Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The Russian and Chinese nuclear threat to the United States is rapidly growing even as US power continues to decline, threatening to pierce its self-deluding facade that it is "the sole surviving superpower."
Last year, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that the Russians have built 10,000 S-300 dual-purpose SAM/ABM's. William T. Lee and other prominent intelligence analysts report these to be capable of shooting down tactical and strategic missiles. The Russians themselves have stated in their arms and military export journals that these missiles are capable of shooting down cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, "and ballistic missiles, even ICBMs." These ABMs, by all accounts, are the finest in the world, superior in all respects to US Patriot missiles. Now, they are building the S-400 Triumph SAM/ABM which is even more effective at downing US ICBMs. Armed with these anti-missile missiles, the Russians could conceivably shoot down a couple of thousand of our incoming missiles and warheads in a hypothetical US nuclear missile attack.
The US attempted to purchase the S-300 from the Russians for years to learn its secrets. When they finally did, a few years ago, the one they obtained appeared to have been tampered with and had its advanced guidance system removed and replaced with a "monkey-model" guidance system in a job which smelled of GRU deception. Thus, the question of the true effectiveness and capabilities of the S-300 was never fully resolved. However, if Russian reports of its effectiveness are true, as I suspect, than the Russians may well be capable of winning a nuclear war with the United States. Of course, it has been Russian military policy for decades to pursue a nuclear war-winning capability, which they continue to strive for today with massive expeditures toward strategic modernization, new missiles, strategic defense modernization, and the construction of a nuclear-proof command bunker/underground city at Yamantau Mountain the size of the entire area within the beltway of Washington, DC. Despite the US intelligence failure to obtain a working copy of an S-300 SAM/ABM, several US Senators have been reported to be continuing to seek a US purchase of these excellent missiles from Russia to serve as an early interim national missile shield for this country. Doubtlessly, the US could learn much from Russian technical breakthroughs incorporated in the latest model S-300 missiles.
The Russians have produced some of the best weapons in the world. These include the Yakhont anti-ship missile (against which the US Navy has admittedly no defense), EMP weapons capable of disabling EW systems up to a 10 KM radius, the very heavily armored T-800 MBT which will mount a 152mm cannon, the ARENA anti-top-attack ATGM defense system, the Shkval rocket torpedo, the SS-27 road mobile (MIRV'd) ICBM, the SA-10/SA-12/S-400 classes of dual-purpose SAM/ABMs, plasma stealth technology, and other classified weapons systems. Each of these weapons systems are not only the best in the world, several have no existing or planned US equivalent. The Russians also have a new stealth bomber, the S-37, MiG 1.42 and MFI stealth fighters, new SSBN's and SLBM's coming online. The only thing we have going for us is that at present the Russians lack the funds to mass produce most of these new weapons. That is where the Communist Chinese come in. By financing Russian weapons production, the Communist Chinese hopes to share their technology--for example to produce S-300's, T-80 tanks, SU-30 fighter-bombers, and perhaps even T-800 tanks in the PRC. Thus, the Sino-Russian conventional threat to the US is also beginning to grow.
The Russians have a total of 2,000-3,000 S-300 ABMs dedicated to the defense of Moscow and the surrounding regions. Most of the Russian's nuclear armed ABM intercepters are located here totaling an estimated 1750 ABM intercepters armed with neutron warheads. These neutron warheads are designed to shoot down enemy missiles not by the impact of the tiny 1 KT explosion but rather by EMP effects which render the enemy missiles electronics/guidance system useless and cause them to fall harmlessly to the ground. These neutron-tipped ABMs are not powerful enough to damage the Russian ABM defense system's own electronics, but they are powerful enough to shoot down more than one missile/warhead at a time. It is these ABMs that pose the greatest threat to US notions of nuclear 'deterrence' by threatening to defeat much of a hypothetical pre-emptive or especially a retaliatory US nuclear strike against the Russian Federation.
Russian advantages over the US in terms of both offensive and defensive nuclear war-fighting capabilities pose a clear and present danger to United States national security by serving to increase the temptation for Putin's Russia to destroy the US nuclear deterrent in a decapitating nuclear first strike surprise attack. The Russian Federation has committed to support Communist China in any war with the United States over Taiwan. It is not difficult to envision how a US-China war over Taiwan could escalate to the nuclear level for which the US, which under the Clinton Administration has unilaterally disarmed to 11,000 nuclear weapons down from 32,000 and destroyed fully 50% of its ICBM force, remains manifestly unprepared.
The US must respond to the growing Sino-Russian military alliance threat by deploying a national missile defense system immediately beginning with the Aegis option which utilizes 650 Standard IV anti-missile missiles aboard our existing Aegis cruisers and destroyers. These missiles, when deployed with ship-radar upgrades and new satellites, would be capable of defending 90% of the US population against ballistic missile attack. They could also defend our allies abroad and could be usefully employed to defend Taiwan against Communist Chinese aggression. Failure to take action now to defend the country against nuclear attack will merely serve to ensure that the current strategic nuclear imbalance of forces which greatly favors the Russians will continue to widen. Foreign WMD and ballistic missile threats will not wait for us to defend the country before they are capable of threatening the US mainland with mass destruction and millions of civilian casualties. It may already be a case of too little, too late.
"The Russians have produced some of the best weapons in the world."
I don't disagree with the general thrust of this article, but I do question the above statement. The air defense systems the Russians sold to the Iraqis and Serbs appear to be next to useless. But I'm not an expert and I'd like to hear from others who are.
They sold Serbs a very old (13+ years) AA missile systems. They did sell them new ones but the radar systems for them haven't arried by the time the war started. I'm pretty sure Serbs have all of the pieces now to take down the most sophisticated NATO planes including B2s.
