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: LindyBill who wrote (73619)	2/13/2003 4:27:27 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) of 281500

LindyBill, Actually the voodoo logic is JohnM's. He suffers from not being an engineer (apologies John :-). Today we are presenting the engineering community with the problem of stopping such missiles with conventional warheads, kinetic systems or lasers. This is a difficult, but not impossible task. The reality is that with nuclear (probably neutron) warheads, used above the atmosphere we would only need to get within 10km of the warhead to destroy it. Thats easy. We had weapons that could do that as far back as 1956. Look at the Nike Hercules or Bomarc systems. What they could not do was respond to hundreds of weapons launched simultaneously. We dismantled those limited systems in 1972 following the ABM treaty. The logic of the ABM treaty was - that developing an ABM system effective enough to stop such an overwhelming attack would negate the MAD doctrine. The idea of a stalemate that prevented war was desirable at the time. The Cold War is over. We need new systems for new threats. John

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next