- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,622
- Reaction score
- 68
- Location
- Toledo-ish OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
M14 Shooter said:The EU would come off second-best in a fight with the United States.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Discuss.
TimmyBoy said:If Europe, China and Russia decided to team up on the US, it would inevitably lead to a nuclear war and the destruction of mankind.
George_Washington said:The only way a war like this could happen is if one of us develops a defense against all nuclear attacks. If that were to happen, history would quickly revert itself and the wars of old would once again be upon us. We just might actually develop a fool proof defense to nuclear attack some day.
TimmyBoy said:The US could easily have a defense against nuclear tipped cruise missles and ICBMs. Reagans Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative produced "Brilliant Pebbles" which from what I understand could take down Russian ICBMs (even if those ICBMs were armored up to resist lasers and to deploy decoys) as well as take down low flying nuclear tipped cruise missles. The Brilliant Pebbles was upgraded in the 1990s under the Bush Sr. adminstration to take down low flying cruise missles from space. Their were plans to deploy them in space until Clinton got in office and foolishly decided to cancel the program. Any effective, massive anti-missle defense system has to be space based.
TimmyBoy said:The US could easily have a defense against nuclear tipped cruise missles and ICBMs. Reagans Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative produced "Brilliant Pebbles" which from what I understand could take down Russian ICBMs (even if those ICBMs were armored up to resist lasers and to deploy decoys) as well as take down low flying nuclear tipped cruise missles. The Brilliant Pebbles was upgraded in the 1990s under the Bush Sr. adminstration to take down low flying cruise missles from space. Their were plans to deploy them in space until Clinton got in office and foolishly decided to cancel the program. Any effective, massive anti-missle defense system has to be space based.
15% successful?As it stands, the current program is only 15% successful.
I think you have that backwards.and the fuel switch from liquid to solid fuel in missile technology makes it utterly worthless because the interceptor missiles wouldn't be deployed fast enough
Kelzie said:Are you talking about that massive waste of money that didn't work at all? Yeah, too bad Clinton axed it. :roll:
But it was Reagan's Star Wars program that forced Gorbachev into Peristroka and Glasnost and into the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
iamjack said:Well yeah, but not because it worked. It's funny how SDI scared to hell out of the reds when it was like 25 years off.
TimmyBoy said:Really, the Brilliant Pebbles program is the better option for the Bush Adminstration to pursue in missle defense rather than the hit to kill vehicle, launched from the ground to intercept missles. Such anti-missle programs need to be based in space to be the most effective. The Soviet Union called it the "militarization of space." The Brilliant Pebbles program was cost effective, so thousands could be deployed in space. They did not rely on lasers, due to the fact that the Soviet Union would apply laser resistant armor on their missles. The technology relied on kinetic energy penetrators, similar to ammunition used to punch holes in heavily armored objects. They were extremely small, so Soviet anti-sattellite lasers couldn't destroy or shoot them down while in space. And because they were cheap, you could deploy a whole bunch of them in space and any missle that deployed decoys, their decoys would be less significant. I read a book on Edward Teller, who was one of the scientists that did extensive research into SDI. In his book he states that missle defense is feasible and it is a matter of political will and support. Their are alot of new technologies that make it feasible, some of which are classified, according to him.
TimmyBoy said:But it was Reagan's Star Wars program that forced Gorbachev into Peristroka and Glasnost and into the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
Kelzie said:Seeing as Brilliant Pebble never got past the research phase, that's a little optimistic of you.
And a little simplistic too, I might add.
TimmyBoy said:It's true, the Soviet Union was having serious economic troubles beforehand. Under Brezhnev they were having problems and they sought an agreement with Carter on nuclear arms to alleviate some of the pressure that continued military competition with US was having on their economy. But the continued expanisionist programs of the Soviet Union and their gains in the Third World helped to bring about the election of Reagan and I believe it was the policies of the Reagan Adminstration that brought about an accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. I might even argue, that if Reagan never came to power, the Soviet Union might have never collapsed or at least still be around today.
Kelzie said:No way. The Soviet Union had a one way ticket with no stops. Reagan just added a little more speed to the train. Gorbachev's policies also had just as an important of role as Reagan's in ending the Cold War.
M14 Shooter said:The EU would come off second-best in a fight with the United States.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Discuss.
M14 Shooter said:I think you have that backwards.
Liquid fuelled rockets take time to fuel; soilids do not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?