Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
You can get the original HERE Its the box high-right on the defenselink screen. Just click play.Burak Gazan wrote:Liveleak Video of Pentagon Briefing showing intercept From Drudge Report
Come on don't leave us hanging like that! What is the major point of attack then?Stuart wrote:However, what makes you think Moscow is a major point of attack? We're perfectly well aware its a strategic decoy. The only reason why we plan to shoot at it at all is you'd all be offended if we didn't.
That depends on the attack plan we adopted. But Moscow isn'ta very important target. Remember we were talking about missile sponges? Well, Moscow is a Russian one. Every missile that hits it is one that doesn't hit somewhere else.Kane Starkiller wrote: Come on don't leave us hanging like that! What is the major point of attack then?
But... it's already a few years since systems capable of rendering the entire ICBM force are in effect and that's it, the ICBM park, you can scrap that.ICBMs were great as long as people were prevented by treaty from developing defenses against them.
But it's already is!! If you have stuff like winged and naval missiles, with good guidance, on your cruisers everywhere in the Pacific and Atlantic, any ICBM threat is already obsolete. How many such missiles does the US have anyway? I'm sure it's in the range of hundreds or even thousands, thereby rendering any ICBM assault already futile.The real point of the system, right now, as is, is to put ICBMs out of business
There's already shitloads of cruisers with tactical missiles! Come one! NK will be in a full naval blockade in tensions, unless it's a sudden first strike (and why would they do that, for feelgood reasons?Do so and we nuke Manilla
) NK would be in a total blockade NOW. The European ABM, and all further ABM developments are ONLY aimed at other nuclear powers. There's already enough to successfully deter NK.
You mean the First World just becomes totally free to nuke people at will? Yeah, that's it. There was no other kind of "threat" before this whole shit started.
Technically that's correct but the numbers of ABMs deployed aren't adequate to achieve total elimination - yet. It'll be a few years before we achieve that goal.Stas Bush wrote:ICBM force are in effect and that's it, the ICBM park, you can scrap that.
But it's already is!! If you have stuff like winged and naval missiles, with good guidance, on your cruisers everywhere in the Pacific and Atlantic, any ICBM threat is already obsolete. How many such missiles does the US have anyway? I'm sure it's in the range of hundreds or even thousands, thereby rendering any ICBM assault already futile.[/quote]The real point of the system, right now, as is, is to put ICBMs out of business
Our AEGIS cruisers and destroyers? They have the radars certainly but SM-3s are in short supply at the moment.There's already shitloads of cruisers with tactical missiles!
Same reason as a cornered bank-robber grabs the nearest teller and shouts out "drop your guns or I'll kill her." Blackmail.Come one! NK will be in a full naval blockade in tensions, unless it's a sudden first strike (and why would they do that, for feel good reasons?
Not really, not yet. There will be soon.The European ABM, and all further ABM developments are ONLY aimed at other nuclear powers. There's already enough to successfully deter NK.
Of course. Somebody has to be the Top Dog and I'd rather it was us.So it's a shameless quest for nuclear supremacy, and only nuclear supremacy and nothing else.
We can push it right down at the lower end of the priority list. The population percentage isn't a factor, we never targeted populations per se. Only things we wanted to destroy. There's a huge oil refinery not far from you that was/is a much higher priority target than anything in the Moscow region.Moscow is an industrial hub and reserve C&C center with 10% of the population. You can't "not attack" that.
Altitude isn't the problem, not really. Its approach speed. ICBMs come in so fast that the missiles you quote (including S-400 if they ever get it working properly) can't accommodate it. S-200 and S-300 are fine against tactical ballistic missiles and the older IRBMs but not against modern ICBMs. So those missiles aren't really a factor we worry aboutBesides, there are S-200, S-300 complexes which, if what we know of altitude is true, are fine to take down ICBMs.
Not with the present generation of SAMs, no. They have a slight chance of a hit but its minimal. SAMs and ABMs are very different animals. ABMs are optimized to hit a target that is coming in very fast in a straight line. That means they are very fast and long-ranged but unmanoeuverable. SAMs are optimized to hit a manoeuvering target at much lower speeds, so they have lower speed, shorter range but are much more agile than ABMs. Push a SAM hard enough and it starts to move into ABM territory but an ABM can never do a SAMs job.Therefore, there's an additional protection layer - one so strong that you can technically boost up their deployment around crucial targets, making destruction a hard feat if possible at all.
The problem is there aren't enough of them. Yet.Stas Bush wrote:But... it's already a few years since systems capable of rendering the entire ICBM force are in effect and that's it, the ICBM park, you can scrap that.
