United States v Time

[uberfoop]

That's one big fucking bomb.... You could do it with chemical and biological warfare, not so easily with nuclear.

Biological maybe, but I highly doubt chemical, since we're still in the context of 1 device. It's just as hard if not harder to murder an entire city with strange gasses as it is with fusion. Some things are extremely potent, but you still need a sizeable amount of contaminants.

Biological stuff is what's scary as hell, though due to it's likelihood of getting out of control and stabbing the attacker in the back via contagiousness, it's just a stupid pick. It's like a less reliable form of MAD, but the victims don't need nukes to fire back.

Nukes are instant destruction. Victims of a nuclear strike might have enough time to launch some stuff back before the weapons hit, but after that it's chaos.



Still, that's one big fucking bomb
So big in fact that we could start talking about the 'How to Kill a Mockingbird' flash video and speak of destroying things by slamming the moon into them.

 

[Varine]

Nukes are instant destruction. Victims of a nuclear strike might have enough time to launch some stuff back before the weapons hit, but after that it's chaos.

There are ways to disable the weapons before it hits anything. There are missiles that can smash into them and use the kinetic energy to totally disable it without setting it off.

So big in fact that we could start talking about the 'How to Kill a Mockingbird' flash video and speak of destroying things by slamming the moon into them.

I think we should blow the moon up and steal one of Saturn's.

 

[uberfoop]

There are ways to disable the weapons before it hits anything. There are missiles that can smash into them and use the kinetic energy to totally disable it without setting it off.

There's a big difference between hitting a friendly sattelite on a planned trajectory and hitting a hostile ICBM. The former doesn't make any attempt to hide it's radar signature, or spew chaff in your face, or jam your radar, or confuse your infrared targeting systems by. Or randomly screw with its own trajectory just to make you mad. Things like that.

I think we should blow the moon up and steal one of Saturn's.

Aye, they don't need theirs.

 

[Varine]

There's a big difference between hitting a friendly sattelite on a planned trajectory and hitting a hostile ICBM. The former doesn't make any attempt to hide it's radar signature, or spew chaff in your face, or jam your radar, or confuse your infrared targeting systems by. Or randomly screw with its own trajectory just to make you mad. Things like that.

I'm not talking about SM-3's... even though those are usually used as ABM's. Ever heard of a HAWK Missile? Sprint? LIM-49? THAAD? There's a huge safeguard system that's been in development since the Cold War. Trust me, there are ways to destroy nuclear missiles.

Spoiler

[YOUTUBE]9079GWS0hfU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[uberfoop]

Ever heard of a HAWK Missile?

That's out of service now, and was primarily used as AA.
And as far as I know, they weren't ever really used for ABM purposes outside of testing.

Sprint?

Oh, that'll knock out the projectile alright. Of course, it will also render it impossible to conduct more operations because you've just jammed all your equipment for a little while after the warhead detonates. I'll admit Sprint was a sexy system, but not the most feasible thing ever.

LIM-49?

Same deal as with Sprint, but even moreso, since we're talking about a 5 megaton warhead.

THAAD?

I admit THAAD is pretty impressive.


I guess I ought to revoke my statement on theatre ballistic missiles, since there ARE ways to shoot them down. Now that I think about it, there have been a lot of modern developments there. THAADs, SA-21s, Arrows...

 

[Wiseman_2]

And what of this proposed missile shield in eastern Europe? Surely it would be capable of shooting down missiles, or else there would be little point in putting it there!

 

[uberfoop]

And what of this proposed missile shield in eastern Europe? Surely it would be capable of shooting down missiles, or else there would be little point in putting it there!

Eh, this is where the skepticism rises. Shooting down theatre BM's is one thing. Shooting down ICBM's is quite different. Theatre BM's tend to move either subsonic or in the couple of mach range, so assuming that you're not looking at BM's with a great deal of stealth, they're nailable. They also are often designed to hug the ground to avoid detection; given that they don't have ridiculously high ceilings, this makes sense, and makes them harder to detect and track, but it also means they're never above the kill ceiling of an ABM.
ICBM's on the other hand...

