Missile Defense - Fuck in the arse or good defense strategy?

[weemadando]

Australia's just signed on to the new Missile Defense plan put forward by Bush.

Now, here's a theoretical.

Assume that there are currently 10 active interceptor vehicles.

China launches 15 missiles.

11 at the US.

4 at Australia.


Now, seeing as this launch would likely have been detected by the monitoring station at Pine Gap in Australia. Australia will have been putting economic support into the program.

Would the US use any interceptors to help us? Or would all of them go to minimising damage over there?

I only ask, because, well - it seems like a fuck in the arse if we put time and effort into working with the US to build this thing and we never get any assistance from it?

[Howedar]

Where does your ten-interceptor assumption come from?

[weemadando]

Where does your ten-interceptor assumption come from?

Its a theoretical...

I could just have easily said 100 interceptors and 150 missiles.

Its a situation where there are more missiles than there are interceptors.

[Dark Hellion]

Well, sorry Aussies, but we are gonna save our own asses first. Then we will nuke the shit outta china, so don't feel to bad.
Thats the major problem with an Interceptor system, you have to have many more than the opponent has nukes, or it is only a mitigating factor, not a preventative one. If we could ever get it to work that is.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The U.S. interceptor fleet will almost certainly be greater than a Chinese missile volley.

[weemadando]

The U.S. interceptor fleet will almost certainly be greater than a Chinese missile volley.

You're missing the point...

[pellaeons_scion]

For starters Im trying to think of a reason why China would bother with nuking Australia...aside from Pinegap and a few other monitoring stations Ive come up with zip.

Personally I reckon we will get reamed. The missiles will fly, Oz begs the US to intercept, the US might do it..or might not. In the scheme of things though we are allies, I hardly think we are important enough to expend materiel that could be used to defend their homeland.

A sorry state of affairs but thats my 2c

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well what do you want me to say? Your hypothetical scenario doesn't make sense. U.S. Interceptors are not going to be able to peg ICBM or IRBMs heading Aussie-ward in the boost or post-boost phase.

Any interceptors which would ever help defend Aussieland would have to be based in Australia or bases or ships between you and China.

[Stuart Mackey]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

[weemadando]

Pretty much my feeling as well. We'll give our time, money and land to the project and when push comes to shove we'll be left standing naked in the middle.

[weemadando]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

Problem there is that the opposition parties (namely Greens) are saying that by installing interceptors here we're being naughty and breaking international law, destabilising the region, blah blah blah.

Like having goddamn US monitoring stations isn't doing that already...

[pellaeons_scion]

It would be nice if, as we contribute to the system, maybe we should get some of the equiment too? Isnt that what allies are supposed to do? Share resources and contribute to the defence and aid of the other?

[Stuart Mackey]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

Problem there is that the opposition parties (namely Greens) are saying that by installing interceptors here we're being naughty and breaking international law, destabilising the region, blah blah blah.

Like having goddamn US monitoring stations isn't doing that already...

Well I dont see Aussie as breaking international law by being involved, and if any other nation complains about a non nuluar nation having anti-nukes I would question their intentions towards Aussie.

[pellaeons_scion]

shit duplicate thought..sorry Stuart

[Illuminatus Primus]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

Problem there is that the opposition parties (namely Greens) are saying that by installing interceptors here we're being naughty and breaking international law, destabilising the region, blah blah blah.

Like having goddamn US monitoring stations isn't doing that already...

That's just the thing, U.S.-based interceptors won't have a choice to help defend Aussie or the U.S.--they won't be able to reliably hit boost phase ballistic missiles headed for Australia.

You guys need to have your own interceptor bases, or I guess you could pray and hope on maybe a ship-based interceptor or two might be between you and China.

[Stuart Mackey]

shit duplicate thought..sorry Stuart

Thats ok, I once put a cheese grater in the fridge for no apparent reason. Sometime the mind wanders into traffic.

[pellaeons_scion]

Neat My mind often does that...though never did the cheese grater thing..

Anyone got a link to this interceptor business? Id be interested to know how it works...and how much it will cost

[The Kernel]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

Problem there is that the opposition parties (namely Greens) are saying that by installing interceptors here we're being naughty and breaking international law, destabilising the region, blah blah blah.

Like having goddamn US monitoring stations isn't doing that already...

Wait a second. Did Australia even SIGN the ABM treaty?

[weemadando]

If Aussie contributes, then Aussie should have some of the interceptors in Aussie.

Problem there is that the opposition parties (namely Greens) are saying that by installing interceptors here we're being naughty and breaking international law, destabilising the region, blah blah blah.

Like having goddamn US monitoring stations isn't doing that already...

Wait a second. Did Australia even SIGN the ABM treaty?

Nope, but it doesn't stop the hippies from shouting.

[The Kernel]

Nope, but it doesn't stop the hippies from shouting.

What the hell do they shout? That they are violating a treaty they didn't sign? LOL, some people just don't get it.

[weemadando]

Nope, but it doesn't stop the hippies from shouting.

What the hell do they shout? That they are violating a treaty they didn't sign? LOL, some people just don't get it.

Its because, technically we are assisting the US in their violation of the treaty...

Hmmmm... Yes, US gets in all the trouble and we get all of the shiny tech.

BOW DOWN BEFORE YOUR AUSTRALIAN MASTERS PUNY WORMS!

[Stuart Mackey]

Nope, but it doesn't stop the hippies from shouting.

What the hell do they shout? That they are violating a treaty they didn't sign? LOL, some people just don't get it.

To much good stuff in the 60's.

[Knife]

Its because, technically we are assisting the US in their violation of the treaty...

Hmmmm... Yes, US gets in all the trouble and we get all of the shiny tech.

BOW DOWN BEFORE YOUR AUSTRALIAN MASTERS PUNY WORMS!

Umm, didn't the two signitories, the US and the former USSR, agree to scrap that treaty or tweak it to allow for SDI? How the hell can you be in violation of treaty when you didn't sign it or be in violoation of it when it was changed to allow for what your doing?

[Stuart Mackey]

Umm, didn't the two signitories, the US and the former USSR, agree to scrap that treaty or tweak it to allow for SDI? How the hell can you be in violation of treaty when you didn't sign it or be in violoation of it when it was changed to allow for what your doing?

Sill silly Knife.
Your first mistake was to assume that these type of protestors understand such logic.
Your seconed mistake was to assume that they can think.

[Vympel]

IMO, a waste of time and money- billions of dollars and creative energy better spent elsewhere.