• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Defense against Hypersonic Glide Vehicles

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
Why would it destabilize anything whatsoever? It's not like MAD suddenly went away. Nobody in their right mind thinks the kind of defenses the US is working on would stop a full scale attack.
There are several problems with the credibility of this kind of assurance.

1) There is a historical precedent (SDI) of the US working full steam toward exactly such a full-scale capability.

2) Recently, individual US policy makers have started calling for efforts toward this goal to be renewed - so what do you know that they don't?

3) Unlike last time round, today there is no treaty in force that prohibits such a development, meaning the situation could potentially deteriorate much faster.

MAD has shown itself to be a rather frightening but encouragingly stable and resilient concept. Most of the crises it did endure were precipitated by one side trying to "beat the system" and gain an asymmetrical advantage over the other. In an environment where both parties were satisfied that they could still deliver a debilitating retaliation even in the worst imaginable scenario, MAD has even demonstrated potential for mutual threat and cost reduction by diplomacy and arms control.

As a result warhead numbers have gone *down* over the past decades, and significantly so - by contrast, BMD carries the very real risk that warhead numbers soar through the roof in order to accommodate the potential losses. Or that novel and risky delivery methods will be implemented to outflank the defences, inflicting huge costs on both sides. They would invalidate the investments in BMD on the one hand, impose expensive development programmes on the other side and potentially change the dynamics of the whole stand-off in destabilizing ways. For example, the characteristics of the new delivery modes might aggravate the risk of misunderstandings or accidents or incentivize early escalation.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
The current interceptor site at Ft Greely is actually very well located. Anything coming over the north pole will be exposed to an intercept from it. Crossing angle shots are possible for ICBMs heading east into California (which has a few silos as well). Videos of intercepts include some with fairly large offset trajectories between target and interceptor.
Even if we assume perfect effectiveness (and again, there are good reasons to be sceptical on this count) the sheer numbers are totally insufficient to make a difference right now. The current state is not what Russia is worried about.

I also do not assess merit to US policy based on how well it conforms to what other governments want.
Sure, you do not exist in a vacuum however - you like everyone else will have to live with the consequences, i.e. the reactions of those other governments to US policy choices.

Or rather keep building more ICBMS because they never stopped.
Due to special factors that the US did not have to contend with - after the dissolution of the USSR, crucial components for even the missile types already manufactured on what became Russian territory were often sourced from what was now Ukraine or Belarus. There was no build up, if that's what you're attempting to insinuate, warhead numbers went down in accordance with arms control agreements - the new developments were required to regain full operational sovereignty over the arsenal.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
And now budget matters? This is what I've been saying the whole time...

But yes they are economically limited, and if they feel their nuclear arsenal is no longer viable and they can't defeat MDA, it could very well lead to a situation where they might feel a first-strike is the only remaining option... That is what is meant by destabilizing.
For Russia, what counts most is their impression of western politics. Able Archer occured in the midst of pure MAD and came about because of Russian impressions of Reagan gleaned from western media.

This will not be a switch of the light. Development and deployment will take years (perhaps more than a decade). Russia will have a long time to observe and analyze. Hopefully they will listen to a wider selection of western sources.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
Due to special factors that the US did not have to contend with - after the dissolution of the USSR, crucial components for even the missile types already manufactured on what became Russian territory were often sourced from what was now Ukraine or Belarus. There was no build up, if that's what you're attempting to insinuate, warhead numbers went down in accordance with arms control agreements - the new developments were required to regain full operational sovereignty over the arsenal.
Generations of ICBMs. Not simply alternate component sourcing of existing ICBM models.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
Why would it destabilize anything whatsoever? It's not like MAD suddenly went away. Nobody in their right mind thinks the kind of defenses the US is working on would stop a full scale attack.
There are several problems with the credibility of this kind of assurance.

1) There is a historical precedent (SDI) of the US working full steam toward exactly such a full-scale capability.
And? There's historical precedent of Russia not abiding by treaties so by your own measure we should avoid them.

2) Recently, individual US policy makers have started calling for efforts toward this goal to be renewed - so what do you know that they don't?
Others have called for complete removal of our nuclear weapons so you should be rest assured. Again, by your own measure.

3) Unlike last time round, today there is no treaty in force that prohibits such a development, meaning the situation could potentially deteriorate much faster.
The evidence does not support that assertion.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
And? There's historical precedent of Russia not abiding by treaties so by your own measure we should avoid them.
Such cases notwithstanding, treaties with Russia have a demonstrable record of increasing stability and reducing threat levels - the polar opposite of BMD efforts, which have tended to trigger or accelerate arms races. While some of the problems may be similar between these two solutions, the potential benefits clearly are not.

Others have called for complete removal of our nuclear weapons so you should be rest assured. Again, by your own measure.
Those who have called for disarmament are distinctly further from positions of power or influence. Between the two, it's plain which mindset has a higher likelihood of shaping actual policy.

The evidence does not support that assertion.
What assertion? That there is no treaty in force, or that without a treaty in force deploying a full-scale capable BMD faces fewer bureaucratic hurdles and could therefore leave far less time for Russia to prepare? Either way, I don't see any evidence that would contradict these points.

Generations of ICBMs. Not simply alternate component sourcing of existing ICBM models.
So? As I implicitly stated, it wasn't exclusively a question of individual components in Russian missiles, some types became foreign technology essentially in their entirety. Once more than a certain fraction of the supply chain needs to be indigenized you might as well start from scratch with a design that takes advantage of the locally available industrial base.
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
[
So is it being seriously stated that US efforts on missile defence have accidental launches or the so-called “irrational actor” as primary or even secondary focus/ justification?
On that basis and logic wouldn’t you want to share this technology with your opponents and friends around the world to protect them from potential accidental US launches or breakdown in US command and control systems leading to a “irrational actor” launch of a US ICBM?

An accidental US ICBM launch against Western Europe or Japan? If you really think that is a plausible scenario then there is nothing I can say that would have any meaning to you. AEGIS is already deployed in Europe/Japan.

Sharing this technology with enemies is the best way to end its useful life as every detail of how the sensors and algorithms work can be tested for counter measures.
Well done - That’s my point - that arguments being put forward by you and your fellow travellers (Sfferrin) about theoretical defence accidental launches are clearly not honest arguments being put forward in good faith.

And similarly if you were actually primarily interested in defence against actual “irrational actors” (rather than potentially extremely unsavoury regimes that happen to be your opponents) then the logical course would be via international treaty have everyone having the same or equivalent missile defence against these “irrational actors”. Hence it rather exposed your argument as an essentially dishonest one.

As I said previously I have some sympathy for (and potentially could be convinced by a well pitched cost/capacity argument for) a very limited and scaled missile defence against a very small basic ICBM attack as might be within reach of a North Korea type nation.
But such a system also clearly has negative consequences, as seen by Russian and Chinese reactions to enhance the capacity of their systems to penetrate such defences.

But that is clearly not what you and Sfferrin are actually advocating for; you are both advocating for something far broader, far more destabilising and potentially exceptionally dangerous and (the best case scenario) one of the most wasteful endeavours in human history (taking into account the system itself and the resulting counter-moves, counter-counter moves etc).
As other contributors have noted your fantasies in this regard are also the US’s primary rival’s paranoid nightmares. The fact the neither are grounded in reality just makes them potentially more dangerous in and impactful on the real world.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
[
So is it being seriously stated that US efforts on missile defence have accidental launches or the so-called “irrational actor” as primary or even secondary focus/ justification?
On that basis and logic wouldn’t you want to share this technology with your opponents and friends around the world to protect them from potential accidental US launches or breakdown in US command and control systems leading to a “irrational actor” launch of a US ICBM?

An accidental US ICBM launch against Western Europe or Japan? If you really think that is a plausible scenario then there is nothing I can say that would have any meaning to you. AEGIS is already deployed in Europe/Japan.

Sharing this technology with enemies is the best way to end its useful life as every detail of how the sensors and algorithms work can be tested for counter measures.
Well done - That’s my point - that arguments being put forward by you and your fellow travellers (Sfferrin) about theoretical defence accidental launches are clearly not honest arguments being put forward in good faith.

And similarly if you were actually primarily interested in defence against actual “irrational actors” (rather than potentially extremely unsavoury regimes that happen to be your opponents) then the logical course would be via international treaty have everyone having the same or equivalent missile defence against these “irrational actors”. Hence it rather exposed your argument as an essentially dishonest one.

