Russian tanks enter South Ossetia

[g0dsend]

Its not like 10 interceptors can withhold the Russian fleet of nukes. I mean look at it this way, instead of destroying the United States 100 times over, they have to settle with 99 times.

Yeah sure the defense system is not 100% fool proof, but its better then no system.

[Kärnfysikern]

Its not like 10 interceptors can withhold the Russian fleet of nukes. I mean look at it this way, instead of destroying the United States 100 times over, they have to settle with 99 times.

Yeah sure the defense system is not 100% fool proof, but its better then no system.

In what way is it better than no system? Even if it works and there is a nuclear war nothing will be left. Its not unreasonable to think that the shield would acctualy make things worse, because if the shield is present russia would go for a real overkill and use more nukes than needed just to be safe.

When it comes to countries like Iran it seems unlikely they would try to strike with ICBM's anyway, smuggling a nuke in a container ship would be much easier.

The only thing the missile shield is doing right now is increasing the risk of conflict.

[g0dsend]

In what way is it better than no system? Even if it works and there is a nuclear war nothing will be left. Its not unreasonable to think that the shield would acctualy make things worse, because if the shield is present russia would go for a real overkill and use more nukes than needed just to be safe.

When it comes to countries like Iran it seems unlikely they would try to strike with ICBM's anyway, smuggling a nuke in a container ship would be much easier.

The only thing the missile shield is doing right now is increasing the risk of conflict.

Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's. By no means would it make any difference with an all out war with Russia. With a nuclear strike coming from Russia, its not like 10 interceptors is going to change the outcome, the outcome is total annihilation no matter what. An "overkill" is expected no matter what from Russia, Russia is about to get destroyed and so is the United States.

Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.

[Panzerfaust]

Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's. By no means would it make any difference with an all out war with Russia. With a nuclear strike coming from Russia, its not like 10 interceptors is going to change the outcome, the outcome is total annihilation no matter what. An "overkill" is expected no matter what from Russia, Russia is about to get destroyed and so is the United States.

Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.

LMAO @ Iran being a threat to the USA. Stop watching the news man, they have you believing their bullshit. The US is doing nothing more than nation building and Iran does not care for it hence the reason the US calls them a "threat".

[g0dsend]

LMAO @ Iran being a threat to the USA. Stop watching the news man, they have you believing their bullshit. The US is doing nothing more than nation building and Iran does not care for it hence the reason the US calls them a "threat".

What do you suggest the United States do? Scrap the missile defense program because of you believe that Iran isn't a threat, take the chance at having no defense and hope that you were right? As I say again, their are reports of Iran having the capability of having ICBMs by 2015 according to the European Missile Defense to strike the United States and allies. You can believe what ever you want to believe, but I rather be protected then sorry.

Lets say North Korea starts becoming hostile again and sets off another nuke but this time has the ability to attach the warhead onto a long range missile, we have very LITTLE protection, only our PAC-3 and Aegis systems to defend in the mid/terminal phase of decent.

[Kärnfysikern]

Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's.

There are plenty of things Iran needs to do before that. First they need to make a couple of nukes, then they have to trim the design of the nukes enough to fit on a ICBM. Probably not possible without some tests, after that they need to develop a ICBM. Got a link to the repport Im curious to skim through it!

If minimizing risk is the goal, then border and harbo controll gives alot more bang for the buck. If a missile shield is present and iran wants to nuke the us they have plenty of easier options than to launch a icbm.

But the bigger question is, why would they launch agains the US knowing they would die imidietly afterwards. I cant say I have ever seen any indication that the ayatholla is insane. Ahmadinejad has a very big mouth, but he is just a puppet anyway.

Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.

Developing increasingly effective shields is dangerous other reasons aswell.

If any major power in the future where ever able to build a close to perfect shield with say 99% sucess rate, then it would make conventional large scale war betwen major powers a option again. I personaly prefer MAD over that. MAD has prevented war for 60 years.

One more danger is that it would be a hinder for further dismantling of nuclear weapons. If the US developes a shield, russia will certainly not dismantled their nukes down to the level of a couple of hundred. They will keep thousands just in case and if russia keeps thousands so will the US. We really dont need more roadblocks in dismantling nuclear weapons, anything that encourages the us and russia to keep more than a couple of hundred nukes each is bad in the long run.

But worst of all, it would encourage opponets to do a first strike, right now russia and I guess even china has enough nukes that they can take out all large cities in the us in a retaliation even if the us manages to take out a big chunk of the launch sites. If the us had a semi working missile shield russia or china would no longer be sure a second strike is enough. If we ever get into a cuban missile crisis situation again the first strike option would look all the more inevitable.

And its also almost always easier to make a better weapon than a better defence.

Lets say North Korea starts becoming hostile again and sets off another nuke but this time has the ability to attach the warhead onto a long range missile, we have very LITTLE protection, only our PAC-3 and Aegis systems to defend in the mid/terminal phase of decent.

There is a world of difference though betwen beeing able to build a crude bomb and building nice warheads. N.korea cant even make a proper crude bomb. They are a long way from making functional nuclear tipped ICBM's.

[g0dsend]

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
There are plenty of things Iran needs to do before that. First they need to make a couple of nukes, then they have to trim the design of the nukes enough to fit on a ICBM. Probably not possible without some tests, after that they need to develop a ICBM. Got a link to the repport Im curious to skim through it!

If minimizing risk is the goal, then border and harbo controll gives alot more bang for the buck. If a missile shield is present and iran wants to nuke the us they have plenty of easier options than to launch a icbm.

But the bigger question is, why would they launch agains the US knowing they would die imidietly afterwards. I cant say I have ever seen any indication that the ayatholla is insane. Ahmadinejad has a very big mouth, but he is just a puppet anyway..

Of course, theirs no doubt about that. Hand in hand, the United States needs to do the same exact things regarding their missile defenses. Don't you think it would be more logical to have a defense system protecting America first and be ongoing development so when Iran or any other state builds an ICBM, we are not playing a game of catch up? Or should we wait till they have a missile, be 100% sure, start progress to a defense system, wait 10,20, maby 30 years for the shield to be operational? We need to build a shield for the upcoming threat. Iran may not be a threat today, but it sure might as hell be in the close future.

Their are ways to nuke the United States which is sometimes easier then ICBMS, but nukes that can fit inside a suitcase are a matter of fiction, nuclear devices are hefty pieces of equipment especially for nations that just acquired them and I'm sure customs are really restricting their level of detection post 9/11. It requires protection from customs and missiles.

Why would Iran launch against the United States knowing that they would get destroyed? Do you think Bin Laden thought the United States wasn't going to retaliate after killing more then 3,000 Americans on US soil? Take for example North Korea, Kim Jong-il would sacrifice his whole country to make a devastating blow to the United States, nobody can put themselves into their shoes.

On the other hand it also doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to use it, its more an political tool and buffer to get things that they want.

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
Developing increasingly effective shields is dangerous other reasons aswell.

If any major power in the future where ever able to build a close to perfect shield with say 99% sucess rate, then it would make conventional large scale war betwen major powers a option again. I personaly prefer MAD over that. MAD has prevented war for 60 years.

One more danger is that it would be a hinder for further dismantling of nuclear weapons. If the US developes a shield, russia will certainly not dismantled their nukes down to the level of a couple of hundred. They will keep thousands just in case and if russia keeps thousands so will the US. We really dont need more roadblocks in dismantling nuclear weapons, anything that encourages the us and russia to keep more than a couple of hundred nukes each is bad in the long run.

But worst of all, it would encourage opponets to do a first strike, right now russia and I guess even china has enough nukes that they can take out all large cities in the us in a retaliation even if the us manages to take out a big chunk of the launch sites. If the us had a semi working missile shield russia or china would no longer be sure a second strike is enough. If we ever get into a cuban missile crisis situation again the first strike option would look all the more inevitable.

And its also almost always easier to make a better weapon than a better defence..

Developing effective shields is dangerous in a way, and I really do urge the dismantling of Nuclear Weapons but other countries are not in the same boat, they are doing the complete opposite.

Sure the missile defense system of the future would not work against Russia, its more made for Tier II and Tier III nuclear capability countries which have a higher probablity to attacking us. You cannot think that one system is going to defend against Russia and providing the United States with 100% immunity. Its going to take time and MANY systems to even provide a chance against Russia, if any.

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
There is a world of difference though betwen beeing able to build a crude bomb and building nice warheads. N.korea cant even make a proper crude bomb. They are a long way from making functional nuclear tipped ICBM's.

The United States is a long way from creating an effective missile defense system too. Would you rather be prepared or playing catchup?