They travel through space, their basic costs mean that people put loads of money into making them less targetable, they tend to be travelling at mach 20+...
Getting one at boost phase is your best bet, but you still have to be more or less there. In transit they're harder to detect and hit, and this will probably become more prevalent as stealth technology becomes more widespread. As for terminal stage interception, screw that. It's hard enough hitting ONE target. When you've got like 6 warheads streaming down through the atmosphere at 7000 m/s complete with radar jamming systems/chaff n stuff, decoys to confuse infrared targeting...Yea, good luck with that. It would be like trying to stop a human wave with 15th-century cannon.

Unless of course the ABM shield is intended for medium-range missiles, but I doubt it, given its location. I personally think it's just a political device, which would in many ways justify it's creation from a national priorities perspective.

 

[Varine]

That's out of service now, and was primarily used as AA.
And as far as I know, they weren't ever really used for ABM purposes outside of testing.

They're not decommissioned.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk.htm

Oh, that'll knock out the projectile alright. Of course, it will also render it impossible to conduct more operations because you've just jammed all your equipment for a little while after the warhead detonates. I'll admit Sprint was a sexy system, but not the most feasible thing ever.

It would nonetheless be effective against any use of ICBM's fired at us, although they are decommissioned now. And no, the systems should be fine.

Same deal as with Sprint, but even moreso, since we're talking about a 5 megaton warhead.

That would detonate several hundred miles away. The 5MG one has an operational range of like 500 miles and travels like 3000 miles an hour.

They travel through space, their basic costs mean that people put loads of money into making them less targetable, they tend to be travelling at mach 20+...

Lasers.

Unless of course the ABM shield is intended for medium-range missiles, but I doubt it, given its location. I personally think it's just a political device, which would in many ways justify it's creation from a national priorities perspective.

It's probably intended to deter Russia from invading the rest of Europe, as we need our allies there, and the majority of the Middle-Eastern missiles that it is supposed to defend against won't be traveling Mach 25. The one we're afraid of is their Dawn missile, and I doubt that it will be too fast to shoot down. Israel would probably take it down as soon as it was launched, but if not they would probably inform us that a giant missile just flew over them.

 

[uberfoop]

They're not decommissioned.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk.htm

Updated Friday, January 22, 1999 10:29:04 AM

They were decommisioned in 2002.

Lasers.

None of our laser systems current or planned are even remotely able to perform mid or terminal phase intercepts. The closest we have to that sort of thing is the ABL, which *MIGHT* be capable of boost phase intercept against some ICBM's, though it wasn't designed for it.

Assuming we continue to advance lasers, however, it could become feasible given enough years, since lasers by nature are one of the best bets for missile interceptions.

It's probably intended to deter Russia from invading the rest of Europe

Eh? Russia is feeling buff right now (or, at least were before the economic crisis hit), but they aren't lunatics. They're in no position to push Westward.

 

[Varine]

Eh? Russia is feeling buff right now (or, at least were before the economic crisis hit), but they aren't lunatics. They're in no position to push Westward.

They're apparent plan is to work on cutting off US relations to Europe to leave us with few allies in case of war. China's doing the same thing. Russian leaders want to regain the land they lost after the Soviet Union fell; they will have no problem pushing westward pretty soon. Being the number two exporter of oil and number one of natural gas, which soon will probably be quite popular, they will probably pull out of the economic issues before the rest of the world and if Europe and America are all in crisis and are no longer on good terms, there won't be much opposition, especially with China and Iran and maybe Syria all backing them.

They were decommisioned in 2002.

Only in the US, we use Stingers now. There are a lot of systems in use in Europe, which is where these ABM's are going. Regardless of it's use in America it's still an effective ABM and there are probably several places in the US that are capable of operating them if necessary.

 

[uberfoop]

They're apparent plan is to work on cutting off US relations to Europe to leave us with few allies in case of war. China's doing the same thing. Russian leaders want to regain the land they lost after the Soviet Union fell; they will have no problem pushing westward pretty soon. Being the number two exporter of oil and number one of natural gas, which soon will probably be quite popular, they will probably pull out of the economic issues before the rest of the world and if Europe and America are all in crisis and are no longer on good terms, there won't be much opposition, especially with China and Iran and maybe Syria all backing them.

Yea, but it's unlikely that they'll actually invade Europe. Besides, most of Western Europe is sturdy enough that they aren't likely to have to grovel at Russia's feet for resources, though Eastern Europe is kind of screwed in that way.
As for the economic crisis, I can see them as having more capacity for pulling out than most other nations through resources, though at the same time, they have been hit a lot harder than anyone else. Their economy was so happy and thus loaded with credit that their growth rate will probably be around 0 for the next year. Though, their 8% growth rate under Putin probably makes up for a single year of fail, but w/e.

I can see them doing a pretty good job of subjugating their historical area of influence, but I can't see them subjugating Western Europe or daring any major military activities against the EU. Their military is extremely effecient with the money they get compared to most, and their ability to wind things up in times of crisis is unbeleivable, but they can't take on the entire European West.

 

[New_U.S.]

US-European relations are currently better now then they were 2 years ago, and leaders from both ends are working to improve that.

Russia doesn't have the ability to attack westward for a few reasons. Attacking Europe will set in motion NATO countries. I have no doubt in my mind that these countries would ban completetly against Russia. Russia could not hope for allied help, because major allys, such as Iran in the middle east, would be attacked by U.S. built alliances in the region. The one I'm thinking directly of is Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and Turkey. These countrys may not like each other too much, but they hate Iran more and would be willing to team. Worst come to worst, if somehow a major Sunni v Shiite war erupted, the U.S. could supply Sunni land with money and weapons and have that battle won.

Russia's only hope for this whole problem for Russia is if they got a major ally for their side, such as China. My only thing with this is, why would China fight all these other countries, including the U.S., a major buyer of their shit products.? If China was to jump on the bandwagon, they might be able to gain access over part of Russia's vast recourses.

If a war like this would happen to occur, you may even get side wars happen. Personally I'm waiting for the India - Pakistan war.

Getting a bit more on topic to the origenal debate, I think the best thing the U.S. can do now to being a more lasting empire, is get off foreign oil. Lets face it, the U.S. could probably do it in 10 yrs (maybe a bit more with the finacial problems).

 

[Varine]

Yea, but it's unlikely that they'll actually invade Europe.

Russia wants Poland really bad. The EU isn't going to do much in terms of alliances, especially if Russia can offer them more (like oil and natural gas, which they will need regardless of whether or not they are currently prepared to admit it).

India - Pakistan war

Might as well have already started.

Getting a bit more on topic to the origenal debate, I think the best thing the U.S. can do now to being a more lasting empire, is get off foreign oil. Lets face it, the U.S. could probably do it in 10 yrs (maybe a bit more with the finacial problems).

Yeah but that would require a certain future administration to stop worrying about healing the world and do a little bit of drilling.

 

[South-Titan]

Think the Arabs.

They have oil exports.
They invented algebra. That boosted mathematics, science, and economics to interstellar levels.
They have control of the Spice Islands.
Their food tastes great to many people.
They have lasted since close to the timeline of Mesopotamia.

Longevity and Popularity.

 

[Varine]

Think the Arabs.

They have oil exports.
They invented algebra. That boosted mathematics, science, and economics to interstellar levels.
They have control of the Spice Islands.
Their food tastes great to many people.
They have lasted since close to the timeline of Mesopotamia.

Longevity and Popularity.

They've lasted so long because for a relatively long time no one was messing around over there. It's only recently that there's been a ton of interest in having spheres of influence there out of necessity.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

They've lasted so long because for a relatively long time no one was messing around over there. It's only recently that there's been a ton of interest in having spheres of influence there out of necessity.

Conflicts in the region dubbed The Middle East have been going on for centuries.

-Crusades
-Persian Empire
-Assyrian Empire
-Sumerian Empire
-Roman Empire

Those are just a few, but you get the point. There has always been violence in that region, simply because it is the intersection of different worlds. As long as humans have differences, there will be conflict.