Russia says new ICBM can beat any system

[McRocket]

The Russians are upset about our wanting to deploy new ABM systems in poland supposedly to defend against "rougue nations".The truth is that since the people they mean namely Iran are beleived to be nowhere near developing an ICBM with that kind of range that it must be being deployed with Russia in mind.
I personally have always thought that the seeking of ABM or anti ballistic missles or star wars or whatever you want to call it was a very de-stabilizing policy which would lead to another race to develope ICBMs capable of defeating these systems.Not to mention that if we got to a point that we felt impervious to attack some in the military complex would feel that now our nukes were more usable since we could avoid retaliation.
The policy of mad (mutual assured destruction) which kept the US and USSR from having a nuclear exchange is undermined obviously by all these defensive systems which I think can probably be defeated at a cheaper cost than it took to build them,but hey the Military-Industrial complex has to do something with all that American Tax money lol.

Excellent post - IMO.

And welcome to the board.

 

[zigx]

scary stuff

 

[georges]

And my other point was about the MIG 25 which was discussed above. Apparently the radar on this fighter was so powerful that they had to turn it off when they were taxiing on the ground because the radiation from this radar would kill small animals that lived on the side of Soviet runways?

The first version of the mig 25 was using the foxfire radar which used radioactive vaccuum tubes. Not only was the plane a danger to the pilots that use to fly on it because if they exceeded mach 2.5 the engines blew also it was a plane made of nickel steel and weighting nearly 29 tons. The welds of the airframes were done poorly and were not even comparable to the quality of the welds found in the f4 or let alone in the f105f thunderchief. Russian planes were not known to have good avionics and ergonomics until the mig 29 and su 27 were developped.
The main role of the 25 was first to kill the xb 70 walkyrie or the sr71. The mig 25 was not manoeuvrable and required extremely long landing tracks.

 

[georges]

The Russians are upset about our wanting to deploy new ABM systems in poland supposedly to defend against "rougue nations".The truth is that since the people they mean namely Iran are beleived to be nowhere near developing an ICBM with that kind of range that it must be being deployed with Russia in mind.
I personally have always thought that the seeking of ABM or anti ballistic missles or star wars or whatever you want to call it was a very de-stabilizing policy which would lead to another race to develope ICBMs capable of defeating these systems.Not to mention that if we got to a point that we felt impervious to attack some in the military complex would feel that now our nukes were more usable since we could avoid retaliation.
The policy of mad (mutual assured destruction) which kept the US and USSR from having a nuclear exchange is undermined obviously by all these defensive systems which I think can probably be defeated at a cheaper cost than it took to build them,but hey the Military-Industrial complex has to do something with all that American Tax money lol.

That is true.

 

[hedonis]

And my other point was about the MIG 25 which was discussed above. Apparently the radar on this fighter was so powerful that they had to turn it off when they were taxiing on the ground because the radiation from this radar would kill small animals that lived on the side of Soviet runways?

I don't recall reading that anywhere before (and believe me, I've read at great length about the Soviet fighters). Remember too, that no Russian fighter plane had that powerful of radar, because up until the MiG-29, no Soviet fighter was capable of acquiring or tracking its own targets. They all relied heavily on ground radar for that.


And to the wise Prof. Voluptuary: It isn't that some of the current Russian designs aren't good for their fighter planes- there's just none of them that exist in production form. They're all prototypes, and there aren't much more (usually) than a couple of those. Add to that the fact that the pilots don't get much training time (no money), there's not much for fuel (no money), and fewer international customers than they used to have.

H

 

[Arcani]

SDI is essentially a money pit to enrichen the coffers of Raytheon and the likes. MAD deterrence is effective enough; no one with enough marbles to become a national leader of ICBM bearing countries would set into motion an event of which the utterly inevitable and immediate result would be annihilation.

It is my firm belief that the USA will indeed suffer a nuclear attack before the turn of the century, but it won't be borne by any overt means such as an ICBM or bomber attack. Instead, it will be covert find it's way in through the massive gap that exists due to international commerce, i.e., a seaport or airport.

Anyway, a more detailed analysis of this new ICBM can be found at GlobalSecurity.

 

[McRocket]

SDI is essentially a money pit to enrichen the coffers of Raytheon and the likes. MAD deterrence is effective enough; no one with enough marbles to become a national leader of ICBM bearing countries would set into motion an event of which the utterly inevitable and immediate result would be annihilation.

It is my firm belief that the USA will indeed suffer a nuclear attack before the turn of the century, but it won't be borne by any overt means such as an ICBM or bomber attack. Instead, it will be covert find it's way in through the massive gap that exists due to international commerce, i.e., a seaport or airport.

Anyway, a more detailed analysis of this new ICBM can be found at GlobalSecurity.

Excellent post in my opinion.

And I agree. If America continues to pursue it's present foreign policy course then a nuclear attack against it by terrorists is inevitable.

 

[McRocket]

I don't recall reading that anywhere before (and believe me, I've read at great length about the Soviet fighters). Remember too, that no Russian fighter plane had that powerful of radar, because up until the MiG-29, no Soviet fighter was capable of acquiring or tracking its own targets. They all relied heavily on ground radar for that.

From the following website I got from a Google search a few minutes ago:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=961488

'The interceptor version of the MiG-25 is fitted with the powerful valve-based RP-25 Smerch-A1 (NATO codename Fox Fire) radar, the most powerful ever built at the time (second now only to the 'Zaslon' radar fitted to the MiG-31). It was derived from the radar of the MiG-25's spiritual predecessor, the Tu-128 Fiddler. This 500-kilowatt monster can detect targets 100km away and track them from 55km; it is so powerful it renders jamming practically useless and supposedly, turning on the radar before takeoff was a capital offence under Soviet Military Law, since it could kill small animals within a mile and humans if they were close enough. Early versions of the radar lacked the 'look-down' ability which would have enabled it to distinguish low-altitude targets from ground clutter but this was rectified in time.'


I originally read about it in one of my 'International Air Power Review' books. I do not recall which one though.

 

[Member2019]

WTF? Read up, then come back ...

Good points - IMO - by both Georges and Prof Voluptuary.
Two things from me though.
1) I think a missile defense shield is a near complete waste of time. No country like North Korea is ever going to launch an ICBM at America.

What don't you understand about the concept "Theater Missile Defense" (TMD)?
This is not National Missile Defense (NMD), but local, tactical, theater capability.

If TMD is a "complete waste of time," then so are SAM and radar installations, because TMD is basically their replacement.
TMD is the evolution of air defense, and it works a crapload better than older SAM technology at even a SAM's job.

Missile defense is strictly to make the populace feel better and the military types feel more powerful.

It's about deterring a country from even considering that option.
Understand 90% of what the US deploys does exactly that, deter!
Not just against the US, but all of the US' allies as well.
Theater -- Theater -- Theater ... how many times do idiots like myself have to point that out?
Get Reagan's SDI out of your head, we're not even talking about the EKV used for exoatmosphere kill against ICBMs.

Furthermore, what if a country did a high-altitude air-burst but didn't kill anyone but caused tens of trillions of dollars of damage to the US economy over a dozen mile radius?
What about that scenario -- how would the President react?
If terrorists want to destroy the US' way of life, and not really its civilians, that's one way to do it!
The US wants -- no -- needs to have the deterrent to prevent that scenario, because it's a very real one!

Now it could be used to shoot down conventional missiles like in Iraq War 1 (even though then the kill ratio was nowhere near what was originally quoted).

Exactly!
Patriot was a proximity-fuse and even if it hit in 80% of the cases, it failed to effectively "neutralize" the target in a majority.
It's the exact same issue with traditional, legacy air defense -- proximity-fuse.

That's why hit-to-kill was invented, and it works damn good.
Read up on the statistics of PAC-3 in the 2nd Gulf War versus the first.
And that's just PAC-3 -- not even THAAD which hits higher and faster!

But as a defense against a rogue state or terrorist organization launching a nuclear tipped IRBM or ICBM?

What do you think we are deploying in Eastern Europe? TMD!
We're putting in a system that can take out all sorts of things -- but typically shorter-range missiles.
Theater -- Theater -- Theater!

People keep applying concepts and arguments that have nothing to do with the systems being deployed in Eastern Europe.

A complete waste of money and does nothing but worry those that won't have this system.

No, it doesn't worry those who don't have the system.
It just gives them rhetoric because people -- including yourself -- don't understand why TMD was developed in the first place.
It is not "SDI" as Reagan sold it!

BTW - America had a working anti ICBM missile defense system in operation in the 70's. For exactly one day (I believe). I think it was called the Safeguard system. It had two missiles, Spartan and Sprint (IMO, the most amazing missile ever fielded). And it apparently worked (except that it used nuclear warheads to detonate near the incoming missiles to destroy them - not a real good idea for the people living below the explosions).
But people realized that anti ballistic missile systems do not work. They end up doing more harm to the peace process then helping it.

That's not what these systems do at all!
I worked with some of the older engineers who developed Sprint and it was a complete waste of time, I agree!
And those were "strategic" missile defense anyway.

But today's hit-to-kill interceptors like Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) and Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) are about an improved battlefield capability.

Even now. All this defense system is doing is pissing off the Russians. For what? To maybe shoot down a one off missile that will probably never be fired? Waste of time and money. Useless.

Which is why you don't understand a thing about it, and you've come to that conclusion.
We might as well pull out all SAM and radar installations as well, because they are even "more useless."
And we might as well get rid of the Navy Block IIA and other parts of Navy Theater Wide (NTW), designed to protect great land masses from the nearby sea.

And we might as well just get rid of a lot!

And my other point was about the MIG 25 which was discussed above. Apparently the radar on this fighter was so powerful that they had to turn it off when they were taxiing on the ground because the radiation from this radar would kill small animals that lived on the side of Soviet runways?

What don't you understand about radar?
It can kill if you lock on to something and send enough energy.
Simple physics!

CONCLUSION: Why do these countries want TMD?

Not so much for the interceptors themselves, but because they want to be integrated into the protections that the US Command'n Control infrastructure affords. TMD isn't about the interceptors, it's about the integrated defense and logistics arm of the US armed forces -- knowing what any country is doing BEFORE something could go down.

 

[McRocket]

I assume what you are basically typing is that a) these systems are to take out incoming IRBM's (Intermediate Ballistic Missiles) - like SCUD was. And b) they will we used as some sort of surveillance tools.

Fine.

Are these systems capable of shooting down ICBM's? And if so when? After launch? Before MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) separation? After re-entry?

If these systems are capable of adding to anyone's defense against ICBM's then they should not be deployed, in my opinion. As they would be too de-stabilizing.
America signed the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty for a good reason. Because - imo - ABM's de-stabilize. Now they are breaking it after the Cold War is over. And what is happening. The Russians are getting nervous. They now threaten to terget Europe again. It is doing nothing good that I can see.

And b) if these systems are so good at spying on the enemy, then why not deploy the information gathering systems and do not deploy the hardware (lasers, anti missile missiles, etc.)?

By the way, do you have a link to more information on these systems you speak of?


And BTW, I have no idea what you are referring to in my MIG 25 quote. I was referring to a separate thing altogether. Nothing to do with ABM's.

 

[Member2019]

Oh, the ABM treaty! Yes, I've never heard of that! (sarcasm)

I assume what you are basically typing is that a) these systems are to take out incoming IRBM's (Intermediate Ballistic Missiles) - like SCUD was. And b) they will we used as some sort of surveillance tools. Fine.

Dude, drop the 'tude.
It's obvious you've disregarded the dozens of posts I've made on this matter, including several private (including in the past).
You took the same attitude after I pointed out your ignorance in the "Moon landings were faked" thread.
If you are going to comment and say things are "useless," then don't take out your regret when I point out the obvious.

If you haven't noticed, this happens repeatedly in threads where I would be considered an expert on the subject.

Are these systems capable of shooting down ICBM's? And if so when? After launch? Before MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) separation? After re-entry?

For the last time, please stick to a context!

You talk about ICBMs when it suits you, like on the new Russian design, which has to do with NMD (national/strategic).
Then you switch to the US deploying systems in Eastern Europe, which is clearly TMD (theater/tactical).

The US maintains and will maintain a very limited number of systems in order to protect theater engagements (including allies) as well as systems against a small number of long-range missiles that could come from rouge states aimed at the US.

If these systems are capable of adding to anyone's defense against ICBM's then they should not be deployed, in my opinion. As they would be too de-stabilizing.
America signed the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty for a good reason.
Because - imo - ABM's de-stabilize. Now they are breaking it after the Cold War is over. And what is happening. The Russians are getting nervous. They now threaten to terget Europe again. It is doing nothing good that I can see.

Okay, now your ignorance is complete!

1. I am an engineer who has had to comply with the ABM treaty in my designs, because ...

2. Even though H. Bush agreed the ABM treaty died with the USSR ...

3. The Clinton administration re-agreed to a "new set of ABM terms," which ...

4. The W. administration is fully complying with and the Russians agree!

So before you start talking about "de-stablization" and treaties you haven't even bothered to read and you continually assume you know something about or how they are applicable, especially in an argument against someone who DOES KNOW THE TREATIES (former and current) IN DETAIL (as an engineer who had to COMPLY WITH THEM IN MY DESIGNS, it gets rather tiresome!
People say I'm "arrogant" and "assuming" -- but damn, this is the epitome!

Despite what Reagan sold you with SDI, no one in the US military woke up one day and said, "wow, let's do missile defense!"
It was basically the fall-out that proximity-fuse sucks -- HARD and we needed something better.

And basically anyone who has worked for NASA basically said, "yeah, we've been doing 'hit-to-kill' for 30 years -- it's called 'docking in space'."
Add in modern Command'n Control systems, with microcontrollers and embedded systems with decades of launch experience and bam! You got modernized "air defense."
This has been commonly compartmentalized into "Theater Missile Defense" (TMD) and "National Missile Defense" (NMD) for reasons to comply with various treaties, including the ABM Treaty of 1972, which was re-negotiated by the Clinton administration in 1993.

And guess what? That treaty allows us to build X sites with Y interceptors for a "national" defense, and then sets limits on "theater" capability!
And guess what? For those of us who don't get our "engineering facts" and "treaties" from the "News," we're right there with the Russians on-point!
Not defined in terms of "oh, this is what the Bubbleheaded Blonde at 7pm told me" but "altitude, velocity, G manuevers, etc..." to differentiate (among other things, that's just scratching the non-technical surface!)

And b) if these systems are so good at spying on the enemy, then why not deploy the information gathering systems and do not deploy the hardware (lasers, anti missile missiles, etc.)?

First off, what "lasers" are you talking about?

Secondly, are you back to talking about "Theater" and the Eastern European countries no longer "National" and ICBMs?

Because if you are, as far as "anti-missile missiles" -- the "interceptors" merely replace the "general air defense" used in a theater air defense system.
In other words, they are just a small part of the greater set of battlefield components and aren't really some "oh, you can't use them" because you think they are just about knocking down ICBMs.

Yes, TMD can be used as a "last line of defense" against ICBMs, but NMD is much better.
TMD is about battlefield defense of many levels -- aircraft, missiles, short-range surface-to-surface missiles, etc...
But most of all, the systems developed for and deployed with TMD greatly enhance the battlefield Command'n Control of the US military.

Which is why everyone is "friendly" to us, because they want to be part of that system.

So will you please pull the "anal plug" out of your ass and get with the program -- TMD is not about just "knocking down missiles" (much less ICBMs), but about the tactical capability of the US or any of its allies where US systems are deployed?

By the way, do you have a link to more information on these systems you speak of?

