Stop the proposed plans of Missile Defence

[GuzziHero]

Well folks it was good to meet you, see you all in Hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bring 298 friends, itll be one heck of a dinner party

[vaux]

why not install those "defenses" on american soils? by putting those things, the host countries would be subjected to pre-emptive strikes in order to bring the defenses down.

[Sledge]

Come to AG07. Last chance to skirmish before nuclear winter, and we all know how badly the cold affects GBBs.

 

[finderella1]

Okay...try it this way.

 

1 countries, A and B both have 1000 missiles with 5 MIRV each.

 

A launches a pre-emptive strike against B's silos.  Cross targeted two-on-one, A only had to launch 400 missiles.  B has lost all ICBM capability and A retains 600 missiles with which to threaten B's cities.

 

B can retaliate with offshore (submarine) launched missiles, but to do so would ensure A's destruction of his cities.  B has no choice but to capitulate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Preemptive strikes are not possible with ICBMs, due to the time from launch until impact. Its got nothing to do with MIRVs, which are designed to prevent interception and increase destructive capacity. Only SLBMs give the possiblity of first strike capability, although this isn't assured.

[sniper_boi]

Bring 298 friends, itll be one heck of a dinner party

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed.

[amateurstuntman]

Isn't the quickest way to the US from Russia either over the north pole or over Alaska?

 

Bush hasn't put defences there so why has Putin got his panties in a twist?

 

Those sites are in a good place to protect bits of europe from Iran etc. though.

 

Smeg it, I live close enough to primary targets not to have to care.

[GuzziHero]

Preemptive strikes are not possible with ICBMs, due to the time from launch until impact.  Its got nothing to do with MIRVs, which are designed to prevent interception and increase destructive capacity. Only SLBMs give the possiblity of first strike capability, although this isn't assured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dr Strangelove shows how confusing and long winded the process of organising a strike/retaliatory strike can be. How many would refuse to turn the key?

 

Too many variables. MAD isnt the all powerful bogeyman it once was.

[Night_raven]

The M.A.D treaty is as follows:

 

Country A

Country B

 

List of Targets in Both Country A and B:

 

Industrial:

 

Chemical

Fuel and Oil

Steel works

Coal

Anything that contributes to a countries economy.

 

Military:

Air Force Bases

Missile Silo's

Naval Bases

Radar Station

Communication stations (to prevent an order from getting through)

 

Civilian:

 

Cities

Transport Network

Communications

Media and sattelite Networks

 

 

 

Now, this is how it's going to play out:

 

First Strike from both country A and country B

 

Country A launches silo missiles at Country B's Military installations, thus rendering country B's first strike capability useless, Country B then initiates a second strike onto Country A, taking down there military establishments, and industry. Country A responds by doing the same.

 

Now that the first 2 lists of targets that have been selected been destroyed, both Country A and Country B can focus there 3rd strike (if Bombers are airborne) onto each others citys, which in a full swoop, can finish both countrys off.

[GuzziHero]

*sigh*

 

Criticism and challengeable assumptions

Critics of the MAD doctrine note the similarity between the acronym and the common word for mental illness. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence depends on several challengeable assumptions:

 

Second-strike capability

 

A first strike must not be capable of preventing a retaliatory second strike or else mutual destruction is not assured. In this case, a state would have nothing to lose with a first strike; or might try to preempt the development of an opponent's second-strike capability with a first strike.

Perfect detection

 

No false positives (errors) in the equipment and/or procedures that must identify a launch by the other side. The implication of this is that an accident could lead to a full nuclear exchange. During the Cold War there were several instances of false positives, as in the case of Stanislav Petrov.

No possibility of camouflaging a launch. (ex: a launch from open ocean)

No alternate means of delivery other than a missile. For example, no covertly-placed devices in the target nation.

Perfect attribution. If there is a launch from the Sino-Russian border, it could be difficult to distinguish which nation is responsible and, hence, which nation to retaliate against.

Perfect rationality

 

No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD.

No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process.

All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects.

No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent's response system would fail.

No person possessing nuclear weapons capability will have a belief system that offers him peace and reward in an afterlife if he dies in a nuclear war of his own volition or will have any other moral or religious belief that makes mutual annihilation an acceptable or even preferable outcome.

Inability to defend

 

No shelters sufficient to protect population and/or industry.

No development of anti-missile technology or deployment of remedial protective gear. In fact, the development of an effective missile defense would render the MAD scenario obsolete as destruction would no longer be assured.

[Chimpy]

If we're all supposed to be friends then there is no need for there to be anti-missile systems based close to the russian border.  The russians are only taking the necessary steps to ensure the effectiveness of their own nuclear deterrent as they obviously don't have the capacity to develop their own missile defence system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The stated existence of missile system isn't against Russia. I think we can safely point out in this regard both sides are as stupid as one another.

[Chimpy]

Come to AG07. Last chance to skirmish before nuclear winter, and we all know how badly the cold affects GBBs.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It'll solve all this climate change gubbins at least.

 

Guzzi - The problem with all of that is it's a great thought experiment but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Thus you have to hope or try to control the people that can get nuclear weapons so that they aren't rogue.

[sniper_boi]

It'll solve all this climate change gubbins at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup, an give the UK a much needed cleaning.

[Desolation mkII]

Stop scaremongering you bunch of idiots, the Russians are not going to nuke us.

[sniper_boi]

Stop scaremongering you bunch of idiots, the Russians are not going to nuke us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No but the fallout will.

[Sledge]

No but Skynet will. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Misfit]

This is bad, real bad, Thanks to Georgie boy and his master plans, Putin doesnt like em an now has ICBM's locked onto our cities.

 

Well folks it was good to meet you, see you all in Hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice fear-mongering skills, do you work for The Sun?

[sniper_boi]

Nice fear-mongering skills, do you work for The Sun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm as much as i like to.....no, an i was jus having a laugh, no need to be serious sam.

[amsniper]

I'm quite looking forward to the prospect of a full scale nuclear war......

 

....at least it will knock out all the "safety" speed cameras and completely *fruitcage* up Red Ken's congestion charging extensions!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Commy!

 

lol.

 

I cant say the prospect is appealing.

 

essentially makes those countries targets for terrorism. Nice to know the Americans are alwasy trying to get the upper hand.

 

Just out of interest - some one said that it was supposed to be for protection against Iran ect

 

didnt think they were gunna be capable to do anything for 10 years?

 

regards amsniper

[alastairthegreat]

 

seriously if were all going to die in a flaming ball of nuclear destruction, could we at least legalise cannabis??

 

you know it makes sense

[Samm]

Drugs are for the weak minded.

[GuzziHero]

I agree. That does include alcohol and tobacco, eh?

 

[Sledge]

Weakness is for the weak.

 

[GuzziHero]

7 days are for the week.

[greebo_Brat]

So, America is wanting to place missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech republic.

 

Seems a bit unfair that America has ICBM defences, yet Russia does not.

 

Kinda goes against the M.A.D treaty does it not?

 

[http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268857,00.html][/http]

Any Americans want to comment on this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Russia has had an ABM system since the mid 1960's, starting off with Golosh system. As far as I know they now have a single site proctecting Moscow, down from 3 original sites (1 to protect some ICBM silo's and one to protect a national command center and one to protect Moscow). I recall hearing noises that they were investigating upgrading to a KE interceptor based system (currently it's using a nuclear warhead) about two years ago, I don't know the status of that rumour.

 

BTW, the Russian system is the first recorded ABM system to have actually worked, us Brits being clever chappies we are dropped two of the warheads on our polaris SLBM's and installed a decoy system called Chevaline. This basically reduced the number of targets we could hit throughout russia to a third and made us concentrate our arsenal on Moscow in the hope we could overwelm the Russian ABM system to knock out one city, can't remember what Chevaline cost us but it wasn't cheap (into the 10's of billions in 1980's currency IIRC?).

 

There's nothing stopping the Russians from deploying more sites, or upgrading the S-10 system to full ABM capability (which , it's rumoured by some yanks, they did during the 80's anyway).

 

Putin's just mouthing off, making noise and looking like the "Big man", improves russia's image (or so he thinks).

 

PS, ABM is a defensive system, it's proliferation should, in my opinion be encouraged as it will deter the previous mexican standoff scenario we had with NATO and Russia pointing large numbers of ICBM's at each other waiting for the otherside to sneeze. It will also divert funds away from offensive weapon systems into defensive. It really is nothing to get all het up and scared about.

 

Logically ABM opponents should also be opposed to anti-aircraft defenses.

 

PPS M.A.D was never a treaty (I guess you mean the ABM treaty that the US legally withdrew from), it was a symptom of the targetting policy that both sides had.

 

PPPS Russia broke the ABM treaty in the late 70's with the deployment of a RADAR system , will get details for you later if you are interested, they shut down the offending system in the early 80's IIRC.

[greebo_Brat]

Preemptive strikes are not possible with ICBMs, due to the time from launch until impact.  Its got nothing to do with MIRVs, which are designed to prevent interception and increase destructive capacity. Only SLBMs give the possiblity of first strike capability, although this isn't assured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrong, MIRVs originally came around due to two factors, 1/ ICBM's are expensive, relatively warheads were cheaper 2/ it's more efficient to use 3 150 kiloton's to destroy a target than a single 1 MT.

 

MIRV actually makes the defender's job easier if he can intercept the bus prior to warhead seperation.