Political Crossfire Forums

[Rave against the Machine]

Well I know I feel safer now that this has happened. After all, most people in the world support and trust Bush...:) Also I don't think that a terrorist would try to blow up a US target by boat, by plane, by suitcase, or any other way. They will definetely do it by launching a ballistic missile... so I support the $419 Billion defense bill which doesn't include the so called "war on terror"..:)

[Placemat]

thundertaker wrote: I think the system is designed to protect against one or two missiles launched by a rogue state like North Korea. It wouldn't protect against a massive ICBM attack from Russia......

WHATS THE POINT THEN!!!! im sure all you American right wing taxpayers think its great :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your right Rave, even with this useless defence system people can just go into the country and blow it up from the inside.

[Windy]

thundertaker wrote: I think the system is designed to protect against one or two missiles launched by a rogue state like North Korea. It wouldn't protect against a massive ICBM attack from Russia......

What I read said the Russian new ICBM's can beat it anyone and any missile could out run and out turn the interceptors.

[learn to swim]

Windy wrote: thundertaker wrote: I think the system is designed to protect against one or two missiles launched by a rogue state like North Korea. It wouldn't protect against a massive ICBM attack from Russia......

What I read said the Russian new ICBM's can beat it anyone and any missile could out run and out turn the interceptors.

ICBM's don't "turn". The only way something is going to beat it is by being too fast to intercept. It is already a needle in a haystack deal which can miss on it's own due to the highly complex ordeal of hitting a missle with another missle so maybe Russia thinks they can beef up thier missles to make them out run the intercepter but I guess (hope) we will never know.

[Placemat]

Surely the detonation of an ICBM anywhere in the sky would cause destruction, at the very least the EMP would destroy all electronic equipment nearby. Or are ICBM's not nukes, im confused!

[learn to swim]

Placemat wrote: Surely the detonation of an ICBM anywhere in the sky would cause destruction, at the very least the EMP would destroy all electronic equipment nearby. Or are ICBM's not nukes, im confused!

ICBM is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. You can put whatever on the top of it.

If it is a nuke it doesn't matter if you shoot it down - it will not cause a detonation. A nuclear detonation is a very precise action that creates fission or fusion and both require an arming stage before they become "alive" which happens right before detonation or impact. Shooting them down would not create this.


Want to learn about nukes? I love this website:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm

[shi'jal]

Article taken from http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001409.html and Military.com



"

ANTI-MISSILE PASSES TEST AT SEA


We give the missile defense program a pretty hard time around here, especially when they don't even manage to pass their own dumbed-down tests. So give the Star Wars crowd some credit: one of their interceptors successfully downed a mock warhead on Thursday. It's "the fifth success in six such tests of the fledgling U.S. anti-missile shield's sea-based leg," according to Reuters. The ground-based component of the missile shield has, obviously, not performed nearly as well.

The target rocket was fired from the U.S. Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai, and was hit a few minutes later from a Standard Missile-3 interceptor fired from the USS Lake Erie guided missile cruiser. The ship used the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System to track the target. By year's end, the U.S. Navy wants 18 ships equipped with the system, Defense Daily notes.

"Last fall," Reuters observes, "the Japan-based Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Curtis Wilbur became the first component of the anti-missile shield to be put on patrol in the Sea of Japan to guard against North Korean attack."

Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's former chief of testing and evaluation and a normally vicious skeptic of the missile defense system, was muted in his reactions to yesterday's test. But he did have this to say:


I assume that the intercept took place so soon after interceptor launch - just two minutes - because they wanted to demonstrate the capability intercept a short range enemy missile, and at relatively close range from the launching Aegis ship. Depending on the actual geometry and conditions, such tests can be highly scripted to be successful on such a short time scale.

THERE'S MORE: Canada decided yesterday not to join in the American anti-missile effort. And that elicited a rather odd reponse from U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci: "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."

Right. Canada makes its own decisions about how best to spend its money and defend its citizens. And that means it's giving up its sovereignty. Whatever you say, Paul.

(thanks to RC for the pointer)

AND MORE: "What the U.S. Ambassador is saying is that the U.S. has arrogated to itself the right to invade Canada's airspace in order to fire at an incoming missile that may be aimed at Canada, the U.S., or Mexico, even if Canada objects to such an action," Defense Tech Dad Tom Shachtman says over on the forum. "This in effect negates Canadian sovereignty over its own airspace."

Jeff Quinton points out that a retired Canadian general has just made a similar point -- that, as Jeff puts it, "NORAD/Northern Command... are set up to provide security for the whole continent and that Canada could be shut out of the planning process."


"Canadians will not have any participation in the actual decision-making or the rules of engagement or anything to do with ballistic missile defence," lieutenant-general George MacDonald, the former vice-chief of defence staff and now a consultant, tells the National Post. "We will simply be feeding the system."

AND MORE: "Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada must be consulted before the U.S. decides to fire on missiles that enter Canadian airspace, despite Ottawa's refusal to participate in America's missile defence program," the CBC reports.

"I don't think that anyone expected that there would be any other finger on a button than the Americans," Martin said Friday, a day after his decision not to join the program.

"But in terms of Canadian airspace, yes we would expect to be consulted. This is our airspace. We're a sovereign nation. And you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," Martin said.

"

End of article

[Placemat]

learn to swim wrote:
ICBM is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. You can put whatever on the top of it.

If it is a nuke it doesn't matter if you shoot it down - it will not cause a detonation. A nuclear detonation is a very precise action that creates fission or fusion and both require an arming stage before they become "alive" which happens right before detonation or impact. Shooting them down would not create this.


Want to learn about nukes? I love this website:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm

Thanks for the info

[Rave against the Machine]

Placemat wrote: Like many Military projects, I'm guessing its overdue and over budget. Much like the canceled Comanche or the f22 raptor.

May i say you greatly underestimate north Korea, the fact they are linked to China is scarey.

Its over budget for sure...

The US is spending 419 billion this year on defence without including the wars on "terror". That's probably the amount that the rest of the world combined spends on military death and destruction. I feel safe that we can kill anyone in the world.

I don't think that is anything to be proud of though considering the heath care and retirement problems going on.

[Blackwolf]

learn to swim wrote: heathensaxon wrote: learn to swim wrote:

SUCCESS!


Not really, Canadian PM Martin, will not allow the U.S. to send missles screaming over their airspace, Says Canada is a sovereign nation and evidently neanderbush does not understand this concept, I suppose the neo-cons will want to invade Canada now. :lol:


Yes, good old Canada. Easy to talk tough about things when you have a big military right below you to protect you. Careful who you criticize, you may need to pick up the phone one day and ask for help.

We don't need the US to protect us. I don't see anyone burning/stomping on Canadian flags screaming down with Paul Martin on the nightly news. (i'd be surprised if they even know his name) Why would anyone want to come after us anyway?