Donald Trump ditches Obama-era restrictions on use of landmines, citing 'great power competition'

No they haven't. There was one test a couple of years ago using one ICBM when the ideal conditions were set up such as knowing exactly where the launch was, knowing exactly what time of launch, knowing exactly the target, knowing exactly the ICBM trajectory. It had one success out of many attempts. Note that this was just against one ICBM

 

Your talking gibberish - We have managed to conduct successful tests - under idealized conditions - and even under these conditions the tests often fail. The missile trajectory is known - that the missile will not deviate from this trajectory is known - there are no decoys .. and so on.

Regardless - the majority of my discussion was about technology other than Ballistic Missiles.

You do not know that Russia/China/India have not built nuclear drones - they could easily do so. What we do know is that nuclear cruise missiles have been built - and ABM's don't work against those.

You do not know that some crazy terrorist will not use biological weapons - nor do you know - given the right circumstances - that a Nation State like Russia would not use them.

 

Most ABMs (and SAMs) don't actually intercept their targets. It usually takes at least three or four to stop an incoming missile. That will always be true.

Which is why we need thousands of ABMs to take out the hundreds of Russian ICBMs they have available.

 

To stop an ICBM you will need to "see" the launch. There are not enough satellites to see these hundreds of Russian ICBMs being lauched

 

Once again, intercepting cruise missiles has been doable for nearly a century. That's what German V1s were in World War Two. And biological weapons have never proven to be a major threat in the modern era.

Of course ABM tests are under "ideal conditions". What do you expect? A bunch of nuclear explosions made in the open air just or a test? You test things however you can.

That doesn't mean they won't work in real situations. The U.S. has numerous weapons systems that were never tested under real life conditions that worked fine in combat.

 

9

Sure there are.

But it doesn't matter. As two arms control experts (no they were not neocons) explained in an article a few years ago in Foreign Affairs magazine, the U.S. could destroy most of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals on the ground long before they were launched.

And before you say it, the Russians and Chinese DO NOT have the capability of doing the same to the U.S.

 

Sure - if you get lucky - but "we might luck out and shoot one down" - assuming you even know it is coming at you - is not a credible defense against such technology. The patriots could not even take out the Iranian stuff - which is child's play compared to the stuff that Russia/China/India has been developing over the last 3 decades.

Your biological weapons comment is absurd.

Of course ABM tests are under "ideal conditions". What do you expect? A bunch of nuclear explosions made in the open air just or a test? You test things however you can.

- according to our own analysts - they won't work - but again - leaving ballistics out of the equation .. there are numerous other technologies that can be used.

 

V1s and cruise missiles are no where near the same. V1s had no real guidance system. Modern Cruise Missiles hug the landscape. Modern cruise missiles are as close to a V1s as a musket is to a glock

 

No they can't!

 

Perhaps you should read your own source.

It quite clearly outlines the fact that mines were approved in the Obama administration, and previous administrations, for usage in North Korea.

Now that we've established that as a fact:

Why are landmines acceptable for use in Korea and not anywhere else?

 

The bases attacked by the Iranians had no SAM defenses whatsoever.

The U.S. Navy during the Cold War routinely considered themselves capable of taking out as many as 50 or more anti ship cruise missiles targeted on a carrier battle group simultanouesly. Exercises showed that to be quite doable.

 

Why? Do you have actual evidence that the Russians, Chinese or anyone else has actual biological weapons?

 

You lose.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy

 

The Saudi Oil Refinery was defended by the Patriot System.

No idea what you are referring to - since the development of advanced cruise missiles by our enemies happened after the cold war ended.

You are confused.

 

I did not say have built them. I said they could build them if they wanted to - very easily. Who knows what those goblins have created in their labs - same as what we have done.

 

The Patriots defending the Saudi Oil Refinery was also manned by...Saudis wasn't it? That's all you need to know.

The Soviets had highly sophisticated anti ship cruise missiles deployed throughout the 1980s. Most of their current cruise missiles are derived from them.

 

You have actual evidence that the U.S. has created biological weapons? That would be news to most Americans.

 

The idea that the Saudi's are not trained on the missile systems we sell them is mindless gibberish on steroids - and further - these systems are automated. Regardless - wishing on a star will not change the fact that the patriot system failed to defend the site from a cruise missile and drone attack - from a nation whose sophistication is not near that of Russia/China/India.

1) we are not talking about the Soviet systems
2) Your claim is unsupported nonsense - Syria has technology that is more advanced than what the Soviet's had during the 80's - and they were not able to stop a cruise missile attack - sub supersonic cruise missiles.

 

I never said that .. get some reading comprehension.

 

No they don't

 

Remind me again why one should avoid discussions with you ?

Who is they - and they don't what ?

 

Firstly your link uses the words "probably" and "soon" and have you forgotten that the discussion was about ICBMs that have already been launched. You know, when you wrote "ABMs have worked against ICBMs repeatedly in tests."

Try again......

 

1. The Russians don't have nuclear drones.

2. The satellite coverage is more than competent enough to cover the Russian launches if they happen.

3. The USA can knock down cruise missiles.

4. Should Iran launch a nuclear strike, Iran as a country and the metro areas will be dead within two hours.

 

Oh dear. You think that air defenses are manually operated!

 

Point 2: In tests, the US were not able to intercept a single launch of one ICBM under ideal test conditions