I'm so happy that someone typed this all out so that I didn't have to.
Thanks!
The only thing that I'll add is that everyone sees 'nuclear reactors' and 'RTGs' and start getting insane about nuclear fallout from a crashed rocket. We have to overcome that fear and sensationalism before we'll really be able to get things done. Yeah, we're flying tons of RTGs (well, Russia is, mostly), but each time one goes up, the public outcry is insane, just like those that scream about green energy, then get pissed about wind farms in their backyards.
Please note - The government isn't building anything for this, Lockheed Martin is building the Orion capsule. NASA has say in the requirements and design, but they're not constructing or building anything. Hell, they're not even integrating anything, they're just 'supervising,' which means they're spending ridiculous sums of money for unachievable human rating milestones and goals.
No, they have nerves to transmit electrical pulses to their muscles to move their body parts. They lack pain receptors, which is how animals feel pain.
Far worse has been done to HUMANS in the name of science! A cockroach is a cockroach. They're better dead, but if someone can learn from this, good on em'. I'd rather them pulling off cockroach legs and learning about neurons than just burning ants with a magnifying glass.
Tens, yes. We have enough assets to handle that. There are currently five Ticonderoga-class Cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers equipped with BMD in the US fleet, plus five Japanese Destroyers. Spain, Norway, and South Korea are also in talks to equip their Aegis Destroyers with BMD, as well. As for hundreds, strategically, Russia wouldn't risk expending a large percentage of their first strike weapons in one action. If they were going to expend the majority of their arsenal, they'd have little bargaining power, ever again.
No, it's not. The US, on several occasions, has asked to partner with the Russians to combat missiles from Iran and North Korea, as well as other rogue nations. That they refuse to, and sabre rattle, like this, is only because they're the ones selling the missiles and missile technology to the rogue nations. They can't play both sides all the time!
I think you forget that our military personnel are equipped to launch strikes against Russian missile subs, missile sites, and operate defensive weaponry, like Aegis, THAAD, GMD, Patriot PAC-3, etc. Those will help against nuclear tipped missiles.
One, Uranium isn't used as a fissile material in modern nuclear weapons. It might be used to boost the reaction, but Plutonium is the element of choice. B, what's the first thing that our military is instructed to do when the defensive level of the nation is raised? Find the Russian subs and shadow them. Why? Because as soon as the order is given, we'd be ready to make big holes in the ocean. Don't think it's possible? The oldest attack subs in our fleet are still two decades ahead of Russian missile or attack subs. We also have significant investment in satellite monitoring that enables us to keep tabs on Russian fleet subs. Russia has about 12 active missile subs in service. Of those, probably five are laid up for service. Two are probably in the process of rotting, and the rest are probably in various states of disrepair, and not capable of staying on station for anywhere near what the US Navy's subs can do.
This isn't a boost phase defense system, it's a hit-to-kill exo-atmospheric defense system. The US has other systems for boost phase defense, but not this one, that's why we have constructed a tiered, layered defensive system. The Russian government would be stupid to strike. Yeah, they might outnumber our tanks, but the majority of their naval and air systems are rotten and decades old. I'd anticipate much more resistance than the US encountered in the initial Iraq invasion, but nothing like what would have happened in 1986. The main Russian advantage is manpower and an ability, politically, to weather much more than a sitting US president would.
You do realize that we could recall our assets immediately, and redeploy to Europe whenever we wanted to, right? We could surround Europe and Russia with a net of ships and subs, aircraft and ground forces, and basically make the entire landmass do whatever we want.
Would we? No. Could we? Yes.
I don't think Poland ever really WAS Russia's ally, they were a Soviet member state, and they were taken at the tip of the sword, so to speak. Poland would rather piss of the Russians than be friends. If your friend's nice Uncle Joe, with the bushy mustache and the smart uniform, walked into your bedroom, kept you there, sent all his buddies, and raped you for fifty years, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off?
Russia has no REASON to strike westward. Their missile approaches to their most likely target (cities in the US) would be over the North Pole.
