UK want US ABM system here

#2
Any chance that Tony has a job lined up with a firm connected in the contract?
 
#4
Might be nice to be under the shield, if Ivan starts getting frisky in the next few decades...
 
#6
woody said:
Why whats in it for us ? Cold wars long gone .
It's that sort of short sightedness that bit us on the ass 21 years after WW1
 
#7
Jeez I hope they dont put it in the Czech republic, theres enough yank tourists there as it is to have Spam troops running all over the shop!!

What does Georgie Bush think he's doing? is he suddenly thinking that the fractioned soviet sphere of influence is suddenly going to build up again jesus does he see bad people on every street corner? isnt he f(u)cking the world up enough with talks of military action in Iran, sh1t he hasnt even sorted Iraq and Afghanistan out yet!! the guy should be taken out PDQ aren't there any Lee Harveys out there anymore in the land of the free?
 
#8
Agent_Smith said:
woody said:
Why whats in it for us ? Cold wars long gone .
It's that sort of short sightedness that bit us on the ass 21 years after WW1
But it dosent work and its defending the us from a non exsistent threat .
 
#9
woody said:
Agent_Smith said:
woody said:
Why whats in it for us ? Cold wars long gone .
It's that sort of short sightedness that bit us on the ass 21 years after WW1
But it dosent work and its defending the us from a non exsistent threat .
Making it work is simply a matter of time and money, which is why the Russians are so peeved about it. It's not the barely-functionl, limited system currently deployed that they're woried about, it's what it might look like in 2020.
 
#11
FlakeShag said:
It does not protect us from fallout though, I would prefer it to actualy being hit by the missile though.

They system needs to be fixed and then I would be happy with my taxes going into it. The sites of thies ABM silos should be placed properly thogh, if they where to be placed inland, that would be pointless.
Er, EH??

It's not your taxes going on it, it's US taxes. And I really don't think how near the coast it is makes a difference to a system designed to intercept sub-orbital rockets thousands of miles away.
 
#12
The US ABM system has improved immeasurably in recent years. They stuck at it quietly and persistently and some real results have been posted.

The ship-borne part, namely the SM-3 destroyers, are mint. They hit most middle range ballistic missiles in tests, often launched without warning.

THAAD seems to have worked out the kinks. The latest 2 out of 3 tests against middle range missiles were successful. It seems that the very high altitude tests surprised the developers in that THAAD seems to have "residual" capability against ICBMs as well.

PAC-3 as medium defence is currently being developed. MEADS will be the bollocks.

Currently they are testing lasers against strategic rockets. Recently they lased up a satellite with no problems. I for one will be glad the Americans will have our backs against threats from the middle east, and eventually, from the real east.
 
#14
AndyPipkin said:
FlakeShag said:
It does not protect us from fallout though, I would prefer it to actualy being hit by the missile though.

They system needs to be fixed and then I would be happy with my taxes going into it. The sites of thies ABM silos should be placed properly thogh, if they where to be placed inland, that would be pointless.
Er, EH??

It's not your taxes going on it, it's US taxes. And I really don't think how near the coast it is makes a difference to a system designed to intercept sub-orbital rockets thousands of miles away.
BBC quoted at lunchtime that 'Costing' has not been decided between UK/US, so I would hold on that statement Andy.

SP
 
#15
RAF_RAF_RAF! said:
The US ABM system has improved immeasurably in recent years. They stuck at it quietly and persistently and some real results have been posted.

The ship-borne part, namely the SM-3 destroyers, are mint. They hit most middle range ballistic missiles in tests, often launched without warning.

THAAD seems to have worked out the kinks. The latest 2 out of 3 tests against middle range missiles were successful. It seems that the very high altitude tests surprised the developers in that THAAD seems to have "residual" capability against ICBMs as well.

PAC-3 as medium defence is currently being developed. MEADS will be the balls.

Currently they are testing lasers against strategic rockets. Recently they lased up a satellite with no problems. I for one will be glad the Americans will have our backs against threats from the middle east, and eventually, from the real east.
You are a SPAM PR man arent you????
Very strange.
SP
 
#16
Yes, anyone who defends the Septics on Arrse is an undercover agent *rolls eyes* Everyone knows that Brits produced everything that is good and Americans nothing. Dunkirk being one of many exceptions of course.

Says a lot about the sad state of this forum more than anything. Anyone who's been on exchange, would know that the Septics treat us so well and sincerely in person that it's near embarassing, yet we deign to mock the smallest thing about them, and not even to their faces, but on a message board behind their backs.

Some of us even make humour at American deaths. Pricks, all of us, basically.
 
#17
Snagglepuss said:
AndyPipkin said:
FlakeShag said:
It does not protect us from fallout though, I would prefer it to actualy being hit by the missile though.