While I don't think that we are yet at the point where we should hit the panic button, I do think that this article highlights the urgent need to elect GWB and a Republican-dominated Congress (calling John McCain). The US military has now suffered more than a decade of neglect and the world has become a more dangerous place because of it. Our feckless foreign adventurism has only served to inform Moscow and Beijing of our vulnerability. They might well be tempted to try their luck and take advantage of that knowledge, though doing that could prove a disasterous miscalculation on their part.
All of these chickens are coming home to roost. We court disaster with 4 more years of Clinton/Gore.
And even with the second hand stuff they managed to shoot down a "stealth" F-117.
On the other hand, which countries did they hit with DU cruise missiles in the last 10 years?
Poohbah, I believe you inspired this thread, so here's a BUMP to you!
Here's the deal:
Russia is dug in. America is not.
The Russians seem to have a tendency to unload their out-dated obsolete military junk on the lesser powers such as Iraq. These are merely second-hand weapons and technology, and hardly reflect the military capabilities of the Russians.
For example, those pathetic scud missiles with their bottle-rocket type accuracy launched by Saddam were in no way representative of the best technology Russia possessed at that time.
That would explain why Clinton and Bush, Gore and McCain have to get China approved for Most Favored Nation status.
As huge as our current Billion$ in Trade Deficit is with China, they need more $$$ to finalize the New World Order subjugation of what once was America... the last monkey-wrench in their Globalist gears.
Sad stuff. Go ahead and vote for the Dem-Rep Duopoly. America has outlived her usefulness anyway... right?
:-(
I'll be happy to talk to you, but rightwing2 had better learn some manners first. What's up?
Some related threads:
There are plenty more, this is just a sampling. Use the search engine for more information.
Sorry, I goofed up on the first link. Here it is, this time it points to the appropriate post :
Clinton to give Russia and China our Missile Defense System
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that the Russians have have an ABM system and the US doesn't! What about the treaty? Does the President know this? Is he rushing legislation for an ABM system to Congress right this minute?
Oops, I forgot who the President is. He's too busy kowtowing to the Chinese Communists that financed his campaigns. He's busy rushing reward legislation (MFN) to Congress insisting it's in our national security interests to pass it. Never mind that the Russians have over 15,000 nuclear weapons.
You are correct on that point. Releasing the obsolete "junk" to third world client states is one way to make potential opponents of the Soviet Union/Russia underestimate their capabilities. In some areas, namely electronic/computer technology, the Russians are still a bit behind. However, I have worked with some engineers who have immigrated here. Their math background is a bit stronger than most U.S. educated engineers. One that I worked with found ways to squeeze more capabilites from an old Allen Bradley PLC-2 programmable logic controller. They are quite good at squeezing out the maximum of what they have available.
The air defense systems the Russians sold to the Iraqis and Serbs appear to be next to useless. But I'm not an expert and I'd like to hear from others who are.
Actually, the Russian-built air defense systems sold to Serbia and in particular, Iran were ancient. The SA-2s and SA-3s were first deployed by the Russians in the 1960s, while the few Serb SA-6s they possessed during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia were first deployed in the Soviet Air Defense forces in the 1970s. In fact, it was one of the antiquated Serb 30 year-old plus air defense missile systems that shot down our vaunted F-117A attack aircraft.
Furthermore during the Gulf War, the Iraqis employed ancient Russian equipment like T-54s and T-55s. What T-72s the Iraqis had were the Russian "monkey model" export versions, significantly degraded from the Soviet Army frontline T-72s. Thus, the Gulf War was not a reliable test of Soviet weapon strengths. Furthermore, tens perhaps hundreds of Chinese anti-ship missiles which were largely copies of Russian versions could have sunk most of our Marine transports in the Gulf, but were mysteriously never employed by Saddam.
I agree that the US has proved to be at least as militaristic as Russia in the past year. The Clintonista warmongers have wrongfully attacked and bombed Sudan (in which they destroyed a live-saving pharmaceutical factory), Iraq (which they have continued to unjustly bomb for 15 months), and Yugoslavia. Only their attack on Afghanistan may have been justified under the laws of just war. At least, we Republicans rejected Clinton-clone McCain, the only Republican to out-Clinton Clinton in terms of his warmongering ways.
That would explain why Clinton and Bush, Gore and McCain have to get China approved for Most Favored Nation status.
As huge as our current Billion$ in Trade Deficit is with China, they need more $$$ to finalize the New World Order subjugation of what once was America... the last monkey-wrench in their Globalist gears.
Sad stuff. Go ahead and vote for the Dem-Rep Duopoly. America has outlived her usefulness anyway... right?
Exactly, ChiCom appeasers Clinton clones Bush and Gore are inexplicably trying to increase Communist China's trade surplus with the United States to provide additional tens of billions of dollars for the ChiCom strategic military build-up and decrease the time the Butchers of Beijing need to transform their country into a world-class military and nuclear superpower.
That is why I agree with you that we must reject the internationalist ticket of Bush-Gore and vote Buchanan Reform 2000!
But why would they bomb us when they can just put another one of their boys in the Whore...er...White House???
Yep, Clinton, the Clinton co-opted GOP leadership of the US Congress and soon Bush-Gore will continue to reward the ChiComs with WTO membership and permanent MFN trade status to provide them with additional tens of billions of US trade dollars to build themselves the best enemy that money can buy.
Stop Bush-Gore and vote Buchanan Reform 2000!
"Most of the Russian's nuclear armed ABM intercepters are located here totaling an estimated 1750 ABM intercepters armed with neutron warheads. These neutron warheads are designed to shoot down enemy missiles not by the impact of the tiny 1 KT explosion but rather by EMP effects which render the enemy missiles electronics/guidance system useless and cause them to fall harmlessly to the ground."
Just a small question. How does an EMP warhead affect a ballistic missile warhead? Aren't those things "ballistic"? IOW, what guidance system?
And one other small thing. Those Aegis crusiers and destroyers won't be very effective at defeating Soviet ICBMS whose flight paths are over the artic unless the Navy has an icebreaker version. Granted they have some effectiveness against NK systems but the point of this article is Soviet, not NK.
