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

To: Tallguy
Bottom line: an all-out strike is usually a final (retaliatory) action. Usually??? We are talking about something that has never happened yet. So,, we really have no idea what an all out nuclear war would become. Only that it would be very , very bad. We need a defense that will allow us plenty of time to retaliate. With margins of error in minutes,, we should have as much defense as possible.
38 posted on 04/06/2007 1:18:24 PM PDT by freemike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: freemike

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.


41 posted on 04/06/2007 3:18:47 PM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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