Posted on 12/03/2017 5:37:46 PM PST by blam
That would be too shameful to tolerate.
It’s bad enough that Bush surrendered to the 9/11 attackers by mumbling “Islam means peace.”
You would think that they would have been in place years ago, or at least in concert with the development of the anti-missile technology.
I’m confident that the National Resources Defense Council and all radical environmentalists and the Sierra Club will file law suits against any and all locations proposed by the military for the establishing of anti-missile defense sites.
We already do, but Japan is ready to work closely with the US.
The Cold War defenses of the continental US were 75-80% eliminated beginning in 1991 and sped up by Clintoon after he was elected. That is why there was no standby aircraft on strip alert on 911 to chase and possibly shoot down the hijacked airliners. The two DCANG F-16s at Andrews AFB were ready only because they had a pre-planned training flight...and they were unarmed.
Don’t know the range of these systems but it seems to me that places like Vandenberg, Camp Pendleton, Bremerton, and Moffett Field are places to start.
Too bad the Presidio of Monterey was turned into a national park. But the elimination of San Francisco might be beneficial (semi-sarc.)
Are they going to place them in Commiefornia?
Use the whineries of Pelousy, Boxer and Quality Beer Mug.
Why would they put defensive missiles in California. They are supposed to defend America. California doesn’t want to be part of America.
Expect to see certain buildings designated as Fallout Shelters again? Most of those placards have been removed after the Berlin Wall fell.
I hear Norman Lear’s place in Beverly Hills has a YUGE yard.
I just looked up the range of the THAAD system and found this:
“However, it is important to understand that THAAD is an anti-theater ballistic missile system not designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is aimed at missiles under a range of 5,500 km and beyond 150 km. It boasts an area protection of 200 km and is capable of multiple launches.”
Thus we are looking at a range arc of 200 kilometers or 120 miles. Thus would need a string of them from southern Alaska down to San Diego. Or around the major cities as was done with the old Nike system. And also for inland cities as well. I remember seeing the Nike site along Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive in the late 50’s early 60s when we took a grade school trip to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
I don’t think the old Safeguard site in either Montana or North Dakota any more.
So if that’s true how are these systems any good against missiles that can hit Washington DC?
How about putting one in the Castro district?
The Sprint missile was one badass rocket.
Don’t know. At least they could be placed at Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Meade, and Andrews AFB which surround DC. There are no ground to air defenses currently on any of those posts/bases that I’ve seen/know of.
What j meant was this new Nork missile described as an intercontinental ballistic missile. It doesn’t sound like this system has the capability of hitting one of those.
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.