Well the NWO types have been accused of refering to the populace as useless eaters and what better way to rid the world of them than a nuclear exchange. Might explain why our administration seems to be in cahoots with the 'enemy'. In fact perhaps they are both on one side and the common man (a.k.a. 'useless eater') on the other. That way they can initiate a war whilst they're all in bunkers and rid themselves of the so called 'useless eaters' amongst us.
History has shown that the power elite have more loyalty (based on fear and respect) towards each other than they (in the case of politicians) will ever have to their people. For example the British aristocracy and NAZIs, the Holy Crusades (Richard Lionheart was friends with the Middle Eastern leaders he went to war with). In each case, you can be rest assured the odds are not in favor of the little guy.
This is convincing technobabble and not much more. 1750 nukes popping off over Russia to protect them from...1750 nukes popping off? The EMP would fry their nonmilitary computers, and if they've started the war, they're probably nuking the only place where they can buy replacements!
Thank you, comes from evolving in a harsh land, surrounded by enemies that deny you technology for fear of you. They made a mistake of allowing Peter the Great to see their factories, not realizing he had photographic memory. They have been paying for that mistake since the early 1700's.
If you come to us with bread, we shall break bread. If you come to us with a sword we shall break your head.
Thanks for posting this. After hearing so much about them, I was wondering what a Serb, I mean Evil Serb, Command and Control facility looks like.
All ballistic missiles have guidence systems. How do you think the thing makes it to the other side of the world? A simple gyroscope will have the accuracy of a Scud...which is exactly what they use. The guidence system computers also have to take into account things such as weather. Pin point, first strike capability takes a lot of computing power. There are litterly thousands of variable when determining location and distance around the world. Non of these systems are hardened, to do so would add immessasurably to the weight of the missile, causing one to either increase the size of the missile or decrease the payload.
Neutron bombs and EMP guns are very effective. EMP guns can be created from a powerful radio. All they do is interferr with electron flow through the wires, thus creating a build up in the wires and causing them to short, kinda like making them into huge resisters....zzzzzzap. The IRA has already used EMP technology against the computers at the London Stock Exchange. They just drove around in a van, pointing it at the building...frying the systems. EMPs are limited in scope of area affect. Depending on where they are detonated, how much they will effect and in which direction the blast goes. Small blasts that detonate within a kilometer or less of an enemy missile will do little damage ten thousand feet below to the city, especially to computers in Steel/concrete buildings.
Nuclear weapons systems are designed to be fired in a nuclear environment--i.e., under nuclear attack at the silo. This means that the warhead components are already hardened against EMP, and the lightweight elements used in phenolic resins also tend to scatter neutrons...perhaps an EMP round wouldn't be as effective as advertised under these circumstances.
Just a small question. How does an EMP warhead affect a ballistic missile warhead? Aren't those things "ballistic"? IOW, what guidance system?
X-ray emissions from neutron and other nuclear explostions damage the electronics of nuclear missiles and warheads rendering them inoperable given sufficiently close range. Nuclear warheads thus effected do not explode because the firing mechanisms do not function. Ballistic missiles have very complex onboard guidance systems which ensure their accuracy within a certain range. If those guidance systems are damaged in flight, then they end up missing their target sometimes by miles, sometimes by hundreds of miles. I'm not sure exactly what about this you don't understand. We're not talking rocket science here, are we?
And one other small thing. Those Aegis crusiers and destroyers won't be very effective at defeating Soviet ICBMS whose flight paths are over the artic unless the Navy has an icebreaker version. Granted they have some effectiveness against NK systems but the point of this article is Soviet, not NK.
Nearly, all the major population centers are located within a few hundred miles of the coast which happens to be the range of Navy Theater Wide Standard IVA Missiles. Therefore, positioning these Aegis cruisers and destroyers strategically along the coastlines given several hours warning could effectively defend the majority of attacking missiles against population centers in a countervalue attack as would be employed by the ChiComs, Iranians or the North Koreans. Granted a Russian attack would be more difficult to defend against as the system would be overwhelmed--650 ABMs to defend against as many as 6000 plus attacking warheads. We would have to use either land or preferrably space-based defenses in tandem with the sea-based leg to provide an effective defense against the Russkies. For more details, you can read the Defend America Report on www.nationalsecurity.org.
The question is how much hardening is in the missile itself? Plutonium has weight and you can only enrich it so far before you reach a limit and you must have a minimum critical mass (weight) in order to detonate. Now, missile siloes are hardened with concrete to survive the blasts (except for direct hits) and to survive above ground EMP blasts. The guidance systems have to be very complex with powerful computers in order to strike an actual cylo from across the world, taking into account all the variable of the weather patterns and cross winds.
This should especially be held into account when considering that most of the Superpowers built their missiles a long time ago and many of the systems do not have the latest in micro computers. The military and government are notorias for being slow to imporvise.
The resins, I suspect, would do very little to circumvent a direct EMP blast a that occures only a few to a few hundred meters away with nothing but thin air between them. Everything carries charge, even rubber, though at a much lower density and with much higher resistance. Also, charge can easily jump, such as what happens when car is hit by lightening and the charge jumps from the car directly to the ground, by passing the tires.
On the other hand, charge also happens to accumulate on the outside of objects, which would make the center neutral, though magnetic force will actually build up on the inside (especially if hollow and a tube: ie: a missile) of an object and it is the magnetic force that would cause the electron movement to frenzy in the guidence system computers and more then likely short out.
You want a better defense against Russia that will not only save billions of dollars but counter balance the Chineese?
Start treating Russia with honor and respect instead of side lining her while the American/EU corps rape her. Stop characterizing her people as drunken idiots or cold blooded murderers and her women as fat and stupid country hicks. (funny, all of these over whelmingly apply to modern America). You treat us with dignity and come peacefully to break bread, you will have a life long friend who will die for you. You threaten us, and it won't be us who do the dieing. Ask any of our enemies throughout history. They all thought they had us... and where are they now? I'll point you to the ashpile of history.
