Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sawdring

assuming all are able to lauch. Many could be destroyed in a first strike, some fail to lauch (i.e. see challenger explosion. rockets are not 100%), and the enemy doesn’t develop an effective anti-missile defense. The idea behind thousands of kill vehicles is that some would get through. Reduce the number and you increase the risk someone might try something.


36 posted on 07/13/2010 5:16:53 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: FreeAtlanta
Reduce the number and you increase the risk someone might try something.

Maybe with India or Pakistan's arsenals, but with the Russian, Chinese and US arsenals it is a different story. A first strike would be very risky and would most likely not disarm your opponent. 3,000 weapons across the triad are hard to keep track of and even harder to kill all at once.

A more likely scenario would be attacking a limited number of military targets to get the point across or even go as far as city trading.

41 posted on 07/13/2010 5:41:47 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAtlanta

Exactly, if we were to launch a massive nuke strike, I would bet that the first wave would contain a large number of fakes to deplete the anti-missile defense. Knowing that, you need twice as many missiles to overwhelm the defenses.


62 posted on 07/13/2010 7:58:56 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson