No. Korea nuclear missile threat

A lot of that will depend on where the missile is launched, and what it's target is. And also how much warning we have and our current defensive posture.

We actually have some damned effective ICBM defense systems. The ones in Alaska (which is still a test unit), THAAD, and AEGIS class ships with SM-3 have all been proven to destroy ICBMs (and PATRIOT to a lesser extent). But they all have to be in the right place at the right time to be of any use.

5 AEGIS ships in San Diego will be of absolutely no use if some nation decides to nuke Baghdad by the Bay. And THAAD is ground mobile and can be set up in hours. But with the only active units based in El Paso, they require days of advance warning to be moved into position.

Primarily we are not ready because with a single exception in Alaska, all of our units are mobile and none of them set up to actively defend the country. But with sufficient warning, this could rapidly change.

Myself, I wish that we would get a bit more serious, and set up something like AEGIS Ashore outside of key coastal cities.

 

Slight correction here.

The SM-3 is not limited to TICO cruisers. All Class II and IIA Arleigh Burke class Destroyers can also SM-2 or SM-3 (15 currently capable of SM-3, all II capable of SM-2) ABM weapons. And all future IIA and III ships will have full SM-3 capabilities.

And remember, ships are mobile so to be effective they have to be in the right location to even attempt an intercept. That is why I am hoping our next President will get serious about installing at least some AEGIS Ashore systems in the US.

Even if they are not permanently manned and placed in stand-by mode most of the time. Being able to activate them by simply bring in some personnel would be a huge deterrent.

 

The Burke Destroyers mostly carry the SM-2's and yes they have the SM-3's but unless a Cruiser is out of position for the launch I am fairly certain the Cruiser is going to be the vessel that takes the shot.

AA

 

Obviously we would take the shot from a Navy Craft but if necessary we do have ABM's carried by F-15's air launched versions which are based in Alaska as well as we have ground based ABM's as well if they were needed but in this case we would most likely use SM-3's that are ship based.

AA

 

But at this time, we only have 22 TICOs. And within a decade unless there is a major change, we will only have 11.

And in 20 years, we will have no TICOs in service. And as of this time, we have absolutely no plans for any replacements, either an upgraded TICO or any kind of replacement ship.

You can not make any kind of long term plans based on the cruisers, so you have to make them with Destroyers.

Sorry, there are no F-15 ABM weapons.

You must be thinking of the ASM-135, a Reagan era test program to place an anti-satellite missile onto the F-15. That program was cancelled in 1988.

Only 15 missiles were built, 5 were tested, and the other 10 were destroyed long ago. All that remains are 2 of the inert simulator models.

They were never designed for or tested against ABMs, and it is a 30 year dead program anyways.

 

Your thinking of the old ASM-135 and the variants of.

The US Air Force Boeing F-15 successfully shot down a satellite in 1985 using the short-lived ASM-135 anti-satellite missile.

There are two existing versions of ALABM's which can also shoot down satellites as both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon developed variations of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.

08 APRIL, 2008 SOURCE: FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC
The US military has begun talks with contractors to potentially acquire, after 2010, the first air-launched weapon for shooting down ballistic missiles, say industry officials.

The two possible competitors - Lockheed Martin and Raytheon - are proposing variations of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, respectively.

As well as intercepting ballistic missiles, either weapon may offer military planners the first air-launched missile capable of reaching the edge of space since a US Air Force Boeing F-15 successfully shot down a satellite in 1985 using the short-lived ASM-135 anti-satellite missile. Both contractors are nearing the end of a three-year demonstration period funded by Congressional budget "plus-ups".

Raytheon's version is dubbed the Network-Centric Air Defense Element or (NCADE).

Raytheon delivered 20 NCADE weapons to the US Missile Defense Agency back in 2013.

The Lockheed Martin version is classified but is said to exist in good numbers.

The reason this is not widely known is because of the issues the development of such highly accurate and long range ALABM's would cause given Russia is angry we have accelerated the development of our Missile Defense Shield to such an extent and of course when the FEL's start being deployed in the 2020's it will allow the U.S. Military unparalleled missile defense capabilities.

AA

 

Which is still a test program under development, and has yet to be tested.

I count on absolutely no weapon system until it is in the preliminary deployment phase. Because basically unless it is in the deployment phase, it does not exist.

Kind of like MEADS and PAAC-4. Yes, we have functional MEADS launchers, and some parts of PAAC-4 have been completed in a test environment. But until they are placed into the hands of the military they are nothing more then a few pieces of equipment.

Kinda like the M247 Sergeant York. 50 vehicles produced, the project was killed without even a single Provisional Test Battery activated.

And when I first joined ADA in 2007, we were expecting to see provisional Air Defense Battalions by 2015 with a combination of AVENGER, THAAD, PATRIOT, and MEADS.

We are now 10 years later. No MEADS, only 2 Provisional THAAD Batteries, and no expectation of when they will (if ever) be fully integrated into active ADA Battalions.

This is why I never count systems in proposal or development, only what is fielded.

 

I am aware of an existing ALAMB system that is deployed granted on a limited basis but still deployed.

AA

 

There is no such thing as a "suitcase nuke". The closest thing in real life is a SADM, a special atomic demolition munition. And they are any but "easily carried". US Army SADM's weighed nearly 300 pounds and required a team of three to manpack them in big ass backpacks.

 

Exactly what ABM weapons are carried by F-15's?

 

Suppose suitcase nukes are around, the military and politicians wouldn't admit it so's not to alarm the masses..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

 

Thank you for providing that link. If you bothered to read it, you would find it confirms exactly what I said: suitcase nukes don't exist. The closest you get are SADM's which are not easily carried. They are in multiple parts that have to be assembled and weigh hundreds of pounds.

 

This one looks easily carryable..-

 

More likely to be something like this -

 

2000 of these baby rocket-fired nukes were made in the cold war. I'm sure terror groups today woul lurv to get their hands on some.
They could even dispense with the rocket launcher and either carry the warhead around in a backpack or on the back seat of a car-

 

Yeah, that's not real.

- - - Updated - - -

The Davy Crocket's were decommissioned and their warheads disassembled. Kind of hard for terrorists to get their hands on a weapon that doesn't exist.

 

Nuke technology has come a long way since the old Crocketts..
For example a terror team could land by rubber boats from a sub or innocent-looking merchant ship, each of them carrying a bit of a nuke bomb, then hop on trains and buses to meet up in a target city and reassemble it, set its timer then skedaddle back to the sub pickup point.
It's not a new idea, the nazis were landing saboteur teams on American soil from U-Boats in WW2 with conventional weapons and explosives (google 'Operation Pastorius') and I'm surprised hollywood hasn't got around to doing a film about it (as far as I know)-

"U-boats dropped the men off the beaches of Long Island and Florida at the height of the Second World War.
The first group of four men - carrying armfuls of weapons, explosives and primers - came ashore near Manhattan on June 13, 1942"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...landed-saboteurs-U-S-coast.html#ixzz4WaqQSaAs

 

Where exactly are they going to get this "bit of a nuclear bomb"?

 

A bit here, a bit there, then they'll assemble the components like a model kit..

 

Considering Iran has never given WMDs to terrorists, what evidence do you have that they would give terrorists nuclear components, especially given that nuclear materials are traceable to the reactor that produced them?

 

Nuclear materials can "accidentally" get "lost" and end up in terrorists hands..
But let's not get sidetracked into thinking nukes are the only WMD's around. For example a few flasks of bio/chem stuff poured into a country's water supplies could kill millions..

 

And Iran has never given biological or chemical weapons to terrorists, even though they've had both for decades. So why would they give terrorists nuclear materials?

 

Because all muslims are each other's chums..

 

So then why haven't they given chemical or biological weapons to terrorists?

 

How do you know they already haven't?
For example see my post #71 above, why do you think muslim "chemical engineers" were trespassing at an American reservoir?