Why is no one clamoring to build more ABMs?

[craig]

SpaceX's current Starlink constellation is authorized for 4,408 satellites, all in orbits at around 550 kilometers.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Ummm... Why aren't you mentioning the critical limits to the ABM Treaty's deployment of interceptors?

Uh, I did.

That is because the treaty allowed to maintain 2 sites. One for the capitol, the other for their main ICBM site.

The Russians still maintain two sites, we maintain none.

Also you seriously think destroying every city and military base in Russia except for their capitol and main ICBM site wouldn't "do major damage to them"?

Once again, false logic and claim based on emotion.

You also have to realize, there is a large difference between a Republic, and a dictatorship. In a Dictatorship, the top leadership has little concern for their population, other than how they create things for them. Do you think Stalin gave a damn about the people of Stalingrad, or was upset because of the production it cost him when the Germans attacked?

Hell, he killed more of his own people than the Germans did. So trying to claim otherwise is rather silly to be honest. And I never claimed it would not do damage. SO no idea where you are trying to go with that line.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It would be suicidal for them to assume America wouldn't just nuke them (or otherwise attack them) once we invalidate their deterrent.

Really?

We announce that we are going to give bullet proof vests to cops. Can you see every criminal running around trying to kill all the cops when they can, before they get the vests?

That is the most stupid and flawed logic I have ever heard. And it never made a lick of sense.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Star Wars is ABS.

Do you even know what Star Wars is? Can you tell me what ABM systems we use, and how they operate?

No, as usual you were bloviating on coprolite, and saying nothing of importance.

 

[Oozlefinch]

SpaceX's current Starlink constellation is authorized for 4,408 satellites, all in orbits at around 550 kilometers.

 

[Antiwar]

Do you even know what Star Wars is? Can you tell me what ABM systems we use, and how they operate?

No, as usual you were bloviating on coprolite, and saying nothing of importance.

It's when the US Empire Strikes Back using space lasers and like that-- duh.

 

[Questerr]

Uh, I did.



The Russians still maintain two sites, we maintain none.



Once again, false logic and claim based on emotion.

You also have to realize, there is a large difference between a Republic, and a dictatorship. In a Dictatorship, the top leadership has little concern for their population, other than how they create things for them. Do you think Stalin gave a damn about the people of Stalingrad, or was upset because of the production it cost him when the Germans attacked?

Hell, he killed more of his own people than the Germans did. So trying to claim otherwise is rather silly to be honest. And I never claimed it would not do damage. SO no idea where you are trying to go with that line.

I didn't see anywhere where you mentioned the ABM Treaty limited each side to only 100 interceptors. Did America only have 100 ICBM's? If not, how would the Soviets having 100 interceptors threaten MAD?

When a dictatorship loses all of its industry and military, it loses its power.

Also your words:

So by that logic, the Russians should have been terrified that MAD would have been threatened, as they could have harmed us, but we could not have done major harm to them. But strange, it never worked that way.

So you must be claiming that Russia losing every city and every military base except for their capitol and major ICBM base wouldn't be "major harm".

 

[Questerr]

Really?

We announce that we are going to give bullet proof vests to cops. Can you see every criminal running around trying to kill all the cops when they can, before they get the vests?

That is the most stupid and flawed logic I have ever heard. And it never made a lick of sense.

You are in an armed standoff with an enemy, both of you pointing guns at each other. Your enemy starts putting on a bulletproof suit that will make him totally immune to your bullets. Do you just let him do that, hoping he won't shoot you with impunity once he has his suit on?

Or do you take you chances and fire before he can get the suit on in the hopes you kill him before he can pull the trigger?

 

[Oozlefinch]

It's when the US Empire Strikes Back using space lasers

It was never "space lasers". That was the false impression given to people because of the animations used.

And the morons that know nothing of what it ever was still believe it was about lasers.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I didn't see anywhere where you mentioned the ABM Treaty limited each side to only 100 interceptors. Did America only have 100 ICBM's? If not, how would the Soviets having 100 interceptors threaten MAD?

The number of interceptors largely does not matter, if they could only have two locations. Even with the locations at place, we never would have fired more than a couple of nukes at each location.

As I say, false logic based on hysteria and not true logic.

 

[Antiwar]

It was never "space lasers". That was the false impression given to people because of the animations used.

And the morons that know nothing of what it ever was still believe it was about lasers.

Coprolite, I tell you, coprolite!

 

[BirdinHand]

Would stopping an ICBM or any nuclear weapon in flight still detonate it and cause nuclear fallout?

(Serious question)

If so, does it even matter? All you’re doing is prolonging the deaths of millions…just dispersed over a larger area and time.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Your enemy starts putting on a bulletproof suit that will make him totally immune to your bullets. Do you just let him do that, hoping he won't shoot you with impunity once he has his suit on?

Once again, stupid and false claim. Especially as there is no such thing.

Please, stick to facts and actual things, not crazy fantasy. Otherwise, I will respond with something like you respond by launching your dragon at him so he can be burned alive without firing a bullet at all.

 

[Questerr]

The number of interceptors largely does not matter, if they could only have two locations. Even with the locations at place, we never would have fired more than a couple of nukes at each location.

As I say, false logic based on hysteria and not true logic.

I love how you selectively quoted my post and cut out the actual major points I made. It's almost as if you aren't an honest participant in the debate.

 

[Antiwar]

A lot of armchair cob pipe smokers emitting up in here.

 

[Questerr]

Once again, stupid and false claim. Especially as there is no such thing.

Please, stick to facts and actual things, not crazy fantasy. Otherwise, I will respond with something like you respond by launching your dragon at him so he can be burned alive without firing a bullet at all.

The OP is about the US developing to a total ABM defense. My scenario applies perfectly to that idea and explains why it would threaten MAD and force a "use them or lose them" situation.

 

[Antiwar]

I love how you selectively quoted my post and cut out the actual major points I made. It's almost as if you aren't an honest participant in the debate.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I'd rather see an envoy sent to Moscow bearing flowers and doves, with an olive branch of peace. Maybe some hookers and blow.

I think its just crazy enough to work. Certainly worth a shot IMO.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Would stopping an ICBM or any nuclear weapon in flight still detonate it and cause nuclear fallout?

No.

Nuclear weapons are actually rather fragile. They use implosion systems, with multiple fail-safes.

At the very worst, you would have either a "high altitude fissile", which is a sub-yield explosion with some contamination below the point of impact. As well as some contamination where the body impacted the surface.

But no "fallout", as an intercept would by definition happen at high altitude. And fallout is what results from a ground or near-ground burst. When dirt and other objects are irradiated inside of the explosion. Even if for some reason an intercept caused a full detonation, at altitude there would be no "fallout" because there is nothing to become irradiated but air.

That is why there was never a worry of "fallout" in our "Starfish Prime" test.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I love how you selectively quoted my post and cut out the actual major points I made. It's almost as if you aren't an honest participant in the debate.

I dismissed most is irrelevant.

It does not matter if an ABM site has 1 ABM missile, 100 ABM missiles, or 1 million ABM missiles. It is completely and 100% irrelevant. Therefore, it was not worth talking about at all.

But fine, I have now discussed it. Happy now? Because it is still irrelevant.

 

[craig]

In October 2020, the Space Development Agency awarded SpaceX an initial US$150 million dual-use contract to develop a deluxe military version of the Starlink satellite bus.[196] The first tranche of satellites are scheduled to launch September 2022 to form part of the Tracking Layer of the Space Force's National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA).[197]

The NDSA will be composed of seven layers and mirrors concepts from the former Brilliant Pebbles system. Cost overruns had led to cancellation of these earlier programs but SpaceX and other reusable launch systems have mitigated concerns according to a 2019 Congressional Budget Office analysis.[198] The new constellation also leverages Starlink and other commercial technology development to reduce costs, such as free-space optical laser terminals in a mesh network for secure command and control.[199]

While much of the program is classified, it broadly envisions layers of LEO satellites, some containing space-based interceptors to track and neutralize perceived threats such as ballistic missiles. Captain Joshua Daviscourt, USAF indicated the satellite constellations could include hypersonic re-entry vehicles or micro-missiles fielding pods of 100 interceptors onboard each satellite.[200] Previous National Research Council studies show space-based interceptors could kinetically impact a target within 2 minutes of initiating a de-orbit.[201][202]

 

[Antiwar]

The number of interceptors largely does not matter, if they could only have two locations. Even with the locations at place, we never would have fired more than a couple of nukes at each location.

As I say, false logic based on hysteria and not true logic.

Did you hear the one about left-libertarian socialists seizing the means of military missile production?

@Questerr

 

[Oozlefinch]

In October 2020, the Space Development Agency awarded SpaceX an initial US$150 million dual-use contract to develop a deluxe military version of the Starlink satellite bus.[196] The first tranche of satellites are scheduled to launch September 2022 to form part of the Tracking Layer of the Space Force's National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA)

Yadda-yadda-yadda.

What in the hell does that have to do with the topic? Or are you trying to say that StarLink is some kind of ABM system?

 

[Antiwar]

"Starfish Prime"

I saw them at Woodstock!

 

[BirdinHand]

No.

Nuclear weapons are actually rather fragile. They use implosion systems, with multiple fail-safes.

At the very worst, you would have either a "high altitude fissile", which is a sub-yield explosion with some contamination below the point of impact. As well as some contamination where the body impacted the surface.

But no "fallout", as an intercept would by definition happen at high altitude. And fallout is what results from a ground or near-ground burst. When dirt and other objects are irradiated inside of the explosion. Even if for some reason an intercept caused a full detonation, at altitude there would be no "fallout" because there is nothing to become irradiated but air.

That is why there was never a worry of "fallout" in our "Starfish Prime" test.

Thank you.

I didn’t know and then this makes this all make more sense.