Also, if Russia installed a BMD site in South America, which they wouldn't, because they don't have the technology, the US likely wouldn't give a damn, other than making sure that Chavez's government didn't get hold of the technology, and couldn't reverse engineer it to sell to the Iranians or North Koreans. We wouldn't waste our time on Venezuela, as it's a piddly little piece of shit country, with a fuckhead leader that's incapable of doing anything other than manipulating oil prices.
Actually, Europe isn't capable of building a system like this. China might be close, in twenty or so years, and Russia could get there in fifty, but Europe would take another hundred on top of that.
Why? Europe is so disinterested in anything other than bitching about the US and our activities, pulling member EU states out bankruptcy, and finding new a creative ways to put your citizenry on welfare, that it's go no time for defense, or even real engineering. When the time comes, who is Europe going to ask for help? Not the Russians, and not the Chinese.
What, in your opinion, are we doing wrong? Putting BMD in a foreign country, a country that's signed off on this, and WANTS us to put the interceptors there? Protecting the whole of Europe from an attack by way of Iran? Oh, and paying for it, too!
Yeah, I guess we're the assholes.
Right. The system that they're putting in place, Aegis Ashore, is based on Aegis BMD, a Naval Ballistic Missile Defense system. It's a hit-to-kill system that targets warheads in their exo-atmospheric phase. We would want them to be downrange of any location that would be launching the missiles, because it's not a boost-phase interceptor. You need to wait for the warheads to go outside the atmosphere before you can knock them down.
Correct. The SM-3 interceptor missile only has a range of about 270 nautical miles (according to the Wikipedia). It's likely got more range than that, but that information would be classified. For this system to be effective against Russia, we'd need to place defensive sites throughout the Russian homeland, or put an Aegis BMD ship every 500 miles along its coast.
What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses. Yeah, they might be able to snap fire a couple long range ICBMs from their missile subs, but that's what we've got BMD for, and that's why it's multi-layered.
I'd like to see what source you have that backs up your assertion that this missile defense shield will only be useful against "attacks done mainly for shits'n'giggles". As someone who has worked on this program, and the programs leading up to it, this is prime time. Nothing is being done for show, and this system is capable of some pretty spectacular stuff.
Also, I'm not sure what they hope to hit this base with as a pre-emptive strike. I can almost guarantee that they'll have SAM and Patriot PAC-3 emplacements surrounding the facility while it's being built, plus they'll likely have a couple Burke and Tico ships with Aegis BMD sitting in the Baltic or the North Sea, just in case.
So, unless they're going to risk an all-out ground assault, or try to bomb this with conventional aircraft, I think they're SOL. Our military is too good to allow them to do anything material, and our defensive systems would be able to repel a pretty good amount of anything they'd be able to fire at us. Plus, the Aegis Ashore program that's slated to go here is built extremely quickly, once the vertical launch system (VLS) is installed. They wouldn't have much time to act.
No, it's just bullshit on the part of the Russian government. They'll posture and threaten, we'll do what we want, and in response, they'll sell a couple extra obsolete diesel subs to the Iranians. They know that we've got the military to beat, and while they might outnumber our tanks, we've got far superior aircraft and tactical weapons, not to mention a superior training program for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen. They wouldn't risk all out war over this, and they know it.
Heh...if you ask me, we should fire everyone in Congress and the Senate, and take the government, especially the Legislative branch, back to the way it was intended, eliminating career politicians
No more Nancy Pelosi, no more John Boehner. We keep our eye on the prize, and we let no one, and I mean no one, get in our way./jay
Lockheed Martin doesn't dispose of ships, nor do we (I am an employee) build them, per se. We contract other companies to build them for us (LCS) or simply provide the combat systems and radar systems to go on them (DDG-51). We should have purchased the shipyard in Pascagoula, where they build half the DDGs, but shortsighted management didn't do so, and Northrop Grumman bought it, instead.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm so happy that someone typed this all out so that I didn't have to. Thanks! The only thing that I'll add is that everyone sees 'nuclear reactors' and 'RTGs' and start getting insane about nuclear fallout from a crashed rocket. We have to overcome that fear and sensationalism before we'll really be able to get things done. Yeah, we're flying tons of RTGs (well, Russia is, mostly), but each time one goes up, the public outcry is insane, just like those that scream about green energy, then get pissed about wind farms in their backyards.
Please note - The government isn't building anything for this, Lockheed Martin is building the Orion capsule. NASA has say in the requirements and design, but they're not constructing or building anything. Hell, they're not even integrating anything, they're just 'supervising,' which means they're spending ridiculous sums of money for unachievable human rating milestones and goals.
No, they have nerves to transmit electrical pulses to their muscles to move their body parts. They lack pain receptors, which is how animals feel pain.
Far worse has been done to HUMANS in the name of science! A cockroach is a cockroach. They're better dead, but if someone can learn from this, good on em'. I'd rather them pulling off cockroach legs and learning about neurons than just burning ants with a magnifying glass.
In most instances, fires occurring during ship overhaul stem from welding operations.
Tens, yes. We have enough assets to handle that. There are currently five Ticonderoga-class Cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers equipped with BMD in the US fleet, plus five Japanese Destroyers. Spain, Norway, and South Korea are also in talks to equip their Aegis Destroyers with BMD, as well. As for hundreds, strategically, Russia wouldn't risk expending a large percentage of their first strike weapons in one action. If they were going to expend the majority of their arsenal, they'd have little bargaining power, ever again.
No, it's not. The US, on several occasions, has asked to partner with the Russians to combat missiles from Iran and North Korea, as well as other rogue nations. That they refuse to, and sabre rattle, like this, is only because they're the ones selling the missiles and missile technology to the rogue nations. They can't play both sides all the time!
I think you forget that our military personnel are equipped to launch strikes against Russian missile subs, missile sites, and operate defensive weaponry, like Aegis, THAAD, GMD, Patriot PAC-3, etc. Those will help against nuclear tipped missiles.
One, Uranium isn't used as a fissile material in modern nuclear weapons. It might be used to boost the reaction, but Plutonium is the element of choice. B, what's the first thing that our military is instructed to do when the defensive level of the nation is raised? Find the Russian subs and shadow them. Why? Because as soon as the order is given, we'd be ready to make big holes in the ocean. Don't think it's possible? The oldest attack subs in our fleet are still two decades ahead of Russian missile or attack subs. We also have significant investment in satellite monitoring that enables us to keep tabs on Russian fleet subs. Russia has about 12 active missile subs in service. Of those, probably five are laid up for service. Two are probably in the process of rotting, and the rest are probably in various states of disrepair, and not capable of staying on station for anywhere near what the US Navy's subs can do.
This isn't a boost phase defense system, it's a hit-to-kill exo-atmospheric defense system. The US has other systems for boost phase defense, but not this one, that's why we have constructed a tiered, layered defensive system. The Russian government would be stupid to strike. Yeah, they might outnumber our tanks, but the majority of their naval and air systems are rotten and decades old. I'd anticipate much more resistance than the US encountered in the initial Iraq invasion, but nothing like what would have happened in 1986. The main Russian advantage is manpower and an ability, politically, to weather much more than a sitting US president would.
You do realize that we could recall our assets immediately, and redeploy to Europe whenever we wanted to, right? We could surround Europe and Russia with a net of ships and subs, aircraft and ground forces, and basically make the entire landmass do whatever we want. Would we? No. Could we? Yes.
If you don't think this system works, you're more delusional than the Russians.
I don't think Poland ever really WAS Russia's ally, they were a Soviet member state, and they were taken at the tip of the sword, so to speak. Poland would rather piss of the Russians than be friends. If your friend's nice Uncle Joe, with the bushy mustache and the smart uniform, walked into your bedroom, kept you there, sent all his buddies, and raped you for fifty years, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off?
The US has. Many times. Russian doesn't want the interceptors anywhere near their borders, regardless of the intent or the level of cooperation.
Russia has no REASON to strike westward. Their missile approaches to their most likely target (cities in the US) would be over the North Pole. Also, if Russia installed a BMD site in South America, which they wouldn't, because they don't have the technology, the US likely wouldn't give a damn, other than making sure that Chavez's government didn't get hold of the technology, and couldn't reverse engineer it to sell to the Iranians or North Koreans. We wouldn't waste our time on Venezuela, as it's a piddly little piece of shit country, with a fuckhead leader that's incapable of doing anything other than manipulating oil prices.
Actually, Europe isn't capable of building a system like this. China might be close, in twenty or so years, and Russia could get there in fifty, but Europe would take another hundred on top of that. Why? Europe is so disinterested in anything other than bitching about the US and our activities, pulling member EU states out bankruptcy, and finding new a creative ways to put your citizenry on welfare, that it's go no time for defense, or even real engineering. When the time comes, who is Europe going to ask for help? Not the Russians, and not the Chinese.
Ummm...because the interceptor site hasn't been built yet?
What, in your opinion, are we doing wrong? Putting BMD in a foreign country, a country that's signed off on this, and WANTS us to put the interceptors there? Protecting the whole of Europe from an attack by way of Iran? Oh, and paying for it, too! Yeah, I guess we're the assholes.
Right. The system that they're putting in place, Aegis Ashore, is based on Aegis BMD, a Naval Ballistic Missile Defense system. It's a hit-to-kill system that targets warheads in their exo-atmospheric phase. We would want them to be downrange of any location that would be launching the missiles, because it's not a boost-phase interceptor. You need to wait for the warheads to go outside the atmosphere before you can knock them down.
Correct. The SM-3 interceptor missile only has a range of about 270 nautical miles (according to the Wikipedia). It's likely got more range than that, but that information would be classified. For this system to be effective against Russia, we'd need to place defensive sites throughout the Russian homeland, or put an Aegis BMD ship every 500 miles along its coast.
What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses. Yeah, they might be able to snap fire a couple long range ICBMs from their missile subs, but that's what we've got BMD for, and that's why it's multi-layered. I'd like to see what source you have that backs up your assertion that this missile defense shield will only be useful against "attacks done mainly for shits'n'giggles". As someone who has worked on this program, and the programs leading up to it, this is prime time. Nothing is being done for show, and this system is capable of some pretty spectacular stuff.
Also, I'm not sure what they hope to hit this base with as a pre-emptive strike. I can almost guarantee that they'll have SAM and Patriot PAC-3 emplacements surrounding the facility while it's being built, plus they'll likely have a couple Burke and Tico ships with Aegis BMD sitting in the Baltic or the North Sea, just in case. So, unless they're going to risk an all-out ground assault, or try to bomb this with conventional aircraft, I think they're SOL. Our military is too good to allow them to do anything material, and our defensive systems would be able to repel a pretty good amount of anything they'd be able to fire at us. Plus, the Aegis Ashore program that's slated to go here is built extremely quickly, once the vertical launch system (VLS) is installed. They wouldn't have much time to act.
No, it's just bullshit on the part of the Russian government. They'll posture and threaten, we'll do what we want, and in response, they'll sell a couple extra obsolete diesel subs to the Iranians. They know that we've got the military to beat, and while they might outnumber our tanks, we've got far superior aircraft and tactical weapons, not to mention a superior training program for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen. They wouldn't risk all out war over this, and they know it.
Heh...if you ask me, we should fire everyone in Congress and the Senate, and take the government, especially the Legislative branch, back to the way it was intended, eliminating career politicians No more Nancy Pelosi, no more John Boehner. We keep our eye on the prize, and we let no one, and I mean no one, get in our way. /jay
Lockheed Martin doesn't dispose of ships, nor do we (I am an employee) build them, per se. We contract other companies to build them for us (LCS) or simply provide the combat systems and radar systems to go on them (DDG-51). We should have purchased the shipyard in Pascagoula, where they build half the DDGs, but shortsighted management didn't do so, and Northrop Grumman bought it, instead.