Slashdot Mirror

... the No Dong.

No that quoted hate text was from you from the post directly above it so that's an especially stupid lie.

No you fool, I have never ever advocated putting Muslims in camps. It is a disgusting and repulsive idea. It is clear either you are incompetent and misattributing (very likely) or you are in the business of fabricating (a typical tactic of low-intelligence leftists, which all evidence points you to being). Stop with the false slander. If we were in the same country you would be slapped with a lawsuit because of your falsehoods - yes, I *know* I have never advocated putting Muslims in camps. So stop being evil. Then end does not justify the means (only socialists, communists and Islamists seem to think that).

Also the missile question is mindless since they come from very different sources and are of very different ages - incompatibility you idiot - it's not like loading a .303 cartridge into a gun of the same size. Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

Absolute bullshit. Warheads can be adapted for different missiles you idiot. Man alive you are stupid! The reason why cartridges don't work in different guns is that it is not generally worth the effort to re-bore a firearm. Warheads and other complex missile components are routinely re-engineered for different systems. For example, the Harpoon anti-ship missile was re-engineered into the SLAM, a surface-attack missile. Nuclear warheads get migrated to different bodies all the time. The nuclear cores are reprocessed and can be used to build new warheads.

Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

You couldn't answer. In fact, you are so stupid you couldn't even google to find out simple things like this:
http://missilethreat.com/missiles-of-the-world/
Look at all the huge payloads on the Iranian missiles. Plus, for the short ranges from Lebanon to Israel you can increase the throw weight hugely. To bad wikipedia is too complicated for you to use. Otherwise you would have discovered that Iran has already supplied "hundreds" of M-600 ballistic missiles and attempted to supply Fatah-110 missiles to Hezbollah (fortunately the Israelis are busy destroying the WMD platforms to the racist genocide against Israelis you desperately want to support cannot be carried out):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-110

since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

You lose again. The mass of the US M62 170 kiloton-yield MIRV warhead is 253 pounds / 115 kg. The mass of a M56 is 600 pounds / 272 kg and has a yield of 1.2 MT. So if you follow the references I gave you will see that the Iranian missiles can easily carry even a crude nuclear warhead to Israel. Notice also the range of the Shahab-3. With smaller warheads the two dozen Iranian missiles based in Venezuela may be able to hit the southern USA.

I gave you a chance to prove you knew anything at all, or could even work Google and wikipedia. But you can't. I've also destroyed your arguments about "old Iranian missiles" being used by Hezbollah not being able to reach Israel with a nuclear weapon. All your arguments have failed (as in other threats), because they are based on your opinion and not on facts (and it turns out your opinions are formed from your weak lines of reasoning; trying to assert that nuclear warheads would not fit on on different missile bodies based on an analogy of a rifle - how stooopid is that!). Your apologies for the genocidal inten

The United States is incredibly dependent on its space assets in support of national objectives. Directed energy weapons can not only provide offensive ASAT capabilities, but can serve as a significant defense against missile- or even space-based kinetic ASAT weapons. The advantage of a directed energy weapon is that it has the ability to travel at the speed of light and target missiles during their vulnerable boost phase within seconds. During the 1990s and 2000s, the United States pursued directed energy weapons based on megawatt-class chemical lasers. Two of systems, the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL), were complementary, but never made it beyond the early testing phase.

The concept of the Airborne Laser came to fruition on a modified Boeing 747 known as the YAL-1A Airborne Laser Testbed (ABLT). In early 2010, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that ABLT successfully destroyed two test missiles, saying at the time that "The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies." Unfortunately, ABLT was $4 billion over budget and eight years behind schedule. Political and economic realities meant that the US could "no longer continue to do everything and explore every potential technology". On February 14, 2012, MDA announced that the ABLT program was terminated, transitioning into long-term storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis Monthan AFB — "the Boneyard".

The Space-Based Laser (SBL) concept is the notion of locating a high-powered laser in space, with a similar ability to target missiles in their boost phase. A constellation of 20 SBLs would be able to provide continuous global coverage, and target nearly any launch -- including ASAT weapons. A test firing of a Space-Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL-IFX) was originally schedule for 2012 to demonstrate SBL's capabilities. This project became so complex and expensive that MDA suspended research and development in 2002 — another victim of economic priorities, and a desire to focus resources on existing, proven kinetic systems.

If such systems are thought to have so much potential and capability, why are they no longer pursued? The answer is primarily one of cost. Further, if the US possessed such a comprehensive anti-missile and anti-ASAT capability, it is unlikely that an adversary would use a kinetic ASAT weapon. As adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran turn to cyber, it becomes more likely that cyber, conventional jamming, and EW capabilities would be used to target US space systems. It is reasonable that the US response should be in kind. One example: China is currently fielding the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Instead of using complicated missile defense systems or directed energy weapons to target it, and the current US strategy is indeed one of jam, spoof — and then shoot, if necessary, with the idea being to "break as many links as possible" in the chain, including via cyber and EW. Cyber can act as a significant force multiplier against even conventional weapons systems — which can work both for and against us. China has already demonstrated the potential effectiveness of cyber capabilities against US space systems. Resources devoted to enhancing our offensive and defensive cyber capabilities in the context of space systems and missile defense is money well spent.

I live in Italy, and I recall when a small town next to where I live voted a similar "nuclear free" resolution. It was late in the Carter Presidency, when the then USSR was building SS-20 missiles hand over fist.
Now this town sat about 20 miles away from a big city(pop. 1 million) and 100 miles east from the nearest French nuclear plant(prevailing winds in northwest Italy come from there). The SS20 was by its nature (min range 600 km, three 150 Kt MIRV warheads etc) a "Countercity" weapon, so I used to joke with these morons that now they were lightyears away from producing nuclear energy, but they were paying through their noses to buy it (and still are, BTW), all the while being between 7 and 20 minutes from seeing a mushroom cloud right next to them. Ain't humanity fun?

Everyone needs a hobby. If he's parroting idiocy, so be it. It's better than SOME hobbies he might take up. Peeping Tom, for instance . . .

Anyway, on subject - I was more impressed with what I've seen of THEL http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.63/system_detail.asp

That link is as good a place as any to start, if you're interested in it.

With a military background, I was moderately impressed when it destroyed a missile. Only moderately, because we routinely shot down our own Tartar missiles when they turned around, and targeted US!

They, they shot down artillery rounds. Without finding the video I watched, I can't recall the size of the artillery rounds, but they were fairly large, fairly slow, with long trajectories that were easy to plot with the computing power available to THEL.

The real stunner was when THEL destroyed a series of mortars. Quite small, and hard to see, let alone track. Relatively short flight time, compared to most missiles or artillery, despite the fact that mortars are quite in comparison.

The video I saw were little more than several cuts pasted together - you didn't get a real "feel" for the hardware, because so much was left out, or edited out. The (intended) impression was that THEL was able to knock each of these successive targets out of the air, with little to no effort.

No matter whether that intended impression is true or not - what THEL did do was impressive. Shooting down a Tartar missile was a minor challenge, one that we pulled off because we ALWAYS tracked it with the guns, from launch to target. We anticipated it turning on us. Incoming artillery or mortars would have been way beyond your capabilities. Incoming missile under real life combat conditions? We'd probably shoot 99's - meaning we would probably get a bunch, but one would eventually get past the guns.

(BTW - I'm talking about 5 inch 54 caliber main guns on a destroyer - not those close in defense systems that ships have today.)

To date, THEL has destroyed 28 Katyusha test rockets and five test artillery shells. On May 4, 2004, THEL's new transportable version, known as the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL), tracked and destroyed a large-caliber test rocket at the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Ranch in New Mexico. The rocket flew faster and higher than the Katyushas, and carried a live warhead. The U.S. and Israel expect MTHEL to be operational and ready for deployment by 2007.