I have given you three million buzzwords that you can Google.
I have given you repeated links in the past and you utterly ignore them.
If you don't want to research yourself, you can safely assume I'm pulling them right out of my ass and I don't know anything.
I really don't care at this point, because you just want to argue from your standpoint of ignorance and you're not going to research anyway.
You'll only find some remote detail that is well outside the context of your "argument" and post that while I'll roll my eyes (as any engineer with years of experience on TMD will).

And BTW, I have no idea what you are referring to in my MIG 25 quote. I was referring to a separate thing altogether. Nothing to do with ABM's.

I know, and I pointed out that Radars emit Radiation.
You seem to think there are discrete differences between different things, they're aren't!
But if you even had a remote foundation in physics, you might actually know that, instead of my having to constantly point it out over and over and over again when you go "but this, but that, but blah, blah, blah."

Man, I don't expect anyone to know this stuff, but I do expect some people to STFU and stop telling me things when they don't, but I do!

I'm not answering a post again, because you don't want to see anything but your own, argumentative way.
I would if you honestly wanted to learn why you're mistaken, but you will just keep throwing things out in the assumption that you are brining things up that military personnel and civilians alike have to deal with daily.
I mean, do you think we didn't take treaties into consideration? Ha! They constantly pissed us engineers off because we had to "cripple" the capability!

 

[Roughneck]

Re: Oh, the ABM treaty! Yes, I've never heard of that! (sarcasm)

And basically anyone who has worked for NASA basically said, "yeah, we've been doing 'hit-to-kill' for 30 years -- it's called 'docking in space'."

Wait! Are you saying that's where the "inspiration" (for lack of a better word) for the current projectile KE (I'm assuming, ofcourse, that the new system uses KE much like a tank SABOT?) anti-missile system?!

Because as far as my knowledge goes, you math and phy folks had worked out everything but a good "guidence and interceptor" package to actually make the two items (missile and anti-missile) meet in mid-flight. When WARPAC and NATO were researching ground based lasers as a part of SDI, wasn't this kind of research also going on?

I know, and I pointed out that Radars emit Radiation.

I admit that I am somewhat "dubious" of that report of the powerful nature of the MiG-25's radar. Anything with that kind of wattage will also surely affect the pilot of the aircraft (and we all know the MiG-25 wasn't lined with gold like our "Queers"... and hell, even all that gold lining won't protect 'em from something as powerful as that).

cheers,

 

[Member2019]

Sigh ... I guess I shouldn't make the joke ...

Wait! Are you saying that's where the "inspiration" (for lack of a better word) for the current projectile KE (I'm assuming, ofcourse, that the new system uses KE much like a tank SABOT?) anti-missile system?!

It was a joke of sorts.
I.e., I constantly get told by non-engineers/physicists who watch TV news that pretend to know something and say "hit-to-kill doesn't work."

And as the good rocket scientists pointed out to me when I took my first job in the industry, "if it didn't work, we could have never docked in space."
Now we just do it "in real time" with constant calculations and corrections.

Because as far as my knowledge goes, you math and phy folks had worked out everything but a good "guidence and interceptor" package to actually make the two items (missile and anti-missile) meet in mid-flight.
When WARPAC and NATO were researching ground based lasers as a part of SDI, wasn't this kind of research also going on?

Yes, and even prior in the '70s.
Proximity-fuse just sucks -- it may hit more, but it's "effective kill" is far less -- especially for very fast moving and more hardened objects.
People also think that "missile defense" is just about ballistic missiles on cities, but they don't realize that there are US assets in the field -- from the floating Navy to major troop concentrations on the ground.

BTW (not to you) but I want to remind people that SDI was the "Strategic Defense Initiative" -- key word "Initiative."
They didn't just "fit" the "I" in there because they thought it would be catchy, but it means, "we're going to put money to this -- stuff that hasn't been funded before -- and see what does and doesn't work."
We got a lot of R&D out of it, the products came later.

I admit that I am somewhat "dubious" of that report of the powerful nature of the MiG-25's radar.
Anything with that kind of wattage will also surely affect the pilot of the aircraft (and we all know the MiG-25 wasn't lined with gold like our "Queers"... and hell, even all that gold lining won't protect 'em from something as powerful as that).

There's a lot to that too, and although we can phase in direction, there is still serious EMF generation that is localized.
Not too many Russian pilots had kids, especially not after the MIG-31 replaced the MIG-25 at the top-end of the interceptor line.

But then I wasn't the best at fields -- I just couldn't ever visualize fields and the whole "right hand rule" in my differentials.
The irony is pretty thick, because the concepts and derived formulas of normals are basically the same thing, only for ME instead of EE.
I could understand angular momentum and the greater 6DOF simulations (complete, dynamic systems of engineering mechanics), but I couldn't perfect my understanding of advanced concepts in my own major!

Go figure!

 

[McRocket]

My my. For such an ignoramous; I sure seem to get you riled up.

So I gather from your post to me that this system DOES comply fully with the ABM treaty.

Well, then if it does - fully - then I guess it's okay.

But if it does, why does it seem, in your opinion, to make the Russians SO nervous?

BTW, you could have just answered 'yes, it does comply with the ABM treaty'?

And I also assume that 'no'. You will not provide us with a link to this system that you speak of.
Oh well. I guess my ignorance will just have to continue.

Have a calming night.

 

[Roughneck]

Re: Sigh ... I guess I shouldn't make the joke ...

It was a joke of sorts.
I.e., I constantly get told by non-engineers/physicists who watch TV news that pretend to know something and say "hit-to-kill doesn't work."

And as the good rocket scientists pointed out to me when I took my first job in the industry, "if it didn't work, we could have never docked in space."
Now we just do it "in real time" with constant calculations and corrections.

Ahh, ok. So the joke was in the word "kill" - where "kill" = "dock" ?

Yes, and even prior in the '70s.
Proximity-fuse just sucks -- it may hit more, but it's "effective kill" is far less-- especially for very fast moving and more hardened objects.

I know we're talking "fast moving hard objects" but let me tell you - as a scout responsible for calling in many an arty strike - we grunts loved the proximity/VT fuses.

Here's a decent article

People also think that "missile defense" is just about ballistic missiles on cities, but they don't realize that there are US assets in the field -- from the floating Navy to major troop concentrations on the ground.

Would the Phalanx CIWS on Navy ships count as the same (I know that they are used as CIWS. Maybe a really scaled down version of Theater Defense) ? Because that is pretty much the only projectile "anti-missile" system that I know anything about :tongue:

There's a lot to that too, and although we can phase in direction, there is still serious EMF generation that is localized.
Not too many Russian pilots had kids, especially not after the MIG-31 replaced the MIG-25 at the top-end of the interceptor line.

I know an airforce puke a long time ago who thought that the Sovs were idiots for using the MiG-25 as an 'interceptor'. In his opinion, the aircraft was just not "built" for that role (much less air superiority... but that's a different thread I suppose).

But then I wasn't the best at fields -- I just couldn't ever visualize fields and the whole "right hand rule" in my differentials.
The irony is pretty thick, because the concepts and derived formulas of normals are basically the same thing, only for ME instead of EE.
I could understand angular momentum and the greater 6DOF simulations (complete, dynamic systems of engineering mechanics), but I couldn't perfect my understanding of advanced concepts in my own major!

Go figure!

Don't beat yourself up over it. I could (and still can) spot favorable terrain, plot probable approach routes, and call down fire missions in the blink of a second - but sometimes have trouble navigating city streets on cross country trips :dunno:

cheers,

 

[Member2019]

And the "Sabot" is bad ...

that the new system uses KE much like a tank SABOT?)

BTW, remember, the "Sabot" is bad as well.
Just want to make sure you understand it's "politically incorrect" to even mention it, and if you do, you might be considered "arrogant" and "forcing your opinion on everyone else."

I.e., we had a thread where I utterly failed to educate the "smarter people than I" (who seemingly don't seem to understand the periodic table of elements)
why "heavy metals" are used in a sabot, and how they aren't "environmentally friendly."
Apparently they demand the US (ignoring the some 50+ other countries) stop using "heavy metals" in sabots, and use something more "environmentally friendly."

Sorry, felt like being argumentative -- just makes me wonder why I bother sometimes.
Yes, it's a porn board, but I still like to think I do occasionally reach some people.
In fact, since they didn't bother learning it in school (not that they weren't smart or were idiots -- I never say such), or can't think outside the TV media (which is largely the problem --
they are listening to people who didn't major anywhere near science!), I would hope that using a porn forum might be one way (last resort?) to reach them.

Sigh, stupid idealist I am.

 

[Roughneck]

Re: And the "Sabot" is bad ...

BTW, remember, the "Sabot" is bad as well.
Just want to make sure you understand it's "politically incorrect" to even mention it, and if you do, You Might be considered "arrogant" and "forcing your opinion on everyone else."

Bah! How am I supposed to know?

I'm a mudfoot! Not some misguided zipperhead/treadhead! :tongue:


cheers,

 

[Member2019]

More buzzwords to abuse!

But if it does, why does it seem, in your opinion, to make the Russians SO nervous?

Obviously you haven't read a thing in this whole thread then, eh?

The Russians just love to make a big deal about so much in the hope we'll cater to them.
Hell, they were even bitching about one of the "targets" that emulated a SCUD in the THAAD testing (not the interceptor, but the target it obliterated!) as "violating" several treaties on medium-range weapons.
It was utterly laughable (oh man we had a good one) and allowed completely within the treaty (it's not even deployed at all -- 1 use only to be obliterated in TMD testing!), but they still made a big stink of it in the hope of getting "political capital."

And plenty of ignoramous were abound like yourself, and we laughed at you too because it was the only way to deal with it.
You'd be quoting the START II and other treaties without bothering to read them and even remotely understanding they cover actual systems deployed, much less nothing that is pure cannon fodder.

BTW, you could have just answered 'yes, it does comply with the ABM treaty'?

I did so, REPEATEDLY!
It's a perfect example of "oh, I just thought of this" and you made the immediate assumption that the US is "anti-world peace" because of whatever you assumed to be true.
You Missed my DIRECT answer because you decided to assume that from the get-go!

And I also assume that 'no'.
You will not provide us with a link to this system that you speak of.
Oh well. I guess my ignorance will just have to continue.

I've provided you with link after link after link before, and you don't bother.
Or in the worst case, you find something and take it completely out-of-context.
God forbid you start actually reading up on more things, and start taking even more things in a way that is completely opposite of reality!

 

[Member2019]

The electronics and physics of "killing" ...

I know we're talking "fast moving hard objects" but let me tell you - as a scout responsible for calling in many an arty strike - we grunts loved the proximity/VT fuses ...

I forked a new thread since I'm getting outside the boundaries of this thread.

It is here, and I will be added to it from other threads if and when I feel necessary so I don't create too much of a tangent.
The electronics and physics of "killing" ...

BTW, the "killing" is in quotes because it doesn't necessarily mean people (and often doesn't, especially with today's R&D done by the US).

 

[McRocket]

Prof Voluptuary.

You misunderstand me. Just because I don't respect you, doesn't mean I do not understand you.
But when you stop bullying and insulting members, then I am quite sure my level of respect will rise accordingly.
And when your obvious biased opinions diminish, I am sure that will help as well.
But I did manage to gain some knowledge from your various diatribes.

But back to the thread.

I am not sure, from my research, what exactly this 'system' can do. But it appears to be able to shoot down ICBM's but, for some reason, does not interfere with the ABM treaty.
I can certainly see why the Russians are nervous. I would be as well were I them.
I believe that it is very dangerous for one side to possess the ability to stop incoming ICBM's, while the other cannot.
And if that is what the American system can do, then things could get very messy I fear in the World.

But Prof is right about something. I could use some more information on the subject.
Some that is unbiased, unlike his opinions - in my opinion.