Posted on 04/06/2007 8:55:11 AM PDT by RDTF
What I’m suggesting is that a massive first-strike might be a waste of warshots (due to the aforementioned ‘fratricide’ problem). Nobody really knows, but that is considered a strong possibility, if not a likelihood.
If it works that way then the defender’s (second shooter) strike could actually have more weight.
Then you have to consider that Russia & China are far too remote for boost-phase intercept (unless a space-based system is developed). That means that you need enough mid-course & terminal missiles to handle the MIRV bus & individual warheads (& decoys) respectively. Given the probabilities of intercept, that’s a massive number of interceptors.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m entirely in favor of ABM Systems. I’m just suggesting that we need a space-based system if we’re going to have any chance at stopping even a mid-size attack from a 1st or 2nd rate nuclear nation.
IOW’s we see the same threats, it’s just that I think earth-based hit-to-kill systems are not the answer for a full-up missile defense.
Well, I basically agree with everything you are saying. It is also too bad that we have not further explored a moon base. President Bush had talked about this,, I have wondered if much has happened. This has been a great missed opportunity.
LeMay: (silence)
ROTFLMBO!!!
Don’t think missiles, think warheads. This was a good test against an attack from the likes of North Korea, but China has MIRVs.
Let’s pray we never have to see one of these things used in anything other than a test.
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.