As I said previously I have some sympathy for (and potentially could be convinced by a well pitched cost/capacity argument for) a very limited and scaled missile defence against a very small basic ICBM attack as might be within reach of a North Korea type nation.
But such a system also clearly has negative consequences, as seen by Russian and Chinese reactions to enhance the capacity of their systems to penetrate such defences.

But that is clearly not what you and Sfferrin are actually advocating for; you are both advocating for something far broader, far more destabilising and potentially exceptionally dangerous and (the best case scenario) one of the most wasteful endeavours in human history (taking into account the system itself and the resulting counter-moves, counter-counter moves etc).
As other contributors have noted your fantasies in this regard are also the US’s primary rival’s paranoid nightmares. The fact the neither are grounded in reality just makes them potentially more dangerous in and impactful on the real world.

No matter how offended you get at the idea of the US defending itself from nuclear attack or of someone actually advocating this on the internet, it counts for nothing. I have grown much more appreciative of the wisdom of "no foreign entanglements".

For US citizens opposed to missile defense, it seems Bernie may wind up being your best hope. In any event, it is clear there is no overlap and the issue can only be resolved by election. Trumps position is clear and I hope whoever wins the democratic position makes their position equally clear. This will directly test what the American people prefer.

As for me, I am awaiting my instructions from Putin. It is ironic that I am so often told I must consider the views of Russia when I am getting my orders from the man himself.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
And? There's historical precedent of Russia not abiding by treaties so by your own measure we should avoid them.
Such cases notwithstanding, treaties with Russia have a demonstrable record of increasing stability and reducing threat levels - the polar opposite of BMD efforts, which have tended to trigger or accelerate arms races. While some of the problems may be similar between these two solutions, the potential benefits clearly are not.
Things between Russia and the US are far more calm today than they were during the 60s - 90s.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
[
So is it being seriously stated that US efforts on missile defence have accidental launches or the so-called “irrational actor” as primary or even secondary focus/ justification?
On that basis and logic wouldn’t you want to share this technology with your opponents and friends around the world to protect them from potential accidental US launches or breakdown in US command and control systems leading to a “irrational actor” launch of a US ICBM?

An accidental US ICBM launch against Western Europe or Japan? If you really think that is a plausible scenario then there is nothing I can say that would have any meaning to you. AEGIS is already deployed in Europe/Japan.

Sharing this technology with enemies is the best way to end its useful life as every detail of how the sensors and algorithms work can be tested for counter measures.
Well done - That’s my point - that arguments being put forward by you and your fellow travellers (Sfferrin) about theoretical defence accidental launches are clearly not honest arguments being put forward in good faith.

And similarly if you were actually primarily interested in defence against actual “irrational actors” (rather than potentially extremely unsavoury regimes that happen to be your opponents) then the logical course would be via international treaty have everyone having the same or equivalent missile defence against these “irrational actors”. Hence it rather exposed your argument as an essentially dishonest one.

As I said previously I have some sympathy for (and potentially could be convinced by a well pitched cost/capacity argument for) a very limited and scaled missile defence against a very small basic ICBM attack as might be within reach of a North Korea type nation.
But such a system also clearly has negative consequences, as seen by Russian and Chinese reactions to enhance the capacity of their systems to penetrate such defences.

But that is clearly not what you and Sfferrin are actually advocating for; you are both advocating for something far broader, far more destabilising and potentially exceptionally dangerous and (the best case scenario) one of the most wasteful endeavours in human history (taking into account the system itself and the resulting counter-moves, counter-counter moves etc).
As other contributors have noted your fantasies in this regard are also the US’s primary rival’s paranoid nightmares. The fact the neither are grounded in reality just makes them potentially more dangerous in and impactful on the real world.

No matter how offended you get at the idea of the US defending itself from nuclear attack or of someone actually advocating this on the internet, it counts for nothing. I have grown much more appreciative of the wisdom of "no foreign entanglements".

For US citizens opposed to missile defense, it seems Bernie may wind up being your best hope. In any event, it is clear there is no overlap and the issue can only be resolved by election. Trumps position is clear and I hope whoever wins the democratic position makes their position equally clear. This will directly test what the American people prefer.

As for me, I am awaiting my instructions from Putin. It is ironic that I am so often told I must consider the views of Russia when I am getting my orders from the man himself.
References to “foreign entanglements” make little to no sense in this context apart from as general incontinent ideological noise.
Isn’t intentionality seeking to massively deepen and accelerate an international arms race not increasing, not reducing, US “foreign entanglements”?

