Article

2009-09-03 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Untried... Unreliable... Looks like trouble for the donks...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2009-09-03 01:56|| 2009-09-03 01:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Also, prolly better be someone looking at putting SM-2 / SM-3 launch capabilities on the next classes of US nuke subs...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2009-09-03 01:59|| 2009-09-03 01:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Unfortunately, Eastern Europe will not see the benefits.

Missile Defense: The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us.

Posted by Beavis 2009-09-03 08:14|| 2009-09-03 08:14|| Front Page Top

#4 As a responsible president, I cannot accept anything les than 115% reliability. 110% is still not enough - Barry Saetoro

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-09-03 09:17|| 2009-09-03 09:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Unfortunately, Eastern Europe will not see the benefits.

They took too long bargaining with President Bush over a payoff for taking the things, and lost their chance. They'll be smarter next time, one hopes.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-09-03 09:32|| 2009-09-03 09:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Also, prolly better be someone looking at putting SM-2 / SM-3 launch capabilities on the next classes of US nuke subs...

Not unless passive sonar has come a long ways. I don't see a Triton redeux anytime soon.

Posted by .5MT 2009-09-03 17:45|| 2009-09-03 17:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Ummm 86$ successful is FAIL
If not 100$ effective missiles can get through

You think they'll only launch one

Hell no. you launch thousands at a time to saturate the system

then 14$ get through.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-03 20:02|| 2009-09-03 20:02|| Front Page Top

#8 sorry my eyes are going thought that was the percent sign.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-03 20:03|| 2009-09-03 20:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Um, no. 86% is not fail. It is resounding success. First, no rogue nation has 1000 ICBMs and will not for decades, if ever. If someone did launch hundreds or 1000 ICBMs at us--let's ignore MIRVs, the logic is identical with them--I imagine that we would ordinarily target at least 2 missiles on each incoming. That means that fewer 2 percent would get through. (1-0.86)^2 = 0.019.

Suppose that an enemy launches 1000 ICBMs, which case do you prefer?

case 1) No BMD. 950 warheads land. They take out 600 large population centers, using multiple warheads for the 100 or 200 largest cities. 150 million Americans die immediately, most or all of the rest starve over a period of 5 or 10 years. We retaliate and kill some similar number of the enemy. The rest of the world's population starves because of nuclear winter. Essentially, the world ends with a very loud bang and a prolonged wimper.

Case 2) We have BMD and 19 of the 1000 ICBMs get through. They destroy all or part of 15-17 large population centers. 5 or 10 million Americans die immediately. There is no nuclear winter though and almost all the rest live. We retaliate against enemy military and political targets, killing millions but leaving most of the enemy civilians alive. It is the worst event in world history but life goes one.

Which do you prefer?

86% is excellent.

Posted by Some guy">Some guy 2009-09-03 21:37|| 2009-09-03 21:37|| Front Page Top

23:59 3dc
23:47 USN, Ret.
23:45 Black Charlie Spick8465
23:01 Frank G
22:58 Frank G
22:30 49 Pan
22:25 Charles
22:23 Besoeker
22:23 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:22 Eric Jablow
22:22 Frank G
22:18 Besoeker
22:02 Charles
21:59 49 Pan
21:58 49 Pan
21:57 Frank G
21:56 Frank G
21:49 Mike N.
21:49 Pappy
21:49 Angie Schultz
21:46 Frank G
21:44 Pappy
21:40 Glenmore
21:37 Some guy