Ballistic Missile Interceptors in Place

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Nov 15, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Two statements there, one is correct and one is well wide of the mark.

    Yes this is a major step forward against ballistic missile attack. However it will remain unlikely that any rogue nation wishing to attack the USA with a nuclear weapon would have the capability to deliver it by ballistic missile. Much cheaper to deliver it by hand and certainly within their capability. To better understand your enemy ask yourself this question:

    How do I stop a suicide bomber from strapping a nuclear bomb to himself instead of PE? Whatever the type of device the motivation is the same.
     
  2. You raise a good point. However, the anti ballistic missile defense is intended to protect against a North Korean launch. Later on if Iran gets an intercontinental missile then the system would provide a measure of defense as well. Alaska is well suited for a launch facility to take on a pacific threat and can reach over the pole. Coupled with the sea going ABM capability we should be able to handle a limited attack.

    You are right to point out the terrorist threat. Al Qaeda recently indicated they had obtained enriched uranium [probably done by Syria in their centrifuges]. Two crop dusters were possibly stolen in Mexico and there is a fear they might be used to spread anthrax. It would be a mess to clean up but not a huge problem. Homeland security is working the potential of a dirty bomb detonated somewhere in the US. Likey target could be a red state as prior to the election OBL threatened any state that voted for Bush would be a potential target.