So ICBMs are still credible......so far.As required by Section 223 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2004 (PL 108-136), the estimated production rate capacity of the facilities that will produce the
assets being fielded is one GBI per month, two SM-3s per month, three THAAD interceptors per
month, and two AN/TPY-2 radars per year
Each point has been throughly trashed with this emergency defensive operation.As most of you know, missile shield opponents have had a litany of defeatist talking points about the program since its inception as the Strategic Defense Initiative under Reagan:
1. Missile defense technology is unproven. It can never work. We suck.
2. OK, OK, even if you get it to "work" the "tests" are highly scripted. We always know the what, when, where, and how of every attempted shot. Scientific method? Shut up, scripter.
3. Oh and by the way, until you can prove it "works," we're not going to fully fund it. Figure that one out, rocket scientist.
4. So you somehow got it "working" with no "money" ---- big deal, doesn't matter. The threat is minimal, therefore the need to mitigate it isn't worth those billions. You're building a 21st century Maginot Line.
I have wondered about this claim. Isn't it obvious that once you know the location and velocity of a launched ICBM, its entire trajectory is scripted by gravity anyway?OK, OK, even if you get it to "work" the "tests" are highly scripted. We always know the what, when, where, and how of every attempted shot. Scientific method? Shut up, scripter.
Shhhh youSurlethe wrote:I have wondered about this claim. Isn't it obvious that once you know the location and velocity of a launched ICBM, its entire trajectory is scripted by gravity anyway?
That doesn't just mean "Top Dog". That means "I kill whomever I want, in whatever quantities I like, with whatever weapons I want to" and "but you all can't do shit".Somebody has to be the Top Dog and I'd rather it was us.
No, just deploy 1,000 A-135s in a crash program, negating the entire US ICBM/SLBM arsenal, and that tied in with the fact that it's just as hard for a US Manned bomber to penetrate the Sov...err Russia as it is for a Tu-95 to pnetrate CONUS...(hint, you still have tons of SAMs, while we dismantled continental air defence in the early 70s)Stas Bush wrote:As for blocking U.S. efforts, we must accelerate the development of ASAT with the capacity to destroy space-based ABM elements and start looking into the possibility of chemical/nuclear/bioterrorism as a both limited and last-case response.
You mean "deploy 1000 A-135-rigged exo(?)atmospheric missiles". That'd require making intermediate Comm centers and launch base in every major city. I'm pretty sure though that this is cheap enough, so if that will really solve the problem, either our scientists are complete idiots, or it's not the whole story.No, just deploy 1,000 A-135s in a crash program, negating the entire US ICBM/SLBM arsenal
Yeah, we do, because you have a hardon for bombing people into shit. Sorryand that tied in with the fact that it's just as hard for a US Manned bomber to penetrate the Sov...err Russia as it is for a Tu-95 to pnetrate CONUS...(hint, you still have tons of SAMs, while we dismantled continental air defence in the early 70s)
However the US has shitloads of interceptors. You could waste our entire Tu-95 fleet over the Pacific and that'd be it. We've been in that position before and you're still here. From the late 1940s to the early-mid 1960s we had a virtual monopoly of nuclear strike power. We could dump literally thousands of warheads on any target we chose and we would be very unlucky if the number we got back went far into single digits. Yet we didn't do it. The fact is that as Top Dog, we've been pretty benevolent all things considered. There's no reason why that should change. The problem is that somebody has to be Top Dog and if not us, who? I'd suggest that if you look at the historical record, the other people who've been in that position haven't been nearly so generous of spirit.Stas Bush wrote: That doesn't just mean "Top Dog". That means "I kill whomever I want, in whatever quantities I like, with whatever weapons I want to" and "but you all can't do shit".
Except this misses the point completely. It might be true if the US was the only country developing an ABM system but it isn't. ABM is a reality, its world-wide deployment is coming very fast and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Nations have two choices. They can be one of the nations with an ABM system or they can be one of the nations without an ABM system. The "nobody has an ABM system" option has long gone; it died in 1991 when Saddam Hussein fired Scuds at Israel.So in fact ABM is a real and huge danger to other nuclear powers, and Russia is right for screaming at US at every opportunity.
No, pointless. As I've said, ABM is a fact, nothing is going to change that. All Russia is doing is spitting in the wind; you should be working out how to use that wind for propulsion.The more diplomatic roadblocks we build to this system, the more free hands we and all weaker nations have. Very good.