In contrast an interesting and apt article for those interested in reality, not far-right fantasies (or fantasists);

 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
And? There's historical precedent of Russia not abiding by treaties so by your own measure we should avoid them.
Such cases notwithstanding, treaties with Russia have a demonstrable record of increasing stability and reducing threat levels - the polar opposite of BMD efforts, which have tended to trigger or accelerate arms races. While some of the problems may be similar between these two solutions, the potential benefits clearly are not.
Things between Russia and the US are far more calm today than they were during the 60s - 90s.
Now that’s a deeply misleading statement (intentionally so?).
Cold War tensions ebbed and flowed.
But the late 80’s late Regan/ George Bush Senior period saw massively reduced tensions precisely because of arms limitation and reduction treaties.
And the collapse of the USSR and the 90’s saw tensions largely stay low apart from the odd mini-episode like re: Serbia/ Kosovo.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,218
Reaction score
819
I would have to disagree with you there. For example, remember the fiasco involving Warsaw Pact (nominally) SS-23B Spiders? The Soviets only admitted to that dodge when they were caught red handed.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
As I said previously I have some sympathy for (and potentially could be convinced by a well pitched cost/capacity argument for) a very limited and scaled missile defence against a very small basic ICBM attack as might be within reach of a North Korea type nation.
But such a system also clearly has negative consequences, as seen by Russian and Chinese reactions to enhance the capacity of their systems to penetrate such defences.
I don't think a limited system would necessarily be unacceptable to at least the Russians with their much bigger arsenal, their problem is more the lack of a ceiling on system capability, in absence of a binding treaty. Perhaps with hindsight they were too obstinate about amending ABM to accommodate a limited nation-wide BMD (limited point-defence systems were already allowable anyway - Russia has one in operation!). I guess they could not get past their disbelief in the irrational actor hypothesis (an attitude that is hard to fault, but refusal to humour the US on this subject may have cost them a treaty they would have preferred to keep).


No matter how offended you get at the idea of the US defending itself from nuclear attack or of someone actually advocating this on the internet, it counts for nothing. I have grown much more appreciative of the wisdom of "no foreign entanglements".
It would be ridiculous to be offended by this idea, the US has every right to do so and indeed been defending itself (with resounding success!) for decades, using MAD. The criticism is aimed at exchanging this proven, stable concept for one that is liable to upset the delicate balance and increase the risk of conflict.

As for foreign entanglements, that's a determination which (for better or for worse) is not ours to make - they are fundamentally manifest and cannot be decreed away. Again: no country exists in a vacuum. You are of course entitled to make sovereign choices one way or another, just don't expect the ramifications to pass you by.

This isn't so much a matter of political leanings but of common sense, BTW.

Things between Russia and the US are far more calm today than they were during the 60s - 90s.
Debatable, or at least too broad a generalization, in any case there are worrying signs of a trend reversal recently. And we got to where we are now thanks to a succession of treaties which progressively pared down the tensions along with the warhead numbers. Basically what kaiserd said.

Let's stay the course!
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
This extended discourse has shown technology and capability are meaningless to this discussion. The response to every reference to such things results in rejection.

There is no argument possible because what is at odds are fundamental political values. For example, when asked about Russian cheating your response is "what about the US". Or when confronted with a reference to an MDA test you say "the test was rigged".

No technical argument is possible and no opinion will change. The F-35 thread was never able to stay up very long while it was still in development. Only after hundreds of aircraft were in the air and Red Flag results were available was it possible to get an F-35 thread running long term. Not because minds were changed but because the window of opportunity to get the program onto the "death spiral" had closed.

How do you value tying the US into treaties that make it dependent on foreign government behavior. How do you value the idea of US technical progress towards ICBM active defense. These are top level preferences and will only be settled politically.

The F-35 analogy will apply to missile defense. Only until it becomes too established and as declared in Trump's MDA budget conference, "irreversible" will attacks die down. Again, not because opinions shifted, but simply because continued attacks won't accomplish anything.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
Yep. As soon as it goes political it pretty much becomes a pointless conversation.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
The F-35 analogy is deeply misguided and almost entirely incorrect but in a limited sense you are correct about the division re: values.

