Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (14190)	12/19/2001 11:27:44 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Guys, A limited missile defense system could be deployed within 2 years and be effective. Current testing shows targeting technology is on track. The critics all point out the difficulty of making direct hits at the speeds involved. But only conventional or kinetic payloads require direct hits. If we wanted to knock out an inbound ICBM, an ABM armed with a neutron warhead with a 1-2 kilometer kill ratio would be close to 100% effective with todays telemetry (no onboard GPS needed). Neutron weapons would have no residual radiation and blast effects would not reach the earths surface. If a small number of ICBM's are inbound who cares about restraint? Any inbound missile would be assumed to be a weapon of mass destruction and should overide any squeemishness over our use of a nuclear response. Could it be effective against an all out soviet style attack? Probably not. If thousand of weapons are launched, even a 99.999% effective system would still let a few dozen through. But there is no current enemy capable of that kind of launch, so there is no need for anything more than a limited system. John

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next