The Great Missle Defence Plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MACDRIVE, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #1
    Guardian

    I don't get it. If Bush is so adamant about not allowing Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon, then why is he already planning on Iran having ICBM's?

    Vladimir Putin on the other hand, is thinking the U.S. is planning a sneak attack from their back yard. If we wanted to attack Russia, wouldn't we just send the ICBM's over Alaska?
     
  2. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #2
    the thing with the rocket defense shield is that if the bush adminsitration wanted to protect the US from rockets from iran placing defense measurements in poland, etc don't really make sense since it's not really close to being in the flight path

    unless of course the actual plan involves "protection" against russia


    i found it ridiculous that just a few years after the cold war has settled, because of stupid ideas (like this rocket shield which very likely wouldn't work anyways) it's started again because that's what this stupid thing is going to cause


    edit: i just found an actual interview with putin from the german paper Spiegel talkign about the current issues:(in english)
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486345,00.html
    i have to read it too first
     
  3. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #3
    Another thing I can't figure out: if Putin says he has missiles that can penetrate any kind of missile defence shield, then what the hell is he worried about? :confused:
     
  4. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    I'm sure it's a matter of principle as anything else. Maybe they do have capabilities to counter any US missile attack, maybe it's all talk, who knows. Either way, i don't blame them in the slightest for being pissed off about the whole thing. Russia and the US have serious history, now the US want to pop this crap on their door step and claim it's intended for someone else. True or not, I wouldn't trust the US either.
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    The US track record on Eastern Europe gives Russia no reason to believe anything we say. We promised that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. Now NATO flies surveillance planes inches from Russian airspace in the Baltics and Ukraine is being considered for membership. The US has made it clear that we don't consider Russia to be worthy of any consideration. Russia is drawing a line in the sand because we've given them no choice.
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    It's called being prepared. We have to do everything to prevent Iran from obtaining or developing, but we have to anticipate the time when they will succeed.

    Putin is just posturing. I know a lot of former Soviet bloc residents and not a one of them believes that the US wants to strike Russia pre-emtively.
     
  7. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #7
    wonder what they will say if Russia negotiate a missile defense shield on the border of mexico and claim to be prepared for, say, pakistan.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Former Soviet Bloc residents? By that phrasing, one would assume you don't mean Russians.

    Most Russians I've ever met think the US actions in the former Soviet sphere are often dubious, at best. They were especially troubled by our messing with their "brothers" in Serbia (not that Yugoslavia was in the Soviet sphere for long).
     
  9. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #9
    The defense shield is a bad idea in so many ways.

    Last I heard it still has not had a wildly successful test that could hit a moving projectile and/or distinguish it from balloons (note to self, no more balloons for the kids).

    Even a 100% successful shield would only trigger an arms race since you only need one more ICBM nuke than we have defense missiles in order to penetrate the shield. Anything less than 100% greatly favors the enemy and if one were to attack increases the odds of more damage since more missiles would be launched to thwart the shield. With no shield we'd probably only have to deal with a single ICBM should someone choose to attack, with the shield the likelihood of multiple ICBMs becomes higher as they try to thwart the defense shield.
     
  10. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #10
    Three Czechs, several Poles, and one Russian. They may not like some of the involvement of the West in areas like the former Yugoslavia, but they don't think that we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself either.
     
  11. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #11
    Question . . . Would it be so hard to build an ICBM system using stealth technology?
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    The shortest path between Iran and the United States is via Russia and over the North Pole. Therefore any missiles fired from Iran would be intercepted over Russian territory, wherever the launch site for the interceptors is located.

    And you wonder why Putin is annoyed?
     
  13. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #13
    One Russian isn't much of a survey. And you do realize that the Czechs and Poles have a different perspective on Russia than do Russians. Czechs are the ones hosting the missile system that Russia is opposed to, after all.

    And saying that they don't think we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself is besides the point. Yes, probably most Russian's don't think that the US would do that. What Russians fear more is that the US will prey continually on what we percieve as Russian weakness and our status as the sole superpower to dictate world affairs. The idea that the US would have more influence in Ukraine than Russia is an anathma to most Russians. The idea that Russians in the "near abroad" are second class citizens and the US champions these countries' human rights while criticizing Russia is percieved as pure hypocracy in the pursuit of power.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    from what i understand, the poles are to host the missiles, and the czechs are to host the guiding radar station.

    still....
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Yeah, I didn't want to look up the specifics, so I went with "system", which I felt could refer to either part. :)
     
  16. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #16
    Answer........Yes.

    Stealth is only really useful for aircraft and ships, as it's designed to reflect low power radar.

    Traditional ICBM detection relies on 2 things:

    1) knowing where the sites are, although sub based systems negate this, and

    2) the massive thermal flare given off when an ICBM launches. Nobody has been able to get around this yet.

    NORAD maintains a worldwide monitoring system that checks for the signature heat pattern of an ICBM launch. It will also pick up things like explosions at oil refineries and such like.

    I'm assuming BTW, that you meant stealth technology in the vein of the B-2. F-117 rather than trying to conceal an ICBM site as something else.
     
  17. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #17
    Well actually I was referring to the war-head itself. I'm fairly familiar with the capabilities of stealth and NORAD but the demonstrations of the missile shield have raised the question for me.

    All the illustrations I've seen about how the missile defence shield works show a secondary weapon intercepting the ICBM warhead as it flies through the edge of space towards its target. The illustration showed the interceptor using radar to pinpoint the flying warhead's location and path so that it can move itself into the flight path and collide with it.

    If the warhead were designed to evade radar detection, it would be able to hide itself from the interceptor. Am I wrong?
     
  18. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #18
    Yes it could happen. At the mid range stage the missile is no longer under thrust and glides through it's trajectory.

    The problem with this is that by the time it's reached that stage you'll have worked out it's flight path and velocity enabling interception.

    Making it maneuverable would entail putting another rocket motor into it - increasing weight and complexity, and more importantly giving another thermal target to aim for.

    Theoretically it's possible though.

    Practically? No idea
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    What? Poles and Czechs not happy with our involvement in the Balkans? I find that very hard to believe. Had we not gotten involved, the war would have been on their doorstep very quickly. They may not have been happy with how it progressed but not with our involvement.

    Serbia has long been under the influence of Russia, so it's not hard to believe that a Russian would have a problem but not someone from eastern Europe.
     
  20. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #20
    No way would that have happened. It was a fight for territory as Yugoslavia fell apart. Notice how the war didn't spread into Hungary or any other of the neighbouring countries.

    Saying that, had it done so, the Hungarian military would have wiped the floor with both the Serbs and the Croats. There was absolutely no threat to the Czechs nor the Poles.
     
  21. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    on the other side i'm not so confident that the austrian army could have wiped the floor with anybody armed with more than blunt weapons ;)


    in reality though you were able to see/hear the impact of the grenades on the other side of the border and still had their second biggest troop movement in history after hungary 1956
     
  22. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #22
    Kudos to Putin for turning the tables on Bush and offering him the choice of putting the defence system on Russian soil. I mean, if it really isn't ever intended for use against them then what's the problem, right Bushy boy?
     
  23. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #23
    If Iran were to attack anyone in some sort of insane holy war,
    they would be targeting Israel and maybe the Vatican.

    It's all cowpie rhetoric anyway.

    This administration thrives of keeping things stirred up.

    They must have a perceived enemy to keep the funding going.

    If Congress shuts down funding for the war in Iraq, the Neocons don't want to see their gravy train disappear.

    I doubt the interceptors work very well anyway.

    It's all an excuse to squander more taxpayer dollars.
     
  24. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #24
    Norad can also pick up the moon which lead to the US scrambling bombers and coming close to provoking a Soviet response when operators got a little confused in the sixties.
     
  25. GroundLoop macrumors 68000

    GroundLoop

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    #25
    Just an FYI. THere have been many missile defense successes. Especially in sea-based ballistic missile defense.

    http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Successful_Intercept_Claimed_In_US_Missile_Defense_Test_999.html

    Hickman
     

Share This Page