In the event of a ballistic missile attack, the Russians hope that System A-135 will provide Moscow with two layers of defense. After the Pillbox radar spots an incoming missile, System A-135 will launch its Gorgon interceptors in hopes of destroying the threat in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, or even in outer space. If any incoming warheads penetrate this first layer, the Russians will launch a second wave of Gazelles.(11) The Russian military claims that this two-tiered layered defense is capable of protecting hundreds if not thousands of miles around Moscow, an area that encompasses the nations capital, key military assets, and major industries.(12)

Yet many in the U.S. and elsewhere have pointed out that, while System A-135 might be effective against a single warhead attack, the systems radar and interceptors would be quickly overwhelmed in the event of a multi-warhead strike. According to the Pentagon: With only 100 interceptor missiles, the system can be saturated, and with only the single Pillbox radar at Pushkino providing support to these missiles, the system is highly vulnerable to suppression.

Russia, instead of "outspending" the USA, developed a warhead that evades the interceptors. The link was written before 2004; the warhead had been tested already. This is a low-cost, distributed response to ABM.

[...] designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light

That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

The Airborne Laser is an in-theater weapon, designed to intercept ballistic missiles during the boost phase. It flies up at around 40,000 feet and can engage targets within range that appear above its horizon.

It doesn't bounce lasers off satellites or propagate a laser beam "halfway around the world", as TFA says. The author was being a bit grandiose but caused some confusion in the process. It is half-way around the world, if that is where the missiles are coming from. The plane is there with the missiles, though. So are the radars that help it target.

There has been a lot of research put into making this weapon functional (directed energy, targeting, adaptive optics), and the early results are promising. The upcoming tests should be very interesting indeed.

OK. Resume speculating.

Read up on where the Ruskies have been spending their defense dollars. Functional anti-ABM missiles is very possible.

Sunburn/moskit/Brahmos http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/moskit.htm

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/antiship/3m80.a spThe missile is armed with a conventional 300 kg penetrating warhead containing 150 kg of high explosive, or (in the Russian Navy) a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. Even with a conventional warhead, 3M-80E missile is large enough so that one hit from a single missile could seriously damage or possibly even sink a U.S. Navy major surface combatant, a hit from one or possibly even a few conventionally-armed Moskit missiles might not be enough to halt flight operations on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier because of the carrier's much larger size and its high degree of compartmentalization. A nuclear-armed 3M-80E Moskit, however, could easily destroy a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (and any other nearby ships), even if the warhead detonates at some distance from the carrier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india /brahmos.htmIndia expects to significantly enhance its long-range strike abilities with the BrahMos cruise missile, jointly developed by New Delhi and Moscow. The supersonic missile -- which derives its name from the Brahmaputra and Moscow rivers in both countries - has a range of almost 300 km and is designed for use with land, sea and aerial platforms. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is reportedly considering the possibility of fitting the BrahMos on its Su-30 combat jets. The production will commence by end of 2003 for induction in the year 2004.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/04/16/stories/20050 41602941400.htmBrahMos is essentially an anti-ship supersonic cruise missile that flies at a speed of 2.8 to 3 Mach (2.8 to three times the speed of sound). It can take out targets 290 km away.

http://www.brahmos.com/Brahmos web page SS-27 / Topol-M / RS-12M(1|2) http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-27_russia .htmlhe Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu. htmThe single-warhead RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. The SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2, while the more sophisticated SS-27 Topol-M is comparabl

Here's a link backing up what I said:

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/aegis_usa.htm l

this seems much more practical.

Indeed. At least until we deploy this all over the Sea of Japan in 2005.

... for the muon-detector-industry.

As for delivering delivering plutonium to the US, it seems using trucks isn't necessary at all, this seems much more practical.

It is not in China's interest to see a neighboring country possess nuclear weapons.

More generally, no country would ever like to see any other political force to possess nuclear weaposn, no matter how strong the alliance between the country and the political force would be.