• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Russia tests ICBM designed to overcome missile shield

obvious Child said:
Discretionary welfare makes up something like 1% of the total budget.
And the entitlement programs are the result of bipartisan actions.

Are you calling former President Eisenhower a liberal? :confused:
Click to expand...

1. Discretionary "welfare" is approximately 5-10% of the total budget, depending on how you define welfare

2. A large part of mandatory spending is "welfare" as well. The actual welfare program, Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare, SS, etc. - all of these are mandatory and are huge portions of the budget. DHHS is approx $700b alone.


obvious Child said:
I still can't figure out why a country like Iran or North Korea would bother with a missile when they can send a cargo container with a nuke. Or a donkey over the Mexican border.

Missile defense proponents seem like the most ignorant, narrow minded people ever who can't even consider the possibility of an alternative strike method.
Click to expand...

I think it's highly unlikely that any nation would actually decide to use either of those methods to transport a nuclear device into the US. I'm also willing to bet that the many, many people whose job it is to think about and prepare against these types of things are a lot more intelligent and open-minded than people posting on an internet forum.
 
RightinNYC said:
1. Discretionary "welfare" is approximately 5-10% of the total budget, depending on how you define welfare
Click to expand...

Well that's the rub isn't it?

2. A large part of mandatory spending is "welfare" as well. The actual welfare program, Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare, SS, etc. - all of these are mandatory and are huge portions of the budget. DHHS is approx $700b alone.
Click to expand...

Hence why I referred to the 1% as discretionary. The rest of the entitlements are mandatory.

I think it's highly unlikely that any nation would actually decide to use either of those methods to transport a nuclear device into the US. I'm also willing to bet that the many, many people whose job it is to think about and prepare against these types of things are a lot more intelligent and open-minded than people posting on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely that either nation would actually use the weapon. Those regimes are dedicated to staying in power. Using a traceable nuke DOES NOT result in their survival. North Korea will only use their weapon if their regime is about to be destroyed. There are internal reasons for why that nuke is going sit there and collect dust. Essentially it's a giant symbolistic monument as to why the regime should be in power. Most of the fears on NK are about exportation of know how, not actual weapons.
 
obvious Child said:
Well that's the rub isn't it?

Hence why I referred to the 1% as discretionary. The rest of the entitlements are mandatory.
Click to expand...

"Mandatory" in that they're freed from the trouble of being reauthorized each year. Congress can still modify or eliminate these programs at will. IMO, the term "mandatory" is a bit of a misnomer.

It's highly unlikely that either nation would actually use the weapon. Those regimes are dedicated to staying in power. Using a traceable nuke DOES NOT result in their survival. North Korea will only use their weapon if their regime is about to be destroyed. There are internal reasons for why that nuke is going sit there and collect dust. Essentially it's a giant symbolistic monument as to why the regime should be in power. Most of the fears on NK are about exportation of know how, not actual weapons.
Click to expand...

Which is probably why people aren't worried about them tossing a nuke on a donkey.
 
I don't suppose anyone is assuming any deception on the part of the Russkies, eh? You think this is all about our missile shield? Could there be other reasons?
 
American said:
I don't suppose anyone is assuming any deception on the part of the Russkies, eh? You think this is all about our missile shield? Could there be other reasons?
Click to expand...

Very likely there is deception on their part.

But more scary is the stupidity on our part.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Earlier today, Russia announced the test of an intercontinental ballistic missile that is designed to avoid detection by existing missile defense systems. The launch had reportedly been planned in advance and, therefore, was not likely to have been related to the recent mini-war between Russia and Georgia.
Russia tests ICBM designed to overcome missile shield - Forbes.com
Click to expand...
Can anyone tell us exactly how the new ICBM is "designed to avoid detection by existing missile defense systems"?
 
The NMD is.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there has no been successful test of any missile system intercepting an ICBM. If your think the NMD has, post a link to it.
 
Goobieman said:
Can anyone tell us exactly how the new ICBM is "designed to avoid detection by existing missile defense systems"?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the missile is coated with material that makes it largely invisible to radar.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It's my understanding that the missile is coated with material that makes it largely invisible to radar.
Click to expand...

Could we track its thermal signature? Could a listening station hear it launch? Can we track its apnospheric disturbance as it travels a Mach speed? Can radio or microwaves detect it?
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
It's my understanding that the missile is coated with material that makes it largely invisible to radar.
Click to expand...
So, this doesn't just defeat the NMD, it defeats the entire BMEWS.

What do you suppose -that- does to MAD?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Don't we have cruse missles that fly a Mach speed, 6-8 feet off the ground?
Click to expand...
No. Our current cruise missiles are subsonic and they dont fly that low.
 
Goobieman said:
So, this doesnt just defeat the NMD, it defeats the entire BMEWS.

What do you suppose that does to MAD?
Click to expand...

We could reconfigure the deflector to emit an inverted graviton pulse, but we would have to divert power from the warp core. We have to keep the shields up, this means we would have to take the transporters, the hollow-deck and life support off line.

I recommend we activate the Emergency Command Hologram incase the bridge crew is incapacitated while the burst is discharging.
 
All of the IFT hit-to-kill experiments are examples of the NMD shooting down an ICBM.
Click to expand...

Your link provides no evidence that the target intercepted were ICBMs. Intercepting a shorter range missile isn't nearly as difficult.
 
rathi said:
Your link provides no evidence that the target intercepted were ICBMs. Intercepting a shorter range missile isn't nearly as difficult.
Click to expand...
They were dummy ICBMs, accurately simulating ICBMs in terms of trajectory and speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom