Register here

Author Topic: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)  (Read 4983 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9571
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2017, 06:33:09 pm »
key defense programs?
Key defense program? This is not one of those.

This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 01:07:16 pm »
Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
And what might those "any" targets be, exactly? Can you name another country with the (at least potential) capability of attacking CONUS with such a small number of missiles that GBI could counter it?

North Korea, yes.
Russia, no.
China, no.
Everyone else on the planet, no.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9571
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 01:19:05 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7451
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 04:12:31 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
A recall a quote from the Chinese general in charge of their 3rd Artillery Force (nukes at the time) having stated "Want to trade a few hundred million citizens, we'd still have over a billion people left you'd be wiped out"
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 04:41:27 pm »
If North Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power, the nonproliferation treaty is reduced to a sham.  If the guy who runs the famine ridden dark patch above South Korea can have nukes, there is no argument for anyone else not having them.  In that case, the list of small nuclear powers will grow starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia (you won't have one without the other).

A nuclear North Korea popping ICBM's over Japan will eventually push that country to create a guaranteed, non-ambiguous deterrent of its' own.  Again, as a linked reaction, that means South Korea and maybe Taiwan join the club.  As more countries join, the less restraint remains for those thinking about it.

With regards to their territorial waters, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines would also be candidates using the same rationale as Mr Kim .  Interestingly, for most of these countries, the US would not be first on their targeting list.  That doesn't seem to register for some people.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 07:19:35 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:03:38 am by kcran567 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9571
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2017, 03:54:09 am »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1384
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #22 on: Today at 08:40:55 am »
The cost of defending the mainland US against such an act would likely eat up a budget many times that of the MDA even if no new systems are developed  . Money likely better spent at making sure they never get that close and on offensive capability.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1622
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #23 on: Today at 01:04:15 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)

 :'(


« Last Edit: Today at 01:05:59 pm by marauder2048 »