korea

[phongn]

If you put it close enough to an enemy nation, you can shoot
down their ICBMs, because in boost-phase virtually everything
looks the same.

That'd be quite an amazing feat to get an ABL close enough to some of the threats we'd be facing.

[MKSheppard]

That'd be quite an amazing feat to get an ABL close enough to some of the threats we'd be facing.

well, see north korea, somehow I don't think they'd be able to contest an ABL
patrol outside the 12nm limit, especially with a full combat spread of F-15s
protecting it

[Vympel]

In regards to ABL:

The key issues in the program will be effective range of the laser and systems integration of a Boeing 747 aircraft. The prototype ABL aircraft, dubbed the YAL-1A, made its first flight in July 2002. Development efforts are focused on integrating the system's sophisticated laser and tracking elements on board the airframe to support a planned intercept of a threat-representative short-range ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean in late 2004.

As of late 2002, it appeared that the Airborne Laser's first missile intercept test, scheduled for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2004, might be postponed due to hardware problems. This lethality demonstration had been scheduled for 2003, but by early 2002 had slipped to the first quarter of FY-05.

The first YAL-1A is known as the Block 2004 aircraft. This aircraft was designed as a prototype rather than an operational asset. Although it will have a limited lethal capability for contingencies, much of the support equipment to generate the chemical laser's fuel at forward bases is not expected to be available until around 2006.

The second ABL aircraft - dubbed the Block 2008 - will contain a more powerful laser, incorporate other hardware and software refinements and have the support infrastructure to operate at forward bases. The higher-than-expected power output of the laser modules may mean fewer will be needed on the aircraft than originally thought.

I assume 'Block 2008' means the second ABL will be around in 2008, if things go as planned.

Even with North Korea, you're talking about trolling a pair of big fat SAM fodder right over their own airspace.

[MKSheppard]

Even with North Korea, you're talking about trolling a pair of big fat SAM fodder right over their own airspace.

True, but then again, what SAM systems do they have? I mean, unless
of course, we're to believe that North Korean 85mm AA guns can reach
out and shoot down an ABL patrol dozens of miles away

[phongn]

I assume 'Block 2008' means the second ABL will be around in 2008, if things go as planned.

Probably, though they might try and move the schedule up. IIRC, they also want the 747-400 versus the 747-400F because of the extended"hump" section on the passenger edition (the freighter version not having it). That would obviate the need for the armored builkhead and laser tunnel.

Even with North Korea, you're talking about trolling a pair of big fat SAM fodder right over their own airspace.

Indeed, though it's possible that SEAD/DEAD assets can knock their IADS down enough to allow operation. A big if.

[Vympel]

True, but then again, what SAM systems do they have? I mean, unless
of course, we're to believe that North Korean 85mm AA guns can reach
out and shoot down an ABL patrol dozens of miles away

North Korea's SA-2s and SA-3s would be perfectly capable of downing a 747-400; unfortunately, they also have SA-5s- which are practically perfect for the job; it's maximum effective range of 250km is catered to large, unmaneuverable targets.

[MKSheppard]

North Korea's SA-2s and SA-3s would be perfectly capable of downing a 747-400; unfortunately, they also have SA-5s- which are practically perfect for the job; it's maximum effective range of 250km is catered to large, unmaneuverable targets.

Well shit, I stand corrected.

[Vympel]

Well shit, I stand corrected.

The solution is obvious. We need a B-2 ABL.

[MKSheppard]

The solution is obvious. We need a B-2 ABL.

No, we need a NASP ABL. We must not let others fall behind us in the
race to burn money!

[phongn]

Well shit, I stand corrected.

The solution is obvious. We need a B-2 ABL.

If you want to waste that much money, we can spend billions on a fleet of VentureStars armed with lasers and have so many we can have a dozen covering the Earth at any given time

[MKSheppard]

If you want to waste that much money, we can spend billions on a fleet of VentureStars armed with lasers and have so many we can have a dozen covering the Earth at any given time

Your fleet of venturestars pales before my fleet of mythical
National Aerospace Planes! Behold the Reagan 1980s!

[phongn]

If you want to waste that much money, we can spend billions on a fleet of VentureStars armed with lasers and have so many we can have a dozen covering the Earth at any given time

Your fleet of venturestars pales before my fleet of mythical
National Aerospace Planes! Behold the Reagan 1980s!

The NASP is equally as mythical as the VentureStar! Plus, mine can go ever faster!

/VentureStars in LEO shoot down the puny NASPs in suborbital runs.

[MKSheppard]

Explain to me how a thread on the US economy can go from that to
Ballistic Missile Defence, and then into a HABesque TGOD?

....Oh wait, it's ASVS...err..>SDN, never mind

[Sea Skimmer]

North Korea's SA-2s and SA-3s would be perfectly capable of downing a 747-400; unfortunately, they also have SA-5s- which are practically perfect for the job; it's maximum effective range of 250km is catered to large, unmaneuverable targets.

Vympel, the plane is armed with a laser capable of blowing mach 15 missiles out of the sky at 200 miles; it could simply shoot down an incoming SAM.

And we don't need a B-2 with a laser, we need equally powerful solid state laser on a stolen AN-225 which also carry's a nuclear reactor and has electrically powered turbines.

[MKSheppard]

And we don't need a B-2 with a laser, we need equally powerful solid state laser on a stolen AN-225 which also carry's a nuclear reactor and has electrically powered turbines.

No mention of the NBL-36?

[phongn]

No, we need to merge the abilities of the proposed E-10 and the YAL-1 into the ANB-36 to create one horridly expensive 'Flying Fortress.'

[Sea Skimmer]

No mention of the NBL-36?

I don't think it could haul the weight of both a reactor and the hugest possibul laser. But it could fly escort armed with multipul lesser lasers.