They system needs to be fixed and then I would be happy with my taxes going into it. The sites of thies ABM silos should be placed properly thogh, if they where to be placed inland, that would be pointless.
Er, EH??

It's not your taxes going on it, it's US taxes. And I really don't think how near the coast it is makes a difference to a system designed to intercept sub-orbital rockets thousands of miles away.
BBC quoted at lunchtime that 'Costing' has not been decided between UK/US, so I would hold on that statement Andy.

SP
Maybe you're right but I expectand host-nation costs will be in the nature of 'host nation support' (cooking, cleaning, security, etc) rather than systems procurement & operation. Plus the US is now if the lucky position of having three different countris practically begging them to set up new bases there.

One should pause to reflect that, in spite of all the anti-Americanism in the world today, many countries seem more than keen to play host to Uncle Sam.
 
#18
woody said:
Agent_Smith said:
woody said:
Why whats in it for us ? Cold wars long gone .
It's that sort of short sightedness that bit us on the ass 21 years after WW1
But it dosent work and its defending the us from a non existent threat .
I do detest historical precedent, but the atomic bomb did not work for years during WW2, but plenty of hard work (and the incentive of an atomic Germany) made sure that it worked. Why should it be any different for this system?

Who says there is no-such threat? Pakistan (albeit and ally), Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, India, France, all have ICBM capability, and at least 5 of them have the bomb, so i would say there IS an existent threat, just that it is not clearly defined yet.

Lets not be short-sighted in our analysis.
 
#19
AndyPipkin said:
woody said:
Agent_Smith said:
woody said:
Why whats in it for us ? Cold wars long gone .
It's that sort of short sightedness that bit us on the ass 21 years after WW1
But it dosent work and its defending the us from a non exsistent threat .
Making it work is simply a matter of time and money, which is why the Russians are so peeved about it. It's not the barely-functionl, limited system currently deployed that they're woried about, it's what it might look like in 2020.
From an engineering perspective, there are still a lot of problems with the Ground Based Interceptor system, which still can only hit a cow with a barn door under laboritory-like conditions. THAAD, Aegis and PAC-3 show some promise.

The real problem isn't an engineering one. It's a problem of logic. NMD is not designed to, and is not capable of, defending against a high intensity attack. The easiest way to overcome the system (if you are in the ICBM game) is for the other side to just build more and more missiles (the easiest, if not cheapest way to go about it), develop MIRVs, MARVs and decoys. In short it's going to kick off another arms race.

The fact that there will almost certainly be leakers in any attack leads to just one logical conclusion- the continued need for a nuclear deterrent. And, as such, the NMD system is a $10bn a year system that is redundant. Hu Jintao and Mahmood Ahmedinejad are not so dumb as to risk Beijing or Tehran being vapourised. Deterrence has kept the peace for 60+ years.

The standard retort to the above point is "what happens if terrorists" get hold of a nuclear weapon? The response there is fairly simple:
1. They will have to get hold of, and convert, a bunch of people who know enough about the system to target it and operate it.
2. Although there might well be some concerns over C2 of nuclear weapons in some countries- but securing them would cost a mere fraction of what the NMD system costs.
3. The chances are, if terrorists do acquire themselves a nuclear weapon (and it will be a home-built job no world leader is mad enough to bring about the destruction of his own country to help out Osama bin Laden) then it's going to sail into the port of Los Angeles or New York at a nice leisurely 5-6 knots, because until port security in the US is improved dramatically, the NMD system is like putting in an armoured front door to your house and then leaving the back door wide open. Anyone who wants to get you is going to take the path of least resistence first. Why spend billions on developing and deploying an ICBM when an ISO container will do?

As regards point 3. above, about 3-4 months ago I spent the day with Adm JJ Quinn, the Vice President for Missile and Space Defense at Northrop Grumman. (He's currently in charge of the Space Tracking and Surveillance System and the Airborne Laser programs.) With him was one of his lead engineers, the Col. i/c procurement for the US Missile Defense Agency and a chap by the name of Riki Ellison, who's the head of a lobbying group called the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (A former student of William "Mad Bill" Von Cleve, and retired NFL linebacker). The only response to my question about whether the $10bn a year this program is costing might be better spent on something like port security or the Cooperative Threat Reduction program was along the lines of "that's someone else's problem and someone else's budget".

The other problem I have with it as a concept, is that it could help give American decision-makers a misplaced feeling of invulnerability which makes them less concerned about the consequences of their actions. When you're dealing with people who, even in theory, have the capability to smack you around a bit, you tend to tread a bit more carefully and think about what you're doing- and I think we can all agree, the US hasn't necessarily done the best job of that in the last couple of years.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads