Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Broken
The easiest methods are the most likely. Why spend billions developing an ICBM when you can simply sneak your nuke into some US port? Such an attack has the added benefit of being difficult to trace back to the culprit.
|
There you go again. Tell that to Kim. Or the "Moo-lahs" in Iran. They are pursuing these weapons systems whether you approve of their economic viability or not.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately we cannot keep track of what is on all the thousands of commercial ships moving in and out of US waters. The Navy knows this is a problem, it just hasn't come up with a good answer.
|
Irrelevant to my point.
Quote:
|
ICBMs are just one means of attacking with nuclear weapons. None of the other WMDs even remotely compare with the destructive power of a nice little one megaton bomb. It stands to reason we should implement the most practical countermeasures first. It also stands to reason we should deploy working ABM technology. The HTK interceptors are not working ABM technology. It is wasted money that could have been spent on port defence or more viable ABM technology such as boost phase. The HTK interceptors simply provoke countries like China into upgrading their small force of ICBMs into a larger, more survivable one. Does that really make you feel safer?
|
Sure it does. I'd rather have us working on something that turns out to be a dead end than nothing at all.
Quote:
|
I won't get into a debate with you over Kim's mental stability or the lack there of. However, a desperate nut-job is usually the most dangerous variety.
|
I disagree. Nutjobs - assuming he really is as nutty as he acts - are already inherently dangerous.
Quote:
Do I have to stop at three?
1) Nuclear powered bomber - Pluto project. If this plane ever flew, the radiation from it's exhaust would have killed more than its payload.
2) Dyna-soar. Aptly named, this was intended as a sub-orbital nuclear bomber.
3) B70 Mach 5 nuclear bomber (cancelled after USSR deployed high altitude SAM).
|
All refinements of the high-altitude bomber concept which is a proven concept. I don't class the concept as a failure.
Quote:
|
4) Spartan-Sprint ABM (one base deployed, shut down 24 hours later).
|
I do not know enough about historical U.S. ABM programs to argue one way or another. So I'll grant you this one.
Quote:
|
5) B-1 Bomber (deployed even though it's electronic counter-measures suite proved to be totally inadequate in meeting performance goals).
|
Another bomber. It even flies and drops bombs. Bombers work.
Quote:
|
6) Star Wars ABM. Tens of billions, no deployment.
|
A good test-bed though, and the concept of space-based ABM is not in itself a stupid one.
Quote:
|
These are just some of the hilights in the strategic systems. We all know of failed conventional systems (Osprey, DIVAD, etc, etc, etc, etc).
|
Right, more refinements of basic concepts of AA and AAA. I was thinking much more broadly. But then again I already implied I am more of a "glass half-full" kind of guy. I would consider the early efforts at air-based air power, i.e. the dirgible-based fighters to be a worthwhile endeavor, even though the concept itself of air-based air power was proven unsound.
But if we had those big Brit prop bases like in Sky Captain I'd wet myself.
-dale