The number I have is 36 x 51T6 "Gorgon" missiles and 64 53T6 "Gazelle" missiles (their nuclear warheads have been replaced by conventional ones by the way. That's not a bad force. It's a two-phase system with the 51T6s doing the long-range stuff and the 53T6s killing leakers.The whole A-135 arsenal as far as I know is made up from interceptors, the difference being the range of intercept, exo- versus endoatmospheric, exoatmospheric only number around 130.
You already have that with the 51T6; say again, ASAT and ABM are two sides of the same coin. However, you're still thinking old-style. ASAT and ABM are done deals, nothing is going to stop them. Here's a thought for you. If we don't deploy a missile screen, China, as sure as god made little green apples will. They demonstrated that capability when THEY shot down a satellite. Now, do you want China with its ambitions sitting on your Eastern border, secure behind a missile screen? Without us to checkmate them? Because that's where obstructing our ABM effort will lead.As for blocking U.S. efforts, we must accelerate the development of ASAT with the capacity to destroy space-based ABM elements
You might look at Iraq to see where that concept led.and start looking into the possibility of chemical/nuclear/bioterrorism as a both limited and last-case response.
Or, just possibly, has it occurred to you that going along with said Big Dog would be a much less expensive and dangerous approach. After all Big Dogs are notoriously lazy and if left alone go to sleep. The great art of dealing with a sleeping dog is to turn it over now and then so it doesn't get uncomfortable, dust it over with flea-powder so it doesn't wake up and let it dream on.I never thought I'd make a case for nuclear terrorism, but if there's a nation which can nuke anyone out of existence without the fear of unacceptable loss, other means of destroying this nation from the face of the earth should be devised.
Unfortunately, that has little to do with it. Another question. Do you want to face a Moslem world with nuclear weapons and protected by an ABM screen? Because they hate you almost as much as they hate us.I guess Islam just figured it out a little earlier - the disparity between US unilateral killing ability and theirs was too great already, so asymmetric warfare became the only way. Soon all other nations will figure that out. China, Russia, India - someone will look into that pond first.
Not so; there are 68 53T6 missiles, not 68 launchers with 16 per. If you had over a thousand of them, then you have a very capable ABM system already and this discussion would be moot. Even now, you have five times as many ABMs deployed as we do so your protests seem rather weak.On a side note, how did you figure that A-135 doesn't have 1200 missiles when it seems to have that - 16 SH-08 per launcher, 68 launchers? That aren't SAMs, that are ABMs and there's 68 launchers which house a total of 1088 missiles.
Pretty much. Russia isn't short of cash and has a system that works so now's the time to expand it. There's a need for a longer range interceptor as well but that's a future detail. Between them 51T6 and 53T6 are a very worthwhile investment.Stas Bush wrote:So technically we don't need to make anything but city SH-08 launchers and maybe another few hundred missiles. Spread them out from Moscow to the cities and you have a total protection system without much costs. Or so it seems.
I think the terrorism committed by Chechen separatists has proven that the US is NOT the only nation Islamic terrorists want to wipe off the face of the Earth.Stas Bush wrote:I never thought I'd make a case for nuclear terrorism, but if there's a nation which can nuke anyone out of existence without the fear of unacceptable loss, other means of destroying this nation from the face of the earth should be devised.
China is developing asymmetric warfare tactics in case of a war with the US, but they also have to deal with separatists committing terrorism-- as you stated, an asymmetric warfare tactic-- in Xinjiang. Russia had/is having problems with Chechen terrorists. India still views the Islamic world-- not just Pakistan, but Islamic separatists in India itself-- as a threat. Overall, those nations are in the same boat as the US, busy defending themselves against enemies that wage asymmetric warfare.I guess Islam just figured it out a little earlier - the disparity between US unilateral killing ability and theirs was too great already, so asymmetric warfare became the only way. Soon all other nations will figure that out. China, Russia, India - someone will look into that pond first.
If Russia could snatch up nuclear supremacy it would do so at the first opportunity. The world's better off with nuclear supremacy resting in the hands of a relatively liberal and progressive democracy, especially if the other choice is a backwards authoritarian expansionist shithole like Russia.So in fact ABM is a real and huge danger to other nuclear powers, and Russia is right for screaming at US at every opportunity.
Your Iraqi performance does not inspire confidence however.HemlockGrey wrote:If Russia could snatch up nuclear supremacy it would do so at the first opportunity. The world's better off with nuclear supremacy resting in the hands of a relatively liberal and progressive democracy, especially if the other choice is a backwards authoritarian expansionist shithole like Russia.So in fact ABM is a real and huge danger to other nuclear powers, and Russia is right for screaming at US at every opportunity.
Really? Why is that? In 1985, the common view was that the USSR will remain in it's stable stagnative expansion phase. People didn't see shit like the new U.S. wars coming either. Please understand - if the US can nuke Iran, so can it do the same to Russia. To any country. Just a hint of threat or desperation, and things can easily take this turn.Stuart wrote:We've been in that position before and you're still here. ... There's no reason why that should change.
No, it doesn't miss the point - this is a dangerous new realty, where one country can kill everyone else fearing nothing.Stuart wrote:Except this misses the point completely. It might be true if the US was the only country developing an ABM system but it isn't.
However, we need to stick as many needles into the US as we can, at every point. Why not? The US has already developed all the required elements. However, preventing their spread only takes words and political scheming, so why not do it? It costs nothing after all.Stuart wrote:Russian government policy should be based around accepting that ICBMs are a thing of the past and deciding what system or systems are best-suited to a post ICBM environment.
Judging by your comments, it was clear to all in the field since 1960s that the missiles could be made useless easily. The current government clearly cannot be oblivious to that. As I said, it's then a huge lapse of judgement which has been going on for dozens of years. Especially as we have stockpiles of interceptors and the hardware to use them right there.Stuart wrote:The trouble is that the Russian government decided to invest its resources in a dying technology and now realizes its mistake.
Uh... shooting China's space based shit is simpler than yours? After all, nuking the shit out of China is a task far more simple than out of you. The weaker nations need a lead time to hinder every US progress but at the same time improve their own ABMs, ASATs and attack weapons.Stuart wrote:ASAT and ABM are done deals, nothing is going to stop them. Here's a thought for you. If we don't deploy a missile screen, China, as sure as god made little green apples will. They demonstrated that capability when THEY shot down a satellite.
Sorry, but that means the entire world is in U.S. servitude and does everything not to anger the spoiled, resource-hungry brat with a huge nuclear stick (which is what the US is). I doubt that sits well with the concept of, uh... sovereignlity. Independence. All that international politics stuff.Stuart wrote:Or, just possibly, has it occurred to you that going along with said Big Dog would be a much less expensive and dangerous approach. After all Big Dogs are notoriously lazy and if left alone go to sleep. The great art of dealing with a sleeping dog is to turn it over now and then so it doesn't get uncomfortable, dust it over with flea-powder so it doesn't wake up and let it dream on.
I didn't say we should count on the non-reliable fundies from the "Muslim world". I said "terrorism". Want examples? US-based GRU sleeper cell which is ordered to wipe out your nation with handheld nukes. No Muslims. Our guys being terrorists.Stuart wrote:Do you want to face a Moslem world with nuclear weapons and protected by an ABM screen? Because they hate you almost as much as they hate us.
Ah. Then we need a thousand production run.Stuart wrote:Not so; there are 68 53T6 missiles, not 68 launchers with 16 per.
It does. I'm sure that's pretty much important, that's why there was a capital refurbishing and increase battle readiness done for the A-135 in 2002. However, we still need the ability to kill anyone who dares.Stuart wrote:Personally, if I were running Russian today, I'd be expanding that ABM system to cover major population centers plus develop a new longer-range ABM to provide anti-MIRV coverage. [...] Now doesn't that make more sense?
Russia never had a nuclear supermacy. Quite likely never will. What do you fear? That the US won't have it?HemlockGrey wrote:If Russia could snatch up nuclear supremacy it would do so at the first opportunity.
The world is better with nuclear supermacy not existing.HemlockGrey wrote:The world's better off with nuclear supremacy resting in the hands of a relatively liberal and progressive democracy
You make the same assumption as Stuart, a false one - that terrorists=Muslims. That's wrong. A terrorist is just a tool of assymetrical warfare. A special service can engage in assymmetrical warfare and terror. As I said, Russian GRU sleepers with small nuclear devices would be a good enough device to wipe out a nuclear-supremacy capable nation in case of a strike.Sidewinder wrote:I think the terrorism committed by Chechen separatists has proven that the US is NOT the only nation Islamic terrorists want to wipe off the face of the Earth.
Now, that's kind of stupid. "They have enemies who use asymmetrical warfare, so god forbid they use asymmetrical warfare too!". That doesn't follow. Back when nukes were the big thing, if you faced a nuclear opponent, the reasonable thing would be to have your own nukes to wipe him out. Here, you have a new tactic and why not use it? Because your enemy uses it? By that logic the USSR should've never procurd nukes because the US used themSidewinder wrote:Overall, those nations are in the same boat as the US, busy defending themselves against enemies that wage asymmetric warfare.
Do you know why we didn't do it? It's because we already had the ability to beat the Soviet Union without engaging in a nuclear pissing match, we already knew exactly how you were going to lose in 1949 thanks to George Kennan.