"All ballistic missiles have guidence systems. How do you think the thing makes it to the other side of the world?"
Certainly all ballistic missiles have guidance systems. The problem with your argument is that they only control the missile until warhead separation which occurs well before the warheads enter the engagement volume of the Russian ABM system. After that the warhead closely approximates a well-thrown rock.
"We would have to use either land or preferrably space-based defenses in tandem with the sea-based leg to provide an effective defense against the Russkies."
And that was my point. Aegis equipted ships have a role in missile defense, but they are not the panacea this author would have you believe.
I have been a long time supporter of NMD. The present NMD mission is defense against rogue nation and other limited attacks. This mission can be adequately performed by ground based systems at substantially lesser cost than space based systems. At some time in the future space based systems will also have their role but only for mid-course or early boost phase intercepts. I believe the best course is to get ground based systems deployed and expand that capability later. Remember that in order to get a camel into a tent, first you must get his nose under the flap.
I find it hard to believe that the Russians have IMPROVED & INCREASED their military capability since the Cold War. Even than, there Air/Missle Defense (thought to be the World's best) allowed a young man to land his private plan right in Red Square. Again, we are victims of "talk is cheap". I think that Russia is less than 70% of what they claim to be. There Military is 70's Tech., at best.
"I'm not sure exactly what about this you don't understand. We're not talking rocket science here, are we?"
Actually, "rocket science" is exactly what we are discussing, isn't it?
Actually, "rocket science" is exactly what we are discussing, isn't it?
Ouch! That one's a keeper!
Of course, even the Aegis is no more than an interim solution, but at a total cost of $8 billion to make a network of 650 ABM intercepters operational vs. an estimated $14 plus billion to operate a single 100 intercepter ground-based site, it is much more cost effective. Unfortunately, even most "conservatives" in the national security business have lost sight of the grand vision of a largely space-based defense system that could defend the country against Russian attack by taking out Russian missiles in their boost phases. Instead, we here today that so-called rogue states are the primary threat to the country. In fact, Russian and Communist Chinese nuclear missiles are far greater threats to the country than a few North Korean and Iranian ICBMs. It is high time we recognize that before we are hit with a Russian-led nuclear Pearl Harbor surprise attack that will transform us into a third-rate power in the space of half an hour. The truth is that space-based defenses are next to sea-based defenses the most cost effective because they can take out enemy missiles before they can release their warheads. Ground-based intercepters are the most costly alternative if they are to be deployed in sufficient numbers to protect us against a Russian nuclear first strike.
I find it hard to believe that the Russians have IMPROVED & INCREASED their military capability since the Cold War. Even than, there Air/Missle Defense (thought to be the World's best) allowed a young man to land his private plan right in Red Square. Again, we are victims of "talk is cheap". I think that Russia is less than 70% of what they claim to be. There Military is 70's Tech., at best.
You are ignoring strategic realities about which you are apparently unaware. The Russian military is building high-technology pockets of excellence which surpass our own in many areas. I suggest that you educate yourself in regards to their activities in these areas. World Net Daily authors Charles Smith and JR Nyquist have written a number of articles on the Sino-Russian military build-up. Another good site is www.afpc.org whose Russia and China newsletters you should subscribe to. If you could, I would read military and defense journals such as Defense News and Jane's Defence Weekly as well. Many good articles in this regard are also reposted here at Free Republic.
The Russian air defense system is designed to protect against major threats such as strategic bombers and missiles. The German guy who flew to Moscow around 1986 did so in a small low-flying plane which did not pose much of a threat to Russia. Of course, Russian weapon systems like their US counterparts are not perfect.
Actually, "rocket science" is exactly what we are discussing, isn't it? Ouch! That one's a keeper!
Amazing. Somebody actually picked up on my joke. You guys are pretty slow.
The Russian air defense system is designed to protect against major threats such as strategic bombers and missiles. The German guy who flew to Moscow around 1986 did so in a small low-flying plane which did not pose much of a threat to Russia. Of course, Russian weapon systems like their US counterparts are not perfect.
The Russian air defense system is certainly designed to protect against planes. Some cruise missiles (though small and difficult to hit) may also be vulnerable. But as far as I can tell, the long range ballistic missile warheads (separated for most of the trajectory) are hardened and would not be vulnerable to any defense the Russians have. Our efforts to develop a "hit to kill" type of defense system is starting to show promise. Hit to kill would work agains this type of weapon. The NMD system is designed to handle the long range (i.e. faster warheads), the theater systems (THAAD and Navy Theater Wide) are designed for shorter range and slower warheads. The patriot was a joke, the upgraded PAC-3 works on the same warheads as the theater systems but has a shorter range of operation. To date the NMD has a somewhat dubious hit, THAAD has two hits and PAC-3 is three for three and the furthest along. All systems had many misses before they got it right. The difficulty of reaching this point should show that the Russians, (and our allies) are years away from this kind of technology.
Its just rocket science.
That is why I agree with you that we must reject the internationalist ticket of Bush-Gore and vote Buchanan Reform 2000!
Maybe I am missing something here. I was not aware that Bush and Gore were running on the same ticket.
"Of course, even the Aegis is no more than an interim solution, but at a total cost of $8 billion to make a network of 650 ABM intercepters operational vs. an estimated $14 plus billion to operate a single 100 intercepter ground-based site, it is much more cost effective."
As in all things, that depends. I checked the url as you suggested and quite frankly the Navy is playing games in their cost analysis. The numbers you mentioned do not include the cost of the crusiers and destroyers since the Navy claims they will not be dedicated to this role. As mentioned in the website, the Navy maintains that there will always be cruisers and destroyers near enough to the launch sites to provide protection. Now, that leads us back to the weakness of the Aegis concept.