In this conversation you value your feelings and aspirations over facts; for you missile defence appears to be a quasi-political/ religious “faith”.
Everything is interpreted through the prism that may bring other baggage (or is the missile defence itself baggage from a wider “faith”?).
It appears that anything that doesn’t agree or corespondent to that “faith” is heresy or simply isn’t listened to. Selective perception and all that.

That’s not where nearly all the other contributors are coming from.
The simple fact is that the US is to some extent dependent on the behaviour of foreign governments like they are dependent on the behaviour of the US government - that’s reality and nothing (save human extinction) will change that.
And missile defence won’t really be settled by elections because almost no one cares about missile defence; it is an almost literal non-election issue. And even politicians who may be positively disposed towards it (most obviously Reagan) eventually dropped it or scale it back because the cost/ benefit is so wildly out of whack when you try to scale it past a relatively low point of numbers and capability versus what is being proposed above.
And beyond some kind of multiple decade hegemony by one political party across the executive and the legislature (unlike anything previously seen) how does any “macro” scheme get built and be maintained without a lot of cross-party support?

I end up asking myself what’s the point of asking rhetorical questions as you will likely again chose your own highly biased views.
Hopefully in time you will move past this “faith- alone” perspective.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
The above post in 8 words: My politics are facts. Your facts are politics.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
Regrettable, though unfortunately predictable. So what response do you propose to that announcement? Penalize Russia for China's refusal and stop bilateral arms control altogether? Not the kind of messaging that would cause China to reconsider its stance in future:


Putin has offered to implement the 5-year extension option in New START, no questions asked. That would buy more time to begin efforts at convincing China in earnest, something that has been sorely lacking so far. To date, while the US has repeatedly gone on the record as wanting the PRC to join, it has not indicated so much as a rough outline of how it envisions such a participation. What are US expectations? China lacks any basis for discussion thus far, the US has made no concrete diplomatic approaches beyond stating its intention. What response can you even expect?

Avoiding a gap in nuclear arms control treaties would also serve to demonstrate commitment to the cause and counter any Chinese suspicions that US desire to include it is merely a ruse to get rid of another limiting agreement. Consider what US behaviour over the past two decades must look like from the outside: it's been exiting treaties left and right, what assurance is there for China that there is genuine interest in arms control? You have to provide a reason to believe the effort of engaging in negotiations is worthwhile, that there is a plausible chance of a mutually beneficial outcome and that China is not merely serving as a ploy.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
It's ironic that one of the reasons that treaties are a hard sell for people like me is that they are administered by people like you. No violation will ever be serious enough to withdraw and no complaint is ever justified because the US is to blame. And the solutions to treaty problems will always be more treaties.

By now I think its obvious you have no chance of persuading people like me just as I have no chance of ever changing your mind. Let the election decide.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
876
Reaction score
69
It would be helpful to your case if "people like you" could cite specific violations genuinely serious enough to be rationally worth jeopardizing fundamentally successful arms control agreements over. As Desertfox stated earlier, look at a graph of warhead numbers over the past 30 years and tell me, hand on heart, that they have not been principally effective, despite occasional infractions (on both sides).

I'm judging the success or failure of the arms control approach simply by its measurable end results - that seems a fair and objective benchmark to me. Do there need to be red lines? Absolutely. Have they ever been crossed in reality? Not in my view - the violations I'm aware of are trivial compared to the benefits. History does not support the conclusion that the people administering arms control on the US side are particularly reluctant to withdraw, either...

As for China, it's pretty simple really: is the US serious about wanting to engage it in arms control? If so the US should stop merely thinking out loud about it and begin to undertake a tangible effort to actually bring China to the negotiating table. A first step in that direction would be to take up Russia on its offer of a 5-year New START extension and thus provide sufficient breathing room to even make a credible attempt. Given China's expressed attitudes it's going to be struggle and success is far from guaranteed, but if the US means what it says it should at least put in a good faith effort. Currently it looks as though it's merely paying lip service to make sure the optics aren't quite so bad when it eventually hangs Russia out to dry, citing its (deliberately impossible) demands unmet.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
I'll pass. But I encourage you to advise all who share your convictions to make this an election issue.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
It's ironic that one of the reasons that treaties are a hard sell for people like me is that they are administered by people like you. No violation will ever be serious enough to withdraw and no complaint is ever justified because the US is to blame. And the solutions to treaty problems will always be more treaties.

By now I think its obvious you have no chance of persuading people like me just as I have no chance of ever changing your mind. Let the election decide.
International treaties are an exceptionally hard sell if you need to believe in your own country’s exceptionalism, which is an inherently irrational and unavoidably disappointing pastime.

Pro or Con virtually no one will vote in the next US Presidential election based on missile defense.
Do you think it will even be specifically mentioned in a Presidential debate?
Yet specifically be a major campaign issue?

And, for example, in what rational basis do you think a 2nd Trump term would necessarily continue or implement anything said on this topic before hand? Especially when real money has to be spent and the successes and problems of any major project come around.
And then what happens in and after the next election cycle?
A democrat or republican president could continue or change a preceding democrat or republican presidents policies in this regard, including their own.

So claims that missile defence will be definitely settled as an issue (one way or another) in the next Presidential election are divorced from any remotely plausible version of reality.
And they put your other claims in their clearly fantasy perspective.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
International treaties are an exceptionally hard sell if you need to believe in your own country’s exceptionalism, which is an inherently irrational and unavoidably disappointing pastime.

Pro or Con virtually no one will vote in the next US Presidential election based on missile defense.
Do you think it will even be specifically mentioned in a Presidential debate?
Yet specifically be a major campaign issue?

And, for example, in what rational basis do you think a 2nd Trump term would necessarily continue or implement anything said on this topic before hand? Especially when real money has to be spent and the successes and problems of any major project come around.
And then what happens in and after the next election cycle?
A democrat or republican president could continue or change a preceding democrat or republican presidents policies in this regard, including their own.

So claims that missile defence will be definitely settled as an issue (one way or another) in the next Presidential election are divorced from any remotely plausible version of reality.
And they put your other claims in their clearly fantasy perspective.
If you stripped the pejoratives from your posts you actually don't have much to say.

Nobody like me will be voting democrat. No American with opinions like you will be voting for Trump. If Trump were to stand before his supporters and proclaim his support for missile defense, nobody would leave. I hope he does make a speech specifically addressing missile defense. It would force the issue to the fore.

I truly hope the democratic nominee will announce termination of missile defense. I also hope they will announce they will bulldoze those sections of the border wall that have been built. I am willing to have these issues directly tested by vote.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
International treaties are an exceptionally hard sell if you need to believe in your own country’s exceptionalism, which is an inherently irrational and unavoidably disappointing pastime.

Pro or Con virtually no one will vote in the next US Presidential election based on missile defense.
Do you think it will even be specifically mentioned in a Presidential debate?
Yet specifically be a major campaign issue?

And, for example, in what rational basis do you think a 2nd Trump term would necessarily continue or implement anything said on this topic before hand? Especially when real money has to be spent and the successes and problems of any major project come around.
And then what happens in and after the next election cycle?
A democrat or republican president could continue or change a preceding democrat or republican presidents policies in this regard, including their own.

So claims that missile defence will be definitely settled as an issue (one way or another) in the next Presidential election are divorced from any remotely plausible version of reality.
And they put your other claims in their clearly fantasy perspective.
If you stripped the pejoratives from your posts you actually don't have much to say.

Nobody like me will be voting democrat. No American with opinions like you will be voting for Trump. If Trump were to stand before his supporters and proclaim his support for missile defense, nobody would leave. I hope he does make a speech specifically addressing missile defense. It would force the issue to the fore.

I truly hope the democratic nominee will announce termination of missile defense. I also hope they will announce they will bulldoze those sections of the border wall that have been built. I am willing to have these issues directly tested by vote.
You have my sympathy.
Whatever the pros and cons, rights and wrongs on the topic of missile defense your predicament is clearly a particularly personal one, projecting very specific personal hopes and hates on to a figure head who will "make everything right" forever in November.
A far-right wing waiting for Gadot, not because Trump can't/ won't win a 2nd term but because of what you are projecting onto it which can't ever be delivered either literally (your pie-in-the-sky missile defense proposals) or in relation to the emotional satisfaction/ closure you appear to need/ want.
Try to hold it together and please talk to emotionally supportive people one way or the other after November.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
You have my sympathy.
Whatever the pros and cons, rights and wrongs on the topic of missile defense your predicament is clearly a particularly personal one, projecting very specific personal hopes and hates on to a figure head who will "make everything right" forever in November.
A far-right wing waiting for Gadot, not because Trump can't/ won't win a 2nd term but because of what you are projecting onto it which can't ever be delivered either literally (your pie-in-the-sky missile defense proposals) or in relation to the emotional satisfaction/ closure you appear to need/ want.
Try to hold it together and please talk to emotionally supportive people one way or the other after November.
Once again, if you take away the hostility and insults, your posts reduce to nothing.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
884
Reaction score
197
You have my sympathy.
Whatever the pros and cons, rights and wrongs on the topic of missile defense your predicament is clearly a particularly personal one, projecting very specific personal hopes and hates on to a figure head who will "make everything right" forever in November.
A far-right wing waiting for Gadot, not because Trump can't/ won't win a 2nd term but because of what you are projecting onto it which can't ever be delivered either literally (your pie-in-the-sky missile defense proposals) or in relation to the emotional satisfaction/ closure you appear to need/ want.
Try to hold it together and please talk to emotionally supportive people one way or the other after November.
Once again, if you take away the hostility and insults, your posts reduce to nothing.
I genuinely meant my comments above without an ounce of sarcasm. I am very much not mocking you. I now regret my or other contributors role in riling up someone who I now recognise is not in a good healthy place and I would legitimately urge you to reach out to those that can help you.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
299
Another display of long range telepathic mind reading. Moving on from determining motives to mental diagnosis. Remarkable.
 

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
57
Reaction score
58
Also, a navy leader claims that the CVN already has the ability to counter HGV now.

"The Navy's marquee surface combatant force -- the aircraft carrier strike group -- is equipped today with technologies capable of defeating adversary maneuvering hypersonic weapons, a top admiral told Congress, suggesting the sea service has stitched together a shield to defend against a new class of ultra-fast weapons widely viewed as invincible. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) today posited a hypothetical question to Navy leaders during a Senate Armed Services Committee shipbuilding hearing: "Can you defend yourself?" "If I have a..."

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...roups-have-defense-against-hypersonic-threats



Maybe use the SM-6 to intercept the HGV at the terminal phase. SM-2 Block 4 demonstrated intercepting a mach 4 diving vehicle (AQM-37) before, and this speed is similar to the terminal speed of HGV which has a ~ mach 10 maximun speed during initial gliding phase. (AHW has a maximun speed of mach 8 but decreases to mach 4 at the terminal.)
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,218
Reaction score
819
I strongly suspect that, at best, they are whistling in the graveyard here.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
184
Reaction score
53
I mean, SM-6, ESSM, and the CIWS, were all designed to deal with the big supersonic Soviet ship-killers, so they likely have some capability against HGVs in the terminal phase. Now how effective they are, that's the real question.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,218
Reaction score
819
The 'old' was a totally different kettle of fish from the present SM-6 system altogether, ESSM was a '90s development of a late Cold War stop-gap system which had been able to soldier on thanks to the sudden end of the Cold War and the (initially & briefly) lowered threat environment, and the Phalanx CIWS was designed as a last ditch system, if an effective one (but thanks to bean counters there were never near enough to go around, ditto with it's rival, Goalkeeper).
 
Last edited:

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
57
Reaction score
58
Also, a navy leader claims that the CVN already has the ability to counter HGV now.

"The Navy's marquee surface combatant force -- the aircraft carrier strike group -- is equipped today with technologies capable of defeating adversary maneuvering hypersonic weapons, a top admiral told Congress, suggesting the sea service has stitched together a shield to defend against a new class of ultra-fast weapons widely viewed as invincible. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) today posited a hypothetical question to Navy leaders during a Senate Armed Services Committee shipbuilding hearing: "Can you defend yourself?" "If I have a..."

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...roups-have-defense-against-hypersonic-threats



Maybe use the SM-6 to intercept the HGV at the terminal phase. SM-2 Block 4 demonstrated intercepting a mach 4 diving vehicle (AQM-37) before, and this speed is similar to the terminal speed of HGV which has a ~ mach 10 maximun speed during initial gliding phase. (AHW has a maximun speed of mach 8 but decreases to mach 4 at the terminal.)
It seems like my conjecture is right.

DOD eyes SM-6 for counter-hypersonic mission, test against glide-vehicle target in FY-23

The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023. Mike Griffin, under secretary of defense for research and engineering, revealed the plans for SM-6 as a candidate counter-hypersonic weapon days after a top Navy admiral said the service has a classified capability to protect aircraft carrier strike groups from maneuvering hypersonic

 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
147
Top