It's a bit like a bar fight, but more serious.
-
It took me a little while to dig it up, I saw a program about it on TV, but here you go: V-2 rocket - Wikipedia[^] Radar guided flak guns. So yes, as stated, the British had missile countermeasures. Not saying they were effective, but they had them. And that was my point. That from the very first ballistic missile, countermeasures had been developed. And here we are decades later, decades of severe missile threat, so today we have much more effective countermeasures.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And that was my point. That from the very first ballistic missile, countermeasures had been developed. And here we are decades later, decades of severe missile threat, so today we have much more effective countermeasures.
And that's exactly my point as well. As I said, to this day there are only systems that can be deployed at potential target sites and get a shot at incoming missiles. Projectiles are not very practical because of their limited range. Missiles do better because they have their own propulsion, a longer range and guidance systems. The guidance systems are the only things that have significantly improved. What's unchanged are the laws of physics. The intercepting missile still is at the disadvantage. It has to rise up against gravity while the incoming missile is in free fall. Therefore the firing window for interception is extremely small, physically and in time. So small that you have to sit near the target and are ready to fire when the incoming missile enters into that narrow cone. Outside this cone the targeting computer will not be able to calculate a solution for interception. Math and physics. And I don't need Wikipedia to know how this works. After school I spent a few years in missile sites in the fire control team.
The user can't update the up: we update it for them (Choice in the CP poll)
-
It's probably cheaper than nuking them as well - if you get them from the Chinese manufacturer direct instead of from iProfitMachine. Mind you ... wouldn't that count as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, given the zombiefication they induce in most people?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
They were quite effective in the gulf war, but putting in say three stages of patriot defences should be almost 100%. However, lets say some get through and people die. How many will die if the US declares war? And how good are the guidance systems of NK's missiles? Many will probably fall harmlessly if they do get through. The disadvantage of declaring war on NK is that it will harden support for Um. There is a possibility the NK system will collapse, the country is in a mess internally.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
However, lets say some get through
Keep in mind that the following must be true 1. The missile actually launches 2. The missile correctly works to the point where it starts the descent. 3. The missile survives the descent. 4. The missile arrives at the intended target 5. The bomb actually successfully explodes. All of that has to work for every single missile that the launch and those that are not shot down. Compare it to the USSR where it was found that 1 was definitely in question for many of their missiles and at least 5 was as well. To be fair that wasn't known until later.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
and people die.
It won't take that. If they launch against the US and fail the US will still retaliate.
-
There is another problem. You could just as well post Coyotes on ACME rockets along the border and let them light the fuses when they see a roadrunner coming. It simply will not work. Air defense missiles don't have the fuel to chase anything. They do that only in bad mnovies. Lining them up at the border when the missile they are to intercept is at maximum speed and altitude will simply not work. Instead, you would have to deploy your ABMs around every potential target and intercept incoming enemy missiles.
The user can't update the up: we update it for them (Choice in the CP poll)
CodeWraith wrote:
Instead, you would have to deploy your ABMs around every potential target and intercept incoming enemy missiles.
So you are claiming that the anti-missiles based in Alaska are there only to protect Alaska? Or that they do nothing at all? "The ICBM-target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away." US successfully intercepts ICBM in historic test - ABC News[^]
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And that was my point. That from the very first ballistic missile, countermeasures had been developed. And here we are decades later, decades of severe missile threat, so today we have much more effective countermeasures.
And that's exactly my point as well. As I said, to this day there are only systems that can be deployed at potential target sites and get a shot at incoming missiles. Projectiles are not very practical because of their limited range. Missiles do better because they have their own propulsion, a longer range and guidance systems. The guidance systems are the only things that have significantly improved. What's unchanged are the laws of physics. The intercepting missile still is at the disadvantage. It has to rise up against gravity while the incoming missile is in free fall. Therefore the firing window for interception is extremely small, physically and in time. So small that you have to sit near the target and are ready to fire when the incoming missile enters into that narrow cone. Outside this cone the targeting computer will not be able to calculate a solution for interception. Math and physics. And I don't need Wikipedia to know how this works. After school I spent a few years in missile sites in the fire control team.
The user can't update the up: we update it for them (Choice in the CP poll)
You are saying you cant shoot down missiles when they are in flight, only when they are incoming, ie, at short range? HOw about the SM3, that can take out objects in space and is part of the long range defence system.
-
You are saying you cant shoot down missiles when they are in flight, only when they are incoming, ie, at short range? HOw about the SM3, that can take out objects in space and is part of the long range defence system.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
HOw about the SM3, that can take out objects in space and is part of the long range defence system.
It can only hit sats on low orbits. intercepting them is an entirely different story. You can launch the missile prematurely when you know the sat's orbit. It's a sort of blind shot at a point that has been precalculated. Missiles don't orbit the planet, which gives you no chance to precalculate anything. You must start calculating when you begin to track your target and come up with a solution for the interception before before this solution becomes invalid. A fast missile that has a large amount of fuel widens the window, but not so much that the basic situation changes. You must race towards the incoming target and you have exactly one chance to hit it. Missiles can't just turn around and chase their target.
The user can't update the up: we update it for them (Choice in the CP poll)
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
HOw about the SM3, that can take out objects in space and is part of the long range defence system.
It can only hit sats on low orbits. intercepting them is an entirely different story. You can launch the missile prematurely when you know the sat's orbit. It's a sort of blind shot at a point that has been precalculated. Missiles don't orbit the planet, which gives you no chance to precalculate anything. You must start calculating when you begin to track your target and come up with a solution for the interception before before this solution becomes invalid. A fast missile that has a large amount of fuel widens the window, but not so much that the basic situation changes. You must race towards the incoming target and you have exactly one chance to hit it. Missiles can't just turn around and chase their target.
The user can't update the up: we update it for them (Choice in the CP poll)
Or 20 chances if you fire 20 SM-3s. So, after a protracted and round the houses argument, we have established there ARE missile defence systems, long and short range, capable of countering ballistic missiles. These are the systems I am suggesting should be used to ring fence NK. And even if a few get through the likely hood is the damage will be limited, because I am pretty sure NKs targeting system isnt that great yet. This is a lot cheaper and less destructive than war, and will not harden support for Um. Hopefully after being made to look a fool, ie not taken seriously by the west, an internal regime change will occur.
-
North Korea to Japan and US: "Did you spill my pint?"[^] I think something might have to be done ... but I have no idea what. I suggest that South Korean members might find this a good time to take an extended vacation: somewhere overseas might be a good idea.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
From the article:
“The DPRK will redouble the efforts to increase its strength to safeguard the country’s sovereignty and right to existence,”
Sorry, but when the rest of the world tries diplomacy to get you to stop your lunacy, and that is met with threats, and even more lunacy... You've stopped being a good world citizen and have given up your right to existence. And yes, I realize the US isn't much better with them trying to throw their 'weight' around and force laws on other countries. At least we aren't threatening to nuke other countries into oblivion for not respecting our 'sovereignty'.
