So how many can you take out.

Roar87 said:
It's not really possible to have an effective shield that would have a perfect success rate against a strategic strike from the likes of Russia, America, China, Britain or France. You could potentially intercept missiles fired by the likes of Iran and North Korea, but they'd very quickly be satured by MIRVs equipped with counter measures. These missiles don't go in a straight trajectory for instance, they do circles and spirals and are going at many times the speed of sound, plus they have active counter measures, and there would be dozens or hundreds of them. I mean a submarine could fire them a couple of dozen miles off the coast or something, good luck defending your entire air space and coast line.
Click to expand...
why not?

you realize that we built all those every expensive and rare material filled MRIVS, we could build a hundred or even a thousand times as many interceptors.


and that's assuming we dont develop say a rail gun, or energy based interceptor at allows rapid fire from ground, mobile and air based platforms.
or hyper sonic missiles capable of intercepting launch vehicles etc

to say we wont ever advance past cold war technology is very silly indeed.
 
I dropped the Tsar Bomba on Boston, USA and luckly im far enough away to be ok, probably see the cloud and hear the bang through.
 
Tefal said:
why not?

you realize that we built all those every expensive and rare material filled MRIVS, we could build a hundred or even a thousand times as many interceptors.


and that's assuming we dont develop say a rail gun, or energy based interceptor at allows rapid fire from ground, mobile and air based platforms.
or hyper sonic missiles capable of intercepting launch vehicles etc

to say we wont ever advance past cold war technology is very silly indeed.
Click to expand...

Well it's not impossible if you look that far ahead, but at that stage you'd have to assume the enemy will also have equally advanced offensive technology. The core issue is that it's always going to be easier to shoot something at someone than it is for them to defend against that something. It's just cheaper and easier. In this example I could use a sea skimming nuclear weapon, you can't realistically put CIWS along the entire coastline of the continental United States or the United Kingdom. Or I could fire a nuclear tipped Torpedo from a minisub in the River Thames, there's a myriad of weird and wonderful ways that you can defeat a missile defence system given enough funding and imagination.
 
Roar87 said:
Well it's not impossible if you look that far ahead, but at that stage you'd have to assume the enemy will also have equally advanced offensive technology. The core issue is that it's always going to be easier to shoot something at someone than it is for them to defend against that something. It's just cheaper and easier. In this example I could use a sea skimming nuclear weapon, you can't realistically put CIWS along the entire coastline of the continental United States or the United Kingdom. Or I could fire a nuclear tipped Torpedo from a minisub in the River Thames, there's a myriad of weird and wonderful ways that you can defeat a missile defence system given enough funding and imagination.
Click to expand...

However nuclear weapons are vastly expensive and have huge security requirements.



Interceptors have no such limitations.


The major issue is if somone starts constructing a reasonable sheild the otherside has to act pre-emptively which raises tebsions.


We saw this with Russia moving mobile launchers to the borders of the EU in response to America placing sheild components here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom