US shoots down ICBM

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Mrbsct, May 30, 2017.

  1. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Russia dropped the treaty after we dropped the ABM treaty.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  2. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Well, maybe for awhile.

     
  3. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What this and other threads keep pointing out, intentionally or not, is we are going to have to increase our forward deployments and and adopt a first strike doctrine, period. This isn't a hollywood western fantasy, where the combatants meet at high noon and the good guy always shoots last and wins. If people want to whine about the costs of that then do what Singapore did some 60 years ago and clean up our own house, clean out the corruption in government contracts and Congress, etc., and not just in Washington, also in every statehouse in the country. If it can be done in an Asian state it certainly can be done here. Singapore's economy grew massively relative to what it was in just a few decades as a result, and it has one of the better education systems on the planet. Anybody who has done business with their companies and government always comes away impressed and not having to worry about whether or not they will hold their ends of any agreement, small or large businesses, or any level of bureaucrat.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  4. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    US already has a first-strike doctrine. It's called counterforce. The problem is with China and Russia they have mobile-ICBMs and submarines. You can't get all their nukes.
     
  5. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looking at our forward deployments, it exists mostly on paper. More forward deployments closer to their borders makes their mobile systems useless and not worth the logistics effort it takes to keep them mobile; they aren't going to protect the homeland one iota. This also largely reduces the numbers that do get off the ground and have to be intercepted by us, reducing our problems by a lot.

    We don't see Hamas and the PLO launching nearly as many rocket attacks at Israel any more. That's because of their defense upgrades, and South Korea is also implementing a system even better. Neither would work as well if they were a thousand miles away or more.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  6. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There is no way to kill all their nukes in a single strike. Russian subs have usually 1-2 subs at sea. The only chance is to hit enough, and hope missile defense can take on the remaining arsenal. Just 5 warheads getting through is enough to KO' US economy for good. The Russians also have a stealth submarine known as Status-6 which is a Dr. Strangelove device which explodes in the water, sending nuclear fallout filled with Colbalt(which last around 100 years) on enemy coasts. The only way to defeat such weapon is to kill the submarine before it reaches US coasts with a good sonar system. That or have a really good cleanup crew to scrape the radiation off our coastal cities.

    Btw, Mobile ICBMs can be easily hidden in woods where sattelites are impossible to find them.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  7. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never said there was; what I said was we can knock out more than enough that they can't overwhelm our interception capabilities. that includes those fired from subs if most of the land-based strategic missiles are dead on the ground.

    Subs are irreleavant if the homeland disappears; they are useless to them.

    I know most of this already, been at this for a long time. Doesn't matter where they are hidden, they are detectable by several methods, and enough systems deployed close to Russian borders will render them useless as well, for the same reasons stated above.
     
  8. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's my point. Knock out enough. No shield is without a sword.

    However, it is not a flexible method. We dream of a system that we can use without using our nukes.
     
  9. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is why we can never have a full SDI system. Our enemies are never going to accept a balance of power where we can nuke them with impunity and negate their retaliatory ability.
     
  10. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    As I said. Nobody is going to nuke someone because they have a missile defense system that you have no idea it will work.

    If US builds 3000 interceptors and puts hundreds of radars up tommorow, Russia and China isn't going to attack us. Nobody is that irrational.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    Strasser likes this.
  11. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When we show a high enough level of accuracy with those interceptors and start building enough of them so as to threaten Chinese or Russian deterrence, they may very well begin attacking us with conventional forces which may well rapidly result in nuclear exchanges.

    Nobody is going to allow an enemy the power the nuke them at will and just trust that they won't.
     
  12. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A good test, but we have a long way to go in attaining a consistently accurate missle defense system.
     
  13. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Coventional force battles historically never resulted in nukes being fired except WWII with Japan. If we Russia and China in a conventional battle, unless we really threaten their way of life, ICBMs are not going to fly. Tactical nukes maybe, but the US controls the air and current missile systems already can take on that.
    The US won't nuke Russia and China. Walmart and the oil flowing in the EU is enough to ensure that. A missile defense ensures Russia and China backs down on Ukraine/South China sea.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  14. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's never been a major conventional war between nuclear armed opponents so you can say they won't result in nukes being fired.

    The existence of a full NMD system DOES threaten other's way of life just by existing.

    Also, there is no barrier to stop the cycle of escalation that tactical nuclear warfare begins.
     
  15. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense. Nothing they can do about it, and besides, they've developed methods of using proxies to to do their dirty work precisely because of the nuke options and superior conventional forces; according to your theory, they would have launched their nukes as soon as we pulled ahead of them on either nukes or conventional arms. They didn't then, and they won't when faced with a neutralization of their missile systems. That's a theory that has already been definitively proven false.
     
  16. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yes there has.
    Kagril War was a conventional war. Sino-Border dispute in the 60s was also a war(where hundreds died). Korean War there were Soviets fighting there. Same with Vietnam where we killed around 4,000 Chinese soldiers. Having nuclear weapons superiority doesn't mean we are going to use it. Developed nations are are not that sick.

    As long as China and Russia don't start stuff, we won't build it. We are not going to build ABM now, but if our enemies keep on pressing a "peaceful co-existence" by threatening our allies and our interests, war is the only option, even a nuclear war.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    Strasser likes this.
  17. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    US pulling ahead of them in nukes or convention arms never negated their nuclear deterrent.

    If China developed a system that made them totally immune to our nuclear forces while they themselves could choose to nuke us with impunity, do you think we'd be cool with just saying "I guess we'll have to just trust that the Chinese won't nuke us."?
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Kargil War was a border dispute, the Sino-Soviet Border Dispute was a (guess what?) border dispute, and the Soviets were barely a nuclear power by the time of Korea, not to mention their involvement was extremely limited.

    There has never been a major conventional war between two nuclear armed adversaries.

    If China developed a system that made them totally immune to our nuclear forces while they themselves could choose to nuke us with impunity, do you think we'd be cool with just saying "I guess we'll have to just trust that the Chinese won't nuke us."?
     
  19. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    ICBMs and strategic nuclear weapons are a last resort. If you really think they deter war....why do superpowers invest in conventional forces?

    Your right, border disputes. Nobody is trying to conquer Russia and China. The likely combat zone in the future is in Eastern Europe, the Middle East along with the South China sea. An ICBM defense is mainly for a irrational North Korea who cannot deal with regime chance if we ever decide to attack Pyongyang. ICBM defense against Russia and China may give a limited exchange so advantages(for example if they were to attack our military bases at home)

    No. If China invested in an ABM we would likely either invest in ABM or build more nukes. Russia is building S-500....Are we nuking them?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    Strasser likes this.
  20. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It most certainly dampened their expansionist fantasies, both the SU's and Red China's. It does so to this day. Their 'nuclear deterrent' never existed; there was nobody to 'deter', despite all the silly rhetoric about the U.S. being some sort of 'Evul Empire' nonsense put out by idiots. Too many Star Wars movies on the brain doesn't make for a grasp on reality.

    Not likely, unless American corporations give them the technology; that certainly is a possibility given how much they love the labor racketeering they created their 'globalism' euphemism to fool the gullible with, but some of them are having second thoughts about that sort of mindlessness.
     
  21. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If US nuclear superiority without retaliation was ever a thing...the US would simply nuke the Soviet Union into oblivion during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember the Soviet Union in 1960 only had what....7 ICBMs? A first strike turning Cuba in a Reef followed by a coordinated ICBM and bomber campaign ends Moscow. Boom one superpower in the world.

    No US government official or general is that sick in the mind.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  22. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given Russia's current failed state status, it's not likely most of their nukes are even operational anyway. There used to be a lot of threads about Russia's 'mighty armored force', claims of '25,000 to 30,000 tanks!' filled the boards. Too bad most of them are mothballed, no funds or fuel for maintaining them in the field, and they're lucky to have 4,000 at the most at their disposal. McCain is right about them in some respects, they really are just a gas station pretending to be a super power, reducing to pathetically bullying little tiny countries on their borders.
     
    Mrbsct likes this.

Share This Page