Does the US need Trump's proposed "Missile dome"? I believe a war with the Russia and China can be fought and won without Strategic Missile Defense

[Andyh2299]

Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Humans and leaders I think are ultimately rational. War is ultimately a ritualistic masculine endeavour. Therefore I believe a conventional war with the Russian federation and The Peoples Republic of China can be won without Strategic Missile Defense.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Absolutely no defense is "100%". Does not matter what it is, even vaccinations are not 100%. People who get the measles vaccine can sometimes still get measles, and even rabies shots in dogs have a failure rate.

And sometimes bullets still penetrate bullet proof vests.

And yes, President Reagan put a lot of money into missile defense, and we now have a lot of systems that can take out ballistic missiles. Something thought to be impossible just 4 decades ago. And yes, no system will ever be 100%, but having anything is better than having nothing. The idea is simply to reduce the number of targets hit as much as possible.

And do not let the fact a missile is "hypersonic" fool you. Intercepting an inbound threat is still just simple math, knowing where it will be at a point in time and having a missile intercept it there.

By your logic, seat belts do not save people in a crash 100%, therefore they should not be used and are apparently a waste of time.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

We're still waiting for Reagan`s star wars missile defense...

 

[Mycroft]

Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Humans and leaders I think are ultimately rational. War is ultimately a ritualistic masculine endeavour. Therefore I believe a conventional war with the Russian federation and The Peoples Republic of China can be won without Strategic Missile Defense.

Neither Russia nor China can effectively invade the US. The US cannot effectively invade either Russia or China. At least, not with conventional war strategies.

If there is a war between the US and either country, it'll be a nuclear war.

And we need to be ready for it.

 

[Grand Mal]

We're still waiting for Reagan`s star wars missile defense...

Soon, soon. The first batch of Trumps Space Cadets should be graduating soon.

 

[Oozlefinch]

We're still waiting for Reagan`s star wars missile defense...

We are?

The PATRIOT system (specifically PAC-3). THAAD. The Navy's SM-2 and SM-3 series missiles. The GBI series of GMD missiles deployed in both Alaska and California.

Maybe you just need to wake up and open your eyes.

 

[Andyh2299]

Absolutely no defense is "100%". Does not matter what it is, even vaccinations are not 100%. People who get the measles vaccine can sometimes still get measles, and even rabies shots in dogs have a failure rate.

And sometimes bullets still penetrate bullet proof vests.

And yes, President Reagan put a lot of money into missile defense, and we now have a lot of systems that can take out ballistic missiles. Something thought to be impossible just 4 decades ago. And yes, no system will ever be 100%, but having anything is better than having nothing. The idea is simply to reduce the number of targets hit as much as possible.

And do not let the fact a missile is "hypersonic" fool you. Intercepting an inbound threat is still just simple math, knowing where it will be at a point in time and having a missile intercept it there.

By your logic, seat belts do not save people in a crash 100%, therefore they should not be used and are apparently a waste of time.

Do we need it? I believe most of China's some 300 warheads work. For Russia I assume at least one fourth of their 2000 some strategic warheads. All these ballistic missiles have tricky decoys that may take thousands of interceptors to defeat all the warheads.

We don't have the tech yet to take out hypersonic glide vehicles. Speed isnt the problem. They maneuver and go under radar better than ICBMs.

 

[Tigerace117]

Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Humans and leaders I think are ultimately rational. War is ultimately a ritualistic masculine endeavour. Therefore I believe a conventional war with the Russian federation and The Peoples Republic of China can be won without Strategic Missile Defense.

The idea we could beat both China AND Russia together is pretty funny. We’d have our hands full just trying to fight one.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Since it is inevitable, why not just get it over with? I mean, think about it. The planet can start over again without us humans messing it up.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

it'll be a nuclear war.

And we need to be ready for it.

I'm ready.
When it breaks out and missiles start flying, I'll assume the position, tuck your head firmly between your knees, and kiss my ass goodbye.

How do you "get ready" for nuclear war? Would you even want to survive the initial blasts?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Neither Russia nor China can effectively invade the US. The US cannot effectively invade either Russia or China.

But there is a huge difference between the two.

Russia and China both have relatively few and rather small amphibious warfare ships. More designed for operating in their own coastal waters than in sailing great distances with a war complement on board. And for both of them, their airlift capability is largely a joke. The California Air National Guard alone has over twice the airlift capacity of the entire Chinese military. And the capability of Russia is not much better.

However, the US at almost all times has from 2 to 3 Amphibious Task Groups of roughly brigade sized landing teams at sea at all times. And with our prepositioned strategic sealift ships, we can support multiple Divisions with all of their equipment and supplies for 30 days in the amount of time it takes the ships to reach their destination.

That is a capability that neither Russia or China have. The US could "invade" either one of them, and with a huge force. However, neither one can really "invade" the US, other than to say take over Catalina Island or one of the Aleutian Islands.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm ready.
When it breaks out and missiles start flying, I'll assume the position, tuck your head firmly between your knees, and kiss my ass goodbye.

How do you "get ready" for nuclear war? Would you even want to survive the initial blasts?

Speaking as a resident of the only country that stands between Russia and America, can I strongly urge that non-nuclear options be relied on?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Do we need it? I believe most of China's some 300 warheads work. For Russia I assume at least one fourth of their 2000 some strategic warheads. All these ballistic missiles have tricky decoys that may take thousands of interceptors to defeat all the warheads.

Once again, analogy of seatbelts and crashes. If it is not 100%, you think it is a waste.

We don't have the tech yet to take out hypersonic glide vehicles. Speed isnt the problem. They maneuver and go under radar better than ICBMs.

Actually, we do. There is nothing magical about "hypersonic". Hell, ICBMs are a hell of a lot faster than "hypersonic missiles", and we have hit them many times.

And no, they do not "go under" RADAR. Holy hell, you must be making all that up. Hypersonic missiles all operate at altitudes in excess of 50,000 feet. They have to, they are only capable of operating at high altitudes where the air density is low. If they tried flying that fast at low altitude they would burn up. And they also maneuver about as well as an aircraft carrier. That once again is simple physics. The faster an object goes, the more room it takes to change the direction of travel. That is why jet fighters are nowhere near as maneuverable as a WWII fighter is. And why a WWII fighter is not a maneuverable as a WWI fighter is.

I am actually laughing, because what you just claimed is actually 100% wrong, and is actually the exact opposite.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm ready.
When it breaks out and missiles start flying, I'll assume the position, tuck your head firmly between your knees, and kiss my ass goodbye.

How do you "get ready" for nuclear war? Would you even want to survive the initial blasts?

Trump has said how to "get ready".

 

[Mycroft]

But there is a huge difference between the two.

Russia and China both have relatively few and rather small amphibious warfare ships. More designed for operating in their own coastal waters than in sailing great distances with a war complement on board. And for both of them, their airlift capability is largely a joke. The California Air National Guard alone has over twice the airlift capacity of the entire Chinese military. And the capability of Russia is not much better.

However, the US at almost all times has from 2 to 3 Amphibious Task Groups of roughly brigade sized landing teams at sea at all times. And with our prepositioned strategic sealift ships, we can support multiple Divisions with all of their equipment and supplies for 30 days in the amount of time it takes the ships to reach their destination.

That is a capability that neither Russia or China have. The US could "invade" either one of them, and with a huge force. However, neither one can really "invade" the US, other than to say take over Catalina Island or one of the Aleutian Islands.

LOL!!

The US couldn't invade and hold Afghanistan.

 

[BirdinHand]

Other than immediately dead vs. dead from nuclear winter…what’s the difference if we blast nukes out of the sky vs. if they strike ground?

If a bunch of nukes get blasted out of the sky over the continental US, depending on how many there are, most of us are dead anyway…it’s just a question of how long until we are dead isn’t it?

 

[Antiwar]

Soon, soon. The first batch of Trumps Space Cadets should be graduating soon.

I thought the first batch graduated on January 6th, 2021.

 

[Antiwar]

Trump has said how to "get ready".

Do tell.

 

[Grand Mal]

I thought the first batch graduated on January 6th, 2021.

They did? What have they been doing since then?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"?

There is no dome, proposed or otherwise.
It's one of Donnie's masturbatory fantasies from watching too much TV and assuming everything is real.

 

[Andyh2299]

Once again, analogy of seatbelts and crashes. If it is not 100%, you think it is a waste.



Actually, we do. There is nothing magical about "hypersonic". Hell, ICBMs are a hell of a lot faster than "hypersonic missiles", and we have hit them many times.

And no, they do not "go under" RADAR. Holy hell, you must be making all that up. Hypersonic missiles all operate at altitudes in excess of 50,000 feet. They have to, they are only capable of operating at high altitudes where the air density is low. If they tried flying that fast at low altitude they would burn up. And they also maneuver about as well as an aircraft carrier. That once again is simple physics. The faster an object goes, the more room it takes to change the direction of travel. That is why jet fighters are nowhere near as maneuverable as a WWII fighter is. And why a WWII fighter is not a maneuverable as a WWI fighter is.

I am actually laughing, because what you just claimed is actually 100% wrong, and is actually the exact opposite.

My problem is 25 percent let's say is enough to destroy all American cities.

HGVs and HCMs go lower than than ICBMs it will not be locked on as fast as an ICBM. I'm not saying it can go around mountains like a fighter or Tomahawk.

SM-3 and GBI cant engage HGVs by the way they are designed to work in space.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The US couldn't invade and hold Afghanistan.

They could not? Wow, you really need to check your history because they did invade Afghanistan.

ANd the failure there was not military, it was political. Do not confuse the two.

 

[Tigerace117]

They could not? Wow, you really need to check your history because they did invade Afghanistan.

ANd the failure there was not military, it was political. Do not confuse the two.

The two are intrinsically linked. Failure to militarily defeat the Taliban led to political loss of will to continue fighting.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Other than immediately dead vs. dead from nuclear winter

Nuclear Winter was discredited decades ago. Even the creator of the theory admitted it was thoroughly busted.

In case you are not aware, the lead scientist in creating that theory was Carl Sagan. And during the Gulf War he used their research and concluded that blowing up 100 oil wells would create a "nuclear winter" effect over much of the globe. Well, Iraq blew up over 700 oil wells, and the planet barely blinked. And to give him credit, he admitted in his 1995 book "The Demon-Haunted World" that the theory was thoroughly busted and was not real. And that the models they used were 100% wrong.

 

[Oozlefinch]

My problem is 25 percent let's say is enough to destroy all American cities.

No, they are not.

There are only over 100,000 cities in the US. There are over 1,200 with a population over 24,000. There are over 600 with a population over 50,000.

http://www.demographia.com/db-city2002.htm

And the warheads on missiles over the decades have shrunk dramatically. Nobody uses the massive multi-megaton ones anymore, almost all are sum-megaton warheads. Maybe you need to use something like nukemap to see how big those really are.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.

nuclearsecrecy.com

And Russia only has a little over 300 ICBMs. And if each one is fully loaded with MIRV warheads, that is only 1,032 warheads. All under 1 MT. That comes nowhere even close to your claims even if none are shot down.

You know, you simply have to stop making things up. Because others that really do know facts blow away your claims far too easily.