Is it plausible that the US would be attacked by intercontinental ballistic missiles

WriterDom

Good to the last drop
Joined
Jun 25, 2000
Posts
20,077
launched by terrorists or a rogue state, or by accident?

Yes, and we're going ahead with missile defense. The shipboard test was successful.


And if the EU doesn't like it, they can kiss our Arse. :kiss:
 
Everything and Anything is plausible after September 11th ... who would have ever believed that could happen!

I'm sure there is good reason/caution behind the expansion of missile defense time lines. Our critics aren't privy to our intelligence.

Our defense is NOBODY's business but our own.

Better safe than sorry.
 
Plausible,perhaps.Feasible,certainly.

Here's one part of the EU that says 'more power to your elbow.
 
Plausible and possible. One of our enemies, a rouge state we've been making talk with, has a two stage ICBM now that works rather well with stockpiles of chemical and biological, and theortically nuclear, payloads. They've got the third stage, possibly working now, in development. They shot on off over the coast of Japan not so long ago and called it an "airplane" accident.

They're the world's biggest exporters of weapons.

Right now they can hit the west coast. Possibly even the East if the third stage ICBM is viable.

I think I'll trot my happy lil' tuckus off and check. :)
 
Cherry There is no planet America

you share it with the rest of us.

if your intelligence agencies knew anything about something of that magnitude they would have to share it with other countries and it would be nipped in the bud. Anything else is just irresponsible.

For all that I care you can build a defense system. It is just a huge waste of tax dollars since prevention is better than cure and the idea of missile attack is just incredibly unlikely. Aeroplanes are relatively commonplace but who would not notice a missing ICBM?

Apart from that the political ramifications are significant. This looks like America turning its back on the rest of the world. What exactly has to happen before you realise that what appears to be is as important as what is?
 
KillerMuffin said:
Plausible and possible. One of our enemies, a rouge state we've been making talk with, has a two stage ICBM now that works rather well with stockpiles of chemical and biological, and theortically nuclear, payloads. They've got the third stage, possibly working now, in development. They shot on off over the coast of Japan not so long ago and called it an "airplane" accident.

They're the world's biggest exporters of weapons.

Right now they can hit the west coast. Possibly even the East if the third stage ICBM is viable.

I think I'll trot my happy lil' tuckus off and check. :)

Which rogue state is that then?

:cool:
 
I'm sorry, MM, but the physical ramifications of a nuclear power with the capabilities of blowing Alaska and Hawaii out of the water right now and the probability of not just one, but two nuclear powers having the capability of blowing the western seaboard off the face of the earth kind of outweigh political ramifications and European senstivities. Estimates indicate that China will also have ICBMs pointed our way by 2010.

I did check, I was wrong about reaching the continental US, but they can hit Alaska and Hawaii. They have nuclear, biological, and chemical payloads. They have declared war on the US already. They are not only our enemies but the world's largest exporter of nuclear arms.

You may want to consider that since they have no qualms about exporting armament anywhere. It's their only product beyond human misery.

But, it's a dinky, backwards country with a psychotically mad dictator sharing the helm with his dead father. Why should you care?

Yes, the USSR is gone, but the threat of worldwide nuclear warfare is not, not by any means. It's far worse now.
 
You're America's number 1 fan, pp, can't you name our enemies that have nuclear capabilities? There aren't all that many. Really. They're your enemies, too, you know.
 
You have not specified a warhead but I am assuming you mean nuclear.

Yes.
 
KillerMuffin said:
You're America's number 1 fan, pp, can't you name our enemies that have nuclear capabilities? There aren't all that many. Really. They're your enemies, too, you know.


You don't know do you?

You made it up!

Naughty, naughty...

:D :D
 
All right, fire up the shit guns!

WWII, Pearl Habor, December 7,1941 Who knew about the sneak attack? I mean besides england, and some of the top US navy brass. Who the hell knows why they didn't mention it to the president. One would think a letter, phone call or something would have been in order.

I say fix the whole damn world with a missile defense system.

If it's your country you take care of manning your part of it.
 
Re: All right, fire up the shit guns!

fgarvb1 said:
WWII, Pearl Habor, December 7,1941 Who knew about the sneak attack? I mean besides england, and some of the top US navy brass. Who the hell knows why they didn't mention it to the president. One would think a letter, phone call or something would have been in order.

Didn't the President know but didn't completely believe it?

That's why the carrier fleet was sent to sea before the attack?

:)
 
Well IMHO, it is a definite possibility and quite probable that it could happen. I, for one, would not be surprised that it was an actuality or real life fact, rather than some silly notion.

We must defend against it, both politically and militarily. Prior to the events of Sept. 11th the American people in general would have thought this a silly notion, but as of today I would guarantee that the American people know it is a distinct possibility and might even become reality.

Rogue states, nations with utter hatred of the US of A, nations we thought were our friends.........all might be the bearer of said ICBM's that could reach points well within the continental US of A.
 
It won't work anyway.

The tests didn't before and there's no reason to believe they will now.

This is the type of warfare America understands. A visible enemy. A beginning, a middle and a definite end with the ultimate surrender of the enemy.

If September 11 taught you anything, it should have taught you that it ain't like that no more.

As a country, America is probably the most hated in the world.

It was alright when Britain had that role because warfare in those days was fought over huge distances with limited recources and communications. The opportunity for mass destruction was just not there.

Not so today.

Forget fantasies about Missile Defence and begin building bridges, starting with the Middle East and the world of Islam.

At least you'll be making pals with the people who really count.


:)
 
Has KM just suggested that China is a rogue state that has already declared war on the USA?

Large countries do not readily throw nuclear missiles around. There would be plenty of time to sort things out before hand in a peceful and non-radioactive manner.

Why the hell would China want to launch nuclear weapons on the USA? They are really opening up to the west now, commercially and ideologically. Oh sure, the Chinese Government distrusts the US military. But so do I. You're still sending spyplanes up near Chinese airspace for heaven's sake.

The only threat which is unlikely to be anticipated by security agencies is not even a small rogue state (incidentaly, who do you have in mind?) but terrorist networks a la Al Qaida. As far as I know, no terrorist agency has a missile based capability. And I would not expect them to do so, as it is cheaper and more effective to use more conventional delivery systems (nutcase with suitcase/suspect package etc) as was shown by anthrax attacks, through the US post and, more ominously by dispersal from a rooftop in Japan. If that particular attack had used a virulent strain of the bacterium then hundreds or even thousands may have died.

What I am saying is that in a missile defense system you are looking in the wrong direction. And you are likely to piss people off whilst you do it.
 
Re: All right, fire up the shit guns!

fgarvb1 said:
I say fix the whole damn world with a missile defense system.

If it's your country you take care of manning your part of it.

I can picture it now...

"Incoming missile, Scud type, main heading, uh, uh, hang on sir I'm trying to trace it's trajectory...I think Washington. No! New York! No, no! Wait! Walmart on 5th and Maine in um...um...Two Rivers, Arkansas. I thi......"

KER-BOOM!

Radio report: Breaking news. We are receiving reports of a massive 100 megaton nuclear explosion in the vicinity of the Appalacia Mountains. This an area where one of the key links in the missile defence system is located. As I said this is breaking news but early indications are that an unknown, unchallenged laundry truck was allowed into the compound shortly before the explosion...

This is p_p_man reporting.

God Bless and God Help America


Special Report to the President It was discovered later Mr President that the inbound missile was, in fact a flock of Canadian Geese flying south for the winter...

If it wasn't so serious I would laugh.

pp
 
Last edited:
The attack, is possible, we're stepping on Iraqi toes...

However, the missle defense plan, is bassicaly a pipe dream. Even those who stand to benefit from finacially from building it say that the odds are that it probably won't work, but they'll try their damndest.

Bush decided this had to work because God is always on our side and things always end up alright for the good ol' US of A. So he said "Let's build a defense system of technology that doesn't exist yet and call ourselves safe." so that's what we're doing. Sure we can do "tests" of the preliminary technology. But when we fire off the missle that's going to be hit, we know where it's going to go. Sure, most of the time we're missed by distances of over 100 miles, but, eh, if it really happens, we'll do better.

Yes, and we've decided that if a missle should come down after us, we can simply blow it up over canada, raining debris over the cannucks and killing some of them, but, hey, they're not the United States, so they don't really matter. One senator said "Oh, they'll just wear hard hats, and that should be fine." Granted, a hard hat would be like using a sheet of paper to protect yourself from mortar fire.

Thank you, W. You undid the only good thing Nixon ever did, so that you can pretend like we're safe, even tho' our own Department of Defense disagrees with you.
 
it seems to me that the brits would be a little more interested in missile defense after their experience over 55 years ago.

We got your backside. Again. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Cherry There is no planet America

MunchinMark said:


Apart from that the political ramifications are significant. This looks like America turning its back on the rest of the world. What exactly has to happen before you realise that what appears to be is as important as what is?



One of the benefits of wartime is it unmasks certain illusions tolerated in peacetime because they seem harmless. Take, for example, the idea that the primary task of the USA -- that is, defense of its citizens -- can be abdicated to international organizations or treaties.
 
Re: It won't work anyway.

p_p_man said:
The tests didn't before and there's no reason to believe they will now.


Ahem...

HONOLULU, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- A test of the guidance system of a developmental ship-launched anti-missile system was successful Friday night as a rocket fired from a Navy cruiser off Hawaii destroyed an incoming target missile.
 
Re: Re: It won't work anyway.

Cherry said:



Ahem...

HONOLULU, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- A test of the guidance system of a developmental ship-launched anti-missile system was successful Friday night as a rocket fired from a Navy cruiser off Hawaii destroyed an incoming target missile.

Wow. Very little info. The "incoming missle" was probably a Stinger- a personal heat-seeking shoulder mounted launcer, we then probably shot a hot rocket up and the stinger seeked it out and the two collided and we called it a victory. So now the USA can become blind to security holes. hooray.
 
Re: Re: It won't work anyway.

Cherry said:



Ahem...

HONOLULU, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- A test of the guidance system of a developmental ship-launched anti-missile system was successful Friday night as a rocket fired from a Navy cruiser off Hawaii destroyed an incoming target missile.

ahem...

I'm talking about proper tests. Not stage managed ones where you know precisely where the missile is. That's more like target practice than a test.

I'll start believing in this system when defensive weapons can automatically launch against 5 maybe 10 incoming missiles from unknown sources and directions. And destroy them all.

If one gets through that's a few 100,000 dead.

ppman
 
Last edited:
WriterDom said:
it seems to me that the brits would be a little more interested in missile defense after their experience over 55 years ago.

We got your backside. Again. :rolleyes:

What I'm thinking of are those targets (sorry I mean military bases with nuclear facilities) that the US has in the UK. They'll hit us to get you. And secondly, the attitude illustrated brilliantly by Cherry reminds me of a quote by a certain President Kennedy. I'll have to paraphrase it becaus eI don't have it written down anywhere.

"I'm sure that Mr. Khrushchev will agree that it is better to destroy Europe in a limited war than to allow nuclear strikes on either Washington or Moscow."

I beg to differ, it is better to sort it out with words before someone even thinks of using bombs.
 
Let's list the large-ish countries that are nuclear powers right now:

The United States, Russia, England, Germany, France, China, North Korea, India, Israel, and Iraq.

That's the list I can think of right off the top of my head, and there are plenty of smaller countries that, though not nuclear in their own right, have nuclear weapons of other countries in their territory, putting them at rish (either of having a nuke dropped on them, or of terrorists taking control of them). That list is far, far larger.

Of those countries, their nuclear capability stretches from intercontinental to at least two countries away. At least four of the above mentioned First Order nuclear powers are actively working on developing a greater reach for their weapons.

Does that worry me. Yeah, it does. The biggest reason that it does is because we have no reliable defense whatsoever against any of them. We don't even have an unreliable defense.

I'm completely in favor of an ABM system. There is no doubt to sane minds that having such a system in place could save lives, even if it works to a tenth of its capability. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

Some would say that the most effective defense is diplomacy. I can't readily disagree. However, it has become readily apparent to any who has done any studying at all of world history, or even who has just read the newspaper in the last year, that there are now, and will always be, people for whom diplomacy will not work. Diplomacy will never work for those people, for any one of a variety of reasons. That also, is obvious, and would be disputed only by someone who wants to remain blind to reality.

Given that there are those for whom the most effective defense will not work, doesn't it just make good sense to develop a defense that will, even in part? Of course it does.

In other words, talk is fine. Sometimes you can negotiate and sometimes you can't. When you can't, be damned sure, for the sakes of the millions of your citizens, that you have some other way of protecting them.

That just seems painfully obvious to me.
 
Back
Top