Aegis depends upon intercepting the missiles during boost phase, ie, it must be near the launch point and is not intended to be a terminal NM defense system (the Navy interceptor is far too slow, but that's another issue). This will be most difficult wrt the Russian ICBM fields which is why I said an "icebreaker" version is needed. (That was my little joke.) But, this is also why Aegis could be very effective wrt to NK or Iran. Consequently, the Aegis system will not be effective against a Russian or even a Chinese attack.
Even if space based systems are more cost effective on a warhead kill basis, ground based systems must still be part of the mix so that any leakers are engaged. Given that, and also given the political difficulties of selling an NMD system capable of dealing with an all out Russian launch, I believe we are better building the ground based systems first (and they are much closer technologically speaking than space based systems). Lets start with what we can get and build a full-fledged system later.
Um...could you explain how you manage to build high-tech pockets of excellence without any technology transfer to civilian roles, and without any sustaining base in the civilian sector...or, heck, without any MONEY (military bases routinely get their electrcity cut off because they can't pay their bills...units that are not deployed to Chechnya aren't getting paid...and the beats goes on).
You obviously haven't read "Single Point Safe," which asks a key question: WHEN Russia implodes, who gets the nukes? How do we know that some disaffected soul hasn't already done so?
I knew a gentleman who was doing counterproliferation studies at UCSD (I was working my way through college at the time as a security guard, and I got to meet all kinds of people at the condo complex I guarded near the UCSD campus). I asked him one night how many nukes the militia had. He said "Oh, probably 4 or 5, but they don't have the manuals translated from Russian yet."
I laughed.
He looked at me and said, "I wasn't joking."
THAT, more than some rumormonger running around saying that Ivan has this and Ivan has that and Ivan has "plasma stealth" (that little gem, as near as I can tell, got started on a UFO discussion group!), scares me. Russia has a surplus of nuclear weapons and a shortage of cash. Sooner or later (assuming it hasn't happened yet), someone will decide to use the former to relieve the latter.
As I have stated in my other posts on this and other threads, the THAAD missed its target because it doesn't have a warhead. Russian ABMs like the S-300 have enhanced fragmentation proximity warheads which increase their kill ratio. Can you tell me why the Clinton Administration which you apparently assume is serious about developing a working national missile defense system has insanely refused to include a warhead on THAAD? Its because they have tried to sabotage our missile defense tests at every opportunity to keep us defenseless from our enemies like Communist China.
During my coursework at Georgetown University where I am about to graduate with a MA in National Security Studies and before, I have written numerous reports on the issue of missile defenses. During my research I have come to realize that the United States government has made it illegal to defend the country from strategic missiles in implementing legislation for the ABM Treaty and a series of incredibly stupid and traitorous DoD Directives. These DoD Directives have caused the THAAD to be deployed without a warhead, they have resulted in the removal of potentially ABM-useful radars from our military satellites. They have resulted in the "dumbing down" of our ABM missiles most notably the Patriot family which was originally conceived as a dual-purpose ABM/SAM known as SAM-D. I could go on, but don't take my word for it. Research it out for yourself starting with an excellent article at the Marshall Institute website written by Dr. Angelo Codevilla. No one is qualified to speak on the issue of missile defenses that has failed to read or learn the material contained in this article.
It has never been an issue of technical feasibility at least since the early 1980's when the latest missile defense program was conceived known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. It is simply a matter of political willpower. We could have a very effective missile defense system deployed within 3-4 years of making a decision to deploy. Clinton of course, will find some excuse not to deploy when he makes his decision in July.
Unlike the United States, the Russians have not operated under any of our self-defeating unilateral restrictions on missile defenses and have consequently built some highly capable missile defense systems like the S-300 series and the S-400 Triumph SAM/ABM follow-on. So your asserations that the Russians are years away from this long-ago obtained technology are demonstrably mistaken.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
THAAD missed because of inadequacies in the systems that prevented the Kill vehicle from getting to the "end game". I do not know why the requirements do not specify a warhead except that it is said that "hit to kill" has greater effectiveness. (A nuclear warhead would polute the sky to a greater amount.) Anyone who has seen the devastation of a modern kinetic energy weapon does not doubt the effectiveness, the only question is the lack of effectivity when a near miss occurs.
As to Clinton and NMD, his administration would undoubtably prefer to not deploy the system for the benefit of his communist friends and financial supporters. I believe he may be forced to deploy for the sake of his party and Gore's campaign. It is becomming obvious that there is a growing threat.
Finally, do you have a link to the reference you cited? I have not read it and I would hate to not be up on this field.
Here's the link you requested:
http://www.marshall.org/codevilla.htm
Ditto your post.
This last decade has seen our military abused and degraded more by our treasonous president and his administration than any foreign foe could have ever imagined.
I am not convinced that it was not intended from the start.
If Gore is elected Preisdent, we might as well all start learing Chinese.
I am for a powerful defense and a rebuilt military. In fact I believe it is urgent so that no enemy calculation will ever yield anything but total destruction.
But I ask this:
How many cities, dams, rail centers etc. would it take to cripple a nation the size of the FSU? To make it so weak that it would be prey for its enemies?
Twenty, thirty, one-hundred? Five-hundred?
Worst case, how many warheads would hit their targets, if launched as ALCMs, SLBMs, and ICBMs?
You want a better defense against Russia that will not only save billions of dollars but counter balance the Chineese?
Start treating Russia with honor and respect instead of side lining her while the American/EU corps rape her. [...]You treat us with dignity and come peacefully to break bread, you will have a life long friend who will die for you.
Wow. Strong words. I agree with you, though. Russia and the West are natural allies; I can not for the life of me understand what this nonsense about a Sino-Russian alliance is all about! If there's gonna be any alliance anywhere, it ought to be between Russia, the West, the democracies of South Eastern and Southern Asia, and Australia. That would effectively sideline the real enemies - China and the proponents of a worldwide Ummah.
You threaten us, and it won't be us who do the dieing.
If we fight, neither side will escape the dying. And China inherits the wreckage.
Of course Russia needs better treatment. But we will have to change administrations first. And I am not certain that a new administration will behave differently.
I think the U.S. blew the chance of a lifetime in its dealings with the FSU and to top off the madness, we attacked the FRY.
Thanks rightwing2, an interesting paper.
Current cost and scheduling priotities on the THAAD program (stretch out) appear to support the concept that the Clinton administration is strangling the program. However, those same stretch out policies could provide a new adminiatration with the ability to make some of the changes mentioned in the article.
I hate seeing the Clinton's playing politics with our national defense. This is certainly an area where Gore is particularly vulnerable.
"thanks" to Churchill, Roosevelt and the commie-lovers in the Government, Academia, and the Media- 50+ years of selling the world out to Communism. Truman was right we should have let Russia and Germany kill each other off and this problem would have been avoided.
"thanks" to Churchill, Roosevelt and the commie-lovers in the Government, Academia, and the Media- 50+ years of selling the world out to Communism. Truman was right we should have let Russia and Germany kill each other off and this problem would have been avoided.
Nice plug for Pat Buchanan's excellent book, A Republic not an Empire with the Truman statement! FDR was wrong to ally America with the Devilish mass murderer Stalin. We could have won that war against Hitler fighting two seperate wars against Germany and saved Eastern Europe, North Korea and possibly China in the process. FDR was wrong to induce Japan to kill 2000 of our sailors and airmen at Pearl Harbor and sink most of the Pacific Fleet in the process with his full knowledge in order to get us into a war with Germany. 50 years of treasonous pro-Communist policies and seemingly endless betrayals of our allies which continue even today helped to make the world safe for Communism, but unsafe for freedom and constitutional republics.
Only today, nearly 50 years after the McCarthy hearings do the liberals grudingly accept that McCarty was right all along. Our government was penetrated to the core with Communists and Communist sympathizers. It remains penetrated by witting and unwitting Communist agents today. President Clinton may not be a witting ChiCom agent, but he may as well be in view of his treasonous policies which have helped to build Communist China into the best enemy money can buy with at least 24 ICBMs that can accurately destroy our cities, whereas before Clinton provided them assistance no more than 4 of their missiles could reliably hit us according to the Cox Report.
Well of course, there were about 1500 identified strategic targets in the USSR in the last US SIOP nuclear-warfighting plan. There are also 1500 identified underground bunkers for protection of the nomenklatura leadership of the Russian Federation. I have already mentioned the nuclear weapon proof underground city/command post at Yamantau Mountain which is the size of the area inside the Washington, DC beltway (huge). The Russians have stockpiled enough food, supplies, fuel, and industrial supplies (collectively known as their strategic reserves) to last for years all underground in underground cities and nuclear blast shelters. They have these 10,000 S-300 SAM/ABMs capable of shooting down ICBMs with an estimated 25% kill ratio per missile. They believe they could win a war against a United States that has already destroyed 66% of its nuclear weapons and 50% of its ICBMs and a large number of its nuclear missile submarines and nuclear bombers. We have a President of the United States which declared that the US will no longer launch on warning, but has instead made it US policy that we will absorb a first-strike before we retaliate against a hypothetical Russian attack.
The Russian Federation has yet to destroy even one single nuclear warhead, although it has partially dismantled as many as a few thousand. They continue to build as many as several thousand nuclear warheads a year according to sworn testimony before Congress of former Defense Secretary and Director of the CIA, James Schlesinger two years ago. They are believed to have a large number of uncounted (non-deployed) refire missiles which are not required to be reduced by the START Treaties.
The US is on the verge of reducing our deliverable strategic warheads to a mere 3500 by 2003 under START 2 limitations. The Russians on the other hand continue to flagrantly violate the START Treaties. They could destroy 90-95% of our ICBMs, 75% of our strategic bombers (long ago taken off alert status), and 50% or more of our nuclear missile submarines (which under a Clinton directive must stay in port at any given time) in a pre-emptive first strike by the Russians. They could do this using only a fraction of their strategic missiles and warheads, leaving most of their nuclear arsenal in reserve for successive nuclear strikes.
So you ask me, do the Russians view nuclear war as a realistic, even increasingly tempting alternative in order to displace the United States as the world's only "indispensible nation" in the space of half an hour. The answer to your question is yes, I believe that they do. Why else would they continue to spend tens of billions of dollars on building up their already massive nuclear warfighting capability after the end of the Cold War?
As to how many of our warheads would hit their targets in a retaliatory attack, this is pure speculation, but I would estimate no more than a few hundred. We would fare far better if we attempted a pre-emptive strike on them, although the US never obtained a first-strike capability vs the Soviets. We could probably depend on at least 3500 under such an improbable scenario.
Bumpppp! to your post #6
It ain't over 'til it's over. And with all this crap it won't be over until an infantry platoon raises the flag. and just what has that useless piece of monkey guano klinton done to our fighting infantry???
the lightweight elements used in phenolic resins also tend to scatter neutrons...perhaps an EMP round wouldn't be as effective as advertised under these circumstances.
I did not get it, - what neutrons have to do with an electromagnetic pulse? An EMP would not care much about dielectrics such as phenolic resins. Metal shield can help (Faraday cage), yet thin metal layers are not ideal conductors – therefore can not completely block high gradient electromagnetic fields generated by nuclear devices. On the other hand, the intensity of EM radiation will drop quickly (exponentially ) with distance – therefore, the effect of such an explosion may be very strong within some small radius ( say 1 km) and negligible near the ground ( 10 km).
allowed a young man to land his private plan right in Red SquareFirst of all, he was not that young, Second – it has nothing to do with air defense… Personally – I would shoot the bustard (that’s the best language for Westerners to understand) – but Russians just did not want to look bad before West at that time…
Bump!
Uh...on EMP radius--even the small peewees will fry anything in line of sight that's unshielded out to about 30-40 miles. Unshielded means the entire US civilian information infrastructure.
Second, maybe my point wasn't clear. Missile defense with nukes tends to involve a two-tier system: the exoatmospheric interceptor uses a big warhead designed to pump out hard X-rays (the Spartan warhead weighed in at 5 megatons and had to be tested in the Aleutians because it was too big for a safe underground test in Nevada and had a gold-plated secondary to pump up the X-Ray flux), and the endoatmospheric terminal defenders (like Sprint, Gazelle, and the never-built LoADS) use a smaller warhead designed to pump out neutrons.
Warhead construction is very interesting these days. A lot of warheads use U-238 as a structural material (which also bumps the yield up), making the X-Ray warhead a little problematic. However, there's not a lot that can be done--and the exoatmospheric warhead's EMP radius from surface zero is measured in hundreds of miles, not good at all for a limited attack scenario--the choice would be eat the strike or do more damage to the US economy by intercepting it. Ugly choice all around.
However, with the terminal defenders, things have changed. The small neutron warheads have a problem--the latest generation of RVs (including, thanks to the Clinton administration, the Chinese warheads) using boron composites as a structural material. Boron just eats neutrons, and the warhead casing's structure (between the boron components and the above-mentioned phenolics) would probably stop all the neutrons, leaving only the direct fireball to kill the incoming warhead.
I hope this clears up my previous miscommunication.
bump!
I was not aware that Bush and Gore were running on the same ticket.
Both Bush and Gore are consummate internationalists who favor permanent MFN Trade status and WTO membership for Communist China, GATT, NAFTA, WTO membership for the US and the eventual realization of a one-world government under the United Nations. Buchanan differs from Bush/Gore on all of these issues by taking the principled conservative America First stand. That is why I support him for President and refuse to vote for Clinton-clones Bush and Gore.
Well, to my thinking, absorbing several hundred nuclear explosions for some unforeseen advantage seems irrational.
I have no doubt that Mr. Clinton has put this nation in the most perilous position it has ever been in.
He has emasculated the U.S. military, while at the same time using it recklessly and cruelly. But I must insist that he has had the willing assistance of the Republican Congress which, after all, holds the purse.
I would like to see the situation remedied and would be willing to pay more taxes to see it accomplished.
However, I think our military will never recover, and will continue to decay, as does our nation with its leaders in front.
There have been several studies about fighting and wining a nuclear war. Of course, the unanswered question is what does one have after you have won a nuclear war? Society as we know it (but not the Rusians or the ChiComs) would be changed for at least 1,000 years.
That would explain why Clinton and Bush, Gore and McCain have to get China approved for Most Favored Nation status. As huge as our current Billion$ in Trade Deficit is with China, they need more $$$ to finalize the New World Order subjugation of what once was America... the last monkey-wrench in their Globalist gears. Sad stuff. Go ahead and vote for the Dem-Rep Duopoly. America has outlived her usefulness anyway... right? Exactly, ChiCom appeasers Clinton clones Bush and Gore are inexplicably trying to increase Communist China's trade surplus with the United States to provide additional tens of billions of dollars for the ChiCom strategic military build-up and decrease the time the Butchers of Beijing need to transform their country into a world-class military and nuclear superpower. That is why I agree with you that we must reject the internationalist ticket of Bush-Gore and vote Buchanan Reform 2000!
Not too sure about your thinking here?? Mr. Bush is not associated with the owlgore!!! Dosen't want the chicoms in the NWO??? Votes for Buchanan will be votes for the owlgore???????? I hope that is not what you want?? Because, that is what you will get!!! 4 more years of klintoon/owlgore!!!!!!!! Wake up!! Votes for Mr. Buchanan=Votes for owlgore!!!!!! Vote for a winner.....Mr. G. W. Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or send our country into the sh*thole. Your choice?
Wake up pal. The Russians have been engaged in one of the slickest disinformation campaigns in history. When your getting ready to destroy an enemy you don't warn or alarm them. Read Sun Tzu Art of War. It is even easier when the leader of the country you want to wack has sold out his country. A dumb population makes it even more fun. The most ironic part is that with our trade imbalance we are paying for our own destruction. I would rather be too cautious than a little dead.
Just remember that Bill Clinton lived for a year with the founder of the Czech Communist party and also visited Moscow. This was at a time when you just did not drop in and visit those countries. Something smells but since the stupid American Sheeple don't care I guess we will deserve what we get. I doubt if the average dip shit has a clue.
You give the Russians to much credit..
Well, to my thinking, absorbing several hundred nuclear explosions for some unforeseen advantage seems irrational.
The unforseen advantage you speak of is called global control, which is a longtime goal of both Russia and Communist China. They will wait until we have disarmed to START 2 levels or below, launch a first-strike, and shoot down most of our retaliatory response. With the massive active and passive strategic defenses in place, Russia will be comparatively untouched in such a war while America is devastated. The Russians are correct. A nuclear war can be won by the side that best prepares for it. America must learn that lesson now and prepare to survive a nuclear war in order to ensure that it is never fought. Today, our nuclear deterrence capabilities v. the Russians are withering on the vine to dangerously low levels. We can't afford to implement another START Treaty or we will be inviting nuclear attack. Nuclear disarmament treaties with the Russians increase the risk of nuclear war with them rather than decrease the chances. Americans must be educated on this important fact so that they will support efforts to rebuild our nuclear deterrence and strategic defense capabilities.
I agree that our military cuts which have emasculated our military are the fault of both Republicans and Democrats, but I think that everyone would agree that Clinton is primarily to blame. The disarmament process is indeed likely to continue under the Bush-Gore internationalist ticket which is why I am supporting the Buchanan Reform ticket.
Of course, the unanswered question is what does one have after you have won a nuclear war? Society as we know it (but not the Rusians or the ChiComs) would be changed for at least 1,000 years.
The idea that a nuclear war would destroy the world with nuclear winter or whatever is a farce propagated by the Soviet Communists to deceive the West into believing that resistance is futile. Today, those myths continue to be believed by the vast majority of Americans. I recommend one of JR Nyquist's articles from WorldNetDaily.com on the true effects of nuclear war. If you like I will provide a link to it. It would not take 1,000 years to recover from a nuclear war. More like 50 for us and a lot less for them. Nevertheless, nuclear war is survivable. After, a Sino-Russian nuclear first-strike which wiped out our nuclear retaliatory capability and some military bases while leaving our population centers intact, the Sino-Russian forces could waltz across the ocean and occupy our country along with tactical nukes to ensure that we did not resist them too much. Have you ever seen the TV mini-series Amerika? The interesting thing about that movie is that it was not nearly as far-fetched as was popularly believed at the time.
Contrary to your difficult to understand response, Bush actually does support the New World Order and WTO membership for Communist China. He also supports increasing the flow of US supercomputers to Communist China and increasing the trade surplus which both have the effect of building up their military into a nuclear superpower. Therefore, a vote for Bush is a vote for building up Communist China into a military superpower, a vote for future war with China, and a vote for further US unilateral disarmament measures in order to implement the New World Order. Bush's policies on this and virtually all other foreign policy, trade policy, and immigration issues are identical to Clinton-Gore's. Therefore, a vote for Bush is a vote for the continuing decline, demise, and eventual fall of our constitutional republic. Contrarily, a vote for Buchanan is a vote to reverse this decline and strengthen and build-up this great country to a more formidable power second to none and ensure we survive as a free, independent and sovereign republic far into the future.
I don't buy that crap propaganda line that a vote for principle is a vote wasted. That's what the liberal internationalists have trained their lap dogs to believe to ensure their continued subservience to internationalist domination.
Buchanan for President 2000!!!
I knew a gentleman who was doing counterproliferation studies at UCSD (I was working my way through college at the time as a security guard, and I got to meet all kinds of people at the condo complex I guarded near the UCSD campus). I asked him one night how many nukes the militia had. He said "Oh, probably 4 or 5, but they don't have the manuals translated from Russian yet."
I laughed.
He looked at me and said, "I wasn't joking."
Unfortunately for the militia, nukes are perishable. You cannot store a warhead indefinately and expect it to detonate. Our warheads periodically go through 'reconditioning' to remain viable.
True...but a "fizzle" yield with a nuke is still something like hundreds of tons of TNT, AND you scatter fissionable materials all over the damn place. Yeef.
And if it's one of the gun-type bombs, about the only thing you need to worry about is the initiator (neutron source) conking out...
The unforseen advantage you speak of is called global control, which is a longtime goal of both Russia and Communist China.
I do not doubt for a minute that this has been a goal of world communism. And do not think I dimish communism's long term military threat to liberty.
But when I look at the communist systems, I see a social organization so perverse, so backward, so inwardly corrupt in its fundamental tenets as to be unable to feed its own people without help from the West.
I cannot believe the communists are unaware of the fact, but for their feeding at the periphery of the capitalist societies, whom they despise, they would have long since perished. It is the West that props them up, and I believe they know it.
If it is the communist design to "lessen" the competition so that their failing societies can be said by them to succeed because the capitalist benchmarks no longer exist - well - I call that self-delusion and irrationality. Their societies will still fail, now that they have no external source of "nourishment."
I believe that we should prepare, and to be so strong as to never allow for doubt or miscalculation. With that I agree with you rw2.
Where I disagree, is with an assumption that the FSU can absorb several hundred weapons, at minimum, and proceed on the road to the New Soviet Man with little interruption. That, by my lights, is a miscalculation indeed.
So maybe the point is moot - miscalculation, or actuality - if the FSU acts on that belief - then I agree, our nation dies.
Let me reiterate. When a foe contemplates a nuclear strike on our homeland, they should in the same thought be compelled to contemplate their own inescapable and utter ruin.
One minor point. We all knew Mr. Clinton for what he was when we (not you and me) so unwisely elected him. The Republicans have no excuse - and I will not let them off lightly - rather I will lay the major portion of blame at their feet. You see rw2 - they know better, and must be held to a standard.
Mr. Clinton's only standard is "self."
Anyway, I enjoy our discussion. We agree on the need for overwhelming strength, that there is danger, but disagree on the consequences to our attackers.
regards
Unfortunately for the militia, nukes are perishable.
Not only because of the initiator, but the tritium (if so used) has a half-life of twelve years.
On modern weapons, the fission initiation is very low yield to save on fissile material. So if your secondary fusion reaction is not correct, you won't get the "boost" from the tertiary fission.
Of course there are many, many designs - but the militia has to figure them out. Still, I want to be a county away if they do.
I have a Nuclear Weapons Databook, DOD, and I believe I read in there that there have been nuclear tests, in Nevada, with yields in the kilograms!
Fascinating stuff, science-wise.
Bush actually does support the New World Order and WTO membership for Communist China. He also supports increasing the flow of US supercomputers to Communist China and increasing the trade surplus which both have the effect of building up their military into a nuclear superpower. Therefore, a vote for Bush is a vote for building up Communist China into a military superpower, a vote for future war with China, and a vote for further US unilateral disarmament measures in order to implement the New World Order. Bush's policies on this and virtually all other foreign policy, trade policy, and immigration issues are identical to Clinton-Gore's. Therefore, a vote for Bush is a vote for the continuing decline, demise, and eventual fall of our constitutional republic. Contrarily, a vote for Buchanan is a vote to reverse this decline and strengthen and build-up this great country to a more formidable power second to none and ensure we survive as a free, independent and sovereign republic far into the future.
I haven't heard these things from Mr. Bush, please give me references to check out.
...I'm new to the group, and would appreciate some information relative to the author of the article - Mr. David Pyne. Any URLs that would direct me to his credentials / resume or other information would be appreciated. - J.Wayne -
Here's one of my reports on Army Transformation. I've already sent you my qualifications as per your request.
General Shinseki's Plan to Abolish the Tank and Replace it with Armored Cars by 2012
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |