Discussion in 'Security & Defenses' started by Mamluke13, Jul 1, 2019.
that seems like fear mongering.
According to what world authority? Or just because you say so?
that's an oxymoronic statement.
I know you are not talking about my approach.
I am quite a far ways away from appeasement. I believe in firm containment, with ever stricter sanctions. That is not appeasement at all.
And I am not opposed to force even, simply as a last resort in response to hostile actions of their own.
No, it's not. See the lead up to ww1 and ww2 for reference.
That last resort needs to take place before they have a weapon to use, on anyone.
That was then, this is now.
I see no difference, if it seemed America would do nothing Iran would move against it's neighbors.
Azerbaijan? Turkey? Iran? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Turkmenistan?
Exactly which of these would they be moving against?
We are very close to any hostile Ballistic missile becoming obsolete.
U.S., Israel conduct test of Arrow 3 anti-ballistic system in Alaska
By Daniel Uria | July 28, 2019 at 4:02 PM
The United States announced a test of the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic system in Alaska on Sunday. Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Missile Defense
July 28 (UPI) -- The United States and Israel announced Sunday that they tested Arrow 3 anti-ballistic weapon in a high altitude hit-to-kill engagement in Alaska, the first such test outside of Israel.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency announced the Arrow 3 interceptor destroyed target missiles during the tests at Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska.
"The Arrow 3 interceptor successfully demonstrated an engagement capability against the exo-atmospheric target during the test," the MDA said. "Preliminary analysis indicates that test objectives were successfully achieved."
Not even close.
You're right. Sixty miles in the atmosphere is not even close. IT'S DEAD NUTS
Yea, and? 60 miles big whoop-de-do.
We are still nowhere close to making "ballistic missiles obsolete" even if this works perfectly every single time.
But here, let me break this down for you Barney Style.
60 miles in altitude, and let's just assume for doing basic calculation that it can traverse an area of half that, or 30 miles laterally. And yes, that is grossly over-estimating how far such a system can actually traverse, it is generally more in the ranks of 1/10 mile horizontal for each mile vertical, but I feel like being generous here. SO I am upping it by a factor of 5 to 30 miles.
Just the Continental US West Coast is around 800 miles long. That would mean we would need 27 batteries of these places along the coast to try and keep missiles form the US. And even that would not be enough, Why? Well, because ICBMs actually reach and travel at altitudes of up to 1,200 miles.
That means that a missile targeted at say Denver will not be touched by these systems, the missiles are still to far up, they will only be reachable by these systems after they enter their terminal phase. SO that means in reality we will have to likely not only place them along the coast to try and get the SLBMs (which operate a much lower altitude than ICBMs), we would then have to place them even further inland, probably surrounding major cities and operations in order to protect them from the ones that simply flew over the heads of the coastal systems, untouched.
Way back in the days of the Cold War, we actually did something like that. Project Nike, with 265 fixed air defense sites scattered all over the country. And even that could have handled only a small percentage of what the Soviets could have thrown at us at the time.
So yes, "not even close". For this to make "ballistic missiles obsolete", we would have to place thousands of installations like this all over the country. And even that if 100% perfect only protects us from ballistic missiles. And that is not the only way such weapons are delivered.
You definitely did break this down Barney Style. In fact your analogy and comprehension of today's military technology is that of a cartoon character. First off, you're comparing today's weapons capability to the Cold War time of rotary phones and manual typewriters. Secondly I could tell that you did not read any facts about the Arrow 3 otherwise you would have stumbled across the phrase "mobile capabilities" as in air, land and sea. And finally you must have missed the part in the video which depicts the Arrow 3 being deployed from a mobile launcher. The tires and wheels are the key elements in determining that fact. And my conclusion is that very soon the Arrow 3 will be a major part of our new branch of the military, thank you Commander-in-Chief Trump, the USSF. That's the United States Space Force.
Dude, just a little FYI about my "comprehension of today's military technology".
You apparently do not know this, but for over 5 years I was a technician on the Army's MIM-104 PATRIOT missile system. Including a 1 year combat deployment at the Operations Team for my Battalion. This also includes a 6 month operation at White Sands working directly with Raytheon on the first stage of testing on the SE and OIC upgrades.
So yea, I actually do have a damned good idea of our capabilities when it comes to Air Defense and ABM systems. Because for over 5 years I worked on them first hand. And not back in the Cold War, as in the last decade.
And none of that changed the laws of physics. ABM missiles are designed to go up, not out. This should be obvious in that they are launched at almost a vertical trajectory (PATRIOT for example sits at an 89 degree angle).
This is vastly different than a missile that is intended to traverse a distance as opposed to elevation. Like say the MLRS, which operates at around 30 degrees (plus or minus 3-5 degrees). Those missiles achieve very little elevation vertically but travel great distances horizontally.
And yea, I have been following this system for years now. Just as I have with MEADS, PAAC-4 PATRIOT, THAAD, and a great many other systems that you are more than likely not aware of. You see, this was my profession, and I know exactly what they are and are not capable of.
This is the danger you are going to run into here, in the Military section. A lot of us really are "subject matter experts", and really understand what we are talking about and not just spouting off at the mouth. And some of us have several areas that we are experts in. My own are Infantry (10 years), Air Defense - PATRIOT Missile (6 years), and Information Technology (6 years Army, 25+ years civilian).
Others in here you will find are pilots, tankers, cavalry, medics-Corpsmen, Blue Water Sailors, and a lot of other fields. So you should really be careful about coming in and spouting off things like "comprehension of today's military technology is that of a cartoon character". I have actually been commenting in here for over a decade as much as I am capable of about what such systems can and can not do. I have also analyzed adversarial systems, both offensive (DF-21D) and defensive (S-400). And in the response that you so casually dismissed, I gave plenty of clues (including some very specific data regarding things like distance traversed versus distance traveled).
Of course, I could go into even more differences, if you like. Like the newest in operation is the PAC-3, but only has a range of 20km. But it is the preferred point-blank system for TBMs (Terminal Ballistic Missile) because it has the highest hit to kill ratio. So for most engagements the preferred missile is still the GEM/T (TBM) or GEM/C (ABT) (ABT is Air Breathing Threat - in other words an aircraft or cruise missile). Both of which have a range of 95-170km. And the lower number is for the GEM/C variant because it is expected to operate on a more horizontal trajectory. The 170km range is actually for the GEM/T which is only employed against a TBM threat.
So even in this in which I am going much more technical, you can see the limitations of such a missile when it has to go out a farther distance from the launcher to make an intercept. The GEM series of missiles (which actually stands for Guidance Enhanced Munition) as a rule of thumb drops to half the range of the same class of missile intended to strike a ballistic threat.
This is why a typical PATRIOT Battery of 6 launchers (5 PAC-2 launchers of 4 missile each for 20 missiles, and 1 PAC-3 launcher of 4 missile cannisters for 16 missiles - 36 missiles in total per battery) generally has a divided load. The PAC-3 of course has all PAC-3 missiles. But the PAC-2 launchers tend to carry a mix of GEM/T and GEM/C missiles. When I was deployed we were still using the GEM and GEM+, and that was also part of the loadout of the era, but I am sure those have been phased out by now.
So I politely suggest you tone things down a little bit. