Missile Defense

[Blubber]

We badly need Missile Defense, it's about time we stopped exposing our pink buttocks in the name of world peace, screw that, I don't want to be afraid the NK or Chinese are gonna go berserk and drop a nuclear tater on my fore head, I want something that will blow that shit out of the sky over Guam.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Agreed....

We badly need Missile Defense, it's about time we stopped exposing our pink buttocks in the name of world peace....

The whole agreement over not developing anti-ballistic missle tech was to appease the Chinese. They were then developing nukes that can hit the USA. They have an open agenda to overthrow the USA via military force by 2025. Their nukes was their bargaining chip to hold us back from using our nukes (MAD). If we develop this tech, they can't invade without risking being nuked with impunity.

Never agree to not produce defensive technology.

 

[manny78]

They used to have one back in the 70's but was only deployed in 2-3 areas cause of the Treaty. Just like the Russians had a bunch of ABM-1 near Moscow.

 

[~HOUNDOG~]

Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty last year. They are still testing and developing the ABM's as we speak. They are also going to the next phase,setting them up for active deployment in Alaska. There are also sea-based ABM's on Aegis Radar cruisers using a SM-3 missile. Those have not had one failure as opposed to the land based ones with have a 40% success rate.

 

[danielson]

Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty last year. They are still testing and developing the ABM's as we speak. They are also going to the next phase,setting them up for active deployment in Alaska. There are also sea-based ABM's on Aegis Radar cruisers using a SM-3 missile. Those have not had one failure as opposed to the land based ones with have a 40% success rate.

im assuming they require a close proximity to target

sounds like a good idea to park a few off the coast of okinawa

 

[~HOUNDOG~]

They need to base them in the south pacific for sure,they probably will too. The problem with the land based ABM missiles is that they destroy the warheads by kinetic energy. Like most SAM's or air-t-air missiles they get as close to the target as they can then blow up. But these ABM's actually have to hit the warheads as they are kinectic energy weapons and have no explosives in them. The other problem is distinguishing the warheads from decoys. The third is that these warheads are moving over 20,000 miles an hour. It's like hitting a fly from a 100 yards with a .22 .Quite a difficult task.

 

[manny78]

They need to base them in the south pacific for sure,they probably will too. The problem with the land based ABM missiles is that they destroy the warheads by kinetic energy. Like most SAM's or air-t-air missiles they get as close to the target as they can then blow up. But these ABM's actually have to hit the warheads as they are kinectic energy weapons and have no explosives in them. The other problem is distinguishing the warheads from decoys. The third is that these warheads are moving over 20,000 miles an hour. It's like hitting a fly from a 100 yards with a .22 .Quite a difficult task.

Not every ABM. The russian ABM-1 Galosh had a 1 MT nuke warhead, and the Nike Hercules too had a nuke warhead. It's the best solution to smoke these warheads.....

 

[~HOUNDOG~]

Well here's the problem with slapping nukes into the ABM missiles.
EMP. Electro magnetic pulse. It fries circuit boards and transistors,rendering alot of communication equipment and radars useless either temporary or permanently.