America Needs the Anti-Missile Defense System

Originally posted by Frosty
Yeah, but the Wright Brothers weren't original, just the first, not crazy. NO one is saying it can't be done, it just can't be done anytime soon.

It can be and already has been done

The problem isn't so much shooting down a single missle, it is that the shield would cost a LOT of money to make it effective from a practical standpoint.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by American Mad Man]

Russia has been manning a working ABM system since the late 1960's and an effective ABM shield for at least 3 decades. If anyone is interested in finding out the details start reading at the middle of this page. The US could have had a effective ABM system decades ago if it was part of the national agenda.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Russia has been manning a working ABM system since the late 1960's and an effective ABM shield for at least 3 decades. If anyone is interested in finding out the details start reading at the middle of this page. The US could have had a effective ABM system decades ago if it was part of the national agenda.

The US has already had an ABM shield like the Russians decades ago.

www.astronautix.com...

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by StellarX
Russia has been manning a working ABM system since the late 1960's and an effective ABM shield for at least 3 decades. If anyone is interested in finding out the details start reading at the middle of this page. The US could have had a effective ABM system decades ago if it was part of the national agenda.

The US has already had an ABM shield like the Russians decades ago.

www.astronautix.com...

Please take the time to read the links i provide in my last two posts on that thread. The evidence will show that what i have said is a accurate summary.

Stellar

[edit on 6-9-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Frosty
Yeah, but the Wright Brothers weren't original, just the first, not crazy. NO one is saying it can't be done, it just can't be done anytime soon.

It can be and already has been done

The problem isn't so much shooting down a single missle, it is that the shield would cost a LOT of money to make it effective from a practical standpoint.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by American Mad Man]

Do you have any links for information about missiles being fired to shoot down dozens of missiles or some sort of shield?

Seems to me the problem is not what may come from the sky. The bigger problem is what could be planted within.

It's all terrifying but I feel very real and very dangerous to Homeland Security in there efforts to protect America and the U.S. People.

Dallas

Originally posted by superprivy
The scientific and technological potential for an Anti-Missile Defense System is immense. Together we can make the world safer and more secure. Do not be swayed by people in science who doubt that it can be done (the Wright Brothers were crazy according to them: to me, not nearly so).

If rejected by the Missile Defense Agency, and/or wanting to becoming a greater supporter of missile defense, join for free the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance at www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org

God Bless America and the World.

Woouldnt be good for world peace, The US would not have to worry about nuclear revenge from countries they want to invade.

Not good to disrupt the balance of power, this balance is the only way to keep the peace untill we humans wise up, could take a while untill we do though.
And if the balance is disrupted you can betya cowboyhat that we will destroy each other and this world.

Quickest way to wise up imho.

May 30, 2017

There's a major ballistic missile defense system test slated for this afternoon.

""The Pentagon says Tuesday's planned test of the ground-based missile defense test isn't timed specifically to send a message to North Korea, yet it will no doubt do just that.

Sometime between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern time, a target missile with a mock warhead will launch from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, and an interceptor will be fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The nearly quarter-billion dollar test is the most realistic test yet, designed to show the U.S. could knock a North Korean nuke out of the sky, if it threatened the U.S. homeland.""

Source: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I'm amazed that we haven't developed a defensive capability like this before now. How about you all?

-cwm

a reply to: Zion Mainframe

Hahaha

Bet you feel foolish right about now don't you?!

Gee what do those wacky norks have now?...

Interconinental ballistic missiles you say?!

*this is my shocked face*

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Zion Mainframe

Hahaha

Bet you feel foolish right about now don't you?!

Ummm posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 23:32 So he articulated a decent concept 12 years ago.... This thread is a bit dated No?

What the United States should do is develop an anti-missile system that translate the equivalent to a "suit case nuclear weapon" to the warhead of a missile, designed to destroy and ICBM. In that case the Missile in question would only need to detonate within the path of the ICBM, for the purpose of Atomizing the ICBM in effect. That in effect would be the same as taking the Warhead of Tactical Nuclear Weapon that can be fired from a Tank and loading it to a missile designed to attack an ICBM.

a reply to: FredT

I'm moreof using him as my whipping boy for ALL the people out there that said the norks can't/won't develop an ICBM especially in the estimated timespan we were being given at the time...

They said things like oh this is just like wmd in iraq etc etc....

Turns out that things have pretty much unfolded right along the time estimates we were given IF NOT FASTER!

Effectively this means we were actually being given the conservative don't scare the proles too much estimate designed to convey that we were facing a very real problem without being dishonest or unnecessarily frightening the public at large.

Granted, SO MANY mistakes were made and so much BS got spewed in this era that it's really no surprise how everything has went down.

Now though, we're in a real pickle and even the most beligerently antiwar among westerners are suddenly realizing we have a very real problem and very little time to solve it any other way than almost without a doubt resorting to a level of violence AT LEAST on par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

We might get lucky and someone will spool up dat positron spitting death UAV and manage to at least CONTAIN to a few dozen square miles the highly enriched fissionable laced contamination zone....

And we might not...

Either way though, everyone that called the DOD liars on this one needs their nose rubbed in their potentially horrific consequences causing unwillingness to listen at the time when a hundred or even a THOUSAND GOOD OPTIONS STILL EXISTED!

That, my friend, is what that post was all about!

a reply to: Kashai

Congratulations,

You just reinvented the Nike missile, genie rocket, nuclear depth charge, nuclear torpedo, and a host of other kooky fun things we actually did deploy during the cold war at various points!


The nuclear depth charges and torpedos i can actually see being one of those situations which actually made sense....

If you're on patrol and suddenly hear that telltale sonar sound of vertical launch cells in prelaunch phase at the right depth, i can totally see hammering out a nuclear torpedo or depth charge in order to try and crumple the sub about to launch like a beer can and sink the wreckage a few thousand feet below the surface!

Hell i can even see a good crew sacrificing themselves and their entire ship if it came down to detonating the charve or torpedo too close to their own ship in order to guarantee that they zap the boomer before it's missiles launched!

But the aerial versions of all this stuff...?

First off you gotta understand that "clean nuclear weapon" is sort of like "volunteer prostitute" in the realm of euphemistic terms that don't quite mean what you'd think they'd mean LOL!

I personally don't buy into the idea that there's an "acceptable" level of fallout, but such acceptable levels of fallout are a key definer of "clean" nuclear weapons.

Maybe I'm just a big old wussy but i personally find nuclear weapons unbelievably frightening and am completely baffled at how some people seem to think nuking something just a little bit could be ok!

a reply to: roguetechie


One of the stranger things about the fearless leader of North Korea is he seems to have convinced his population that with a single nuke he can wipe out the United States. While the reality of the situation is of course very different. The question is whether or not kim jong-un effort at posturing is a message to the world he would rather start a nuclear war than give up his authority in North Korea.

For me a relevant purpose to nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. I can imagine that such a weapon as I have described could be set to launch from multiple platforms, including a Submarine.

As a deterrent it would substantively increase the probability of survival of that platform during a nuclear war and so make such a conflict less probable.

Any thoughts?

Music Break...

www.youtube.com...=160

We need a jump in tech, stationary laser turrets in the stratosphere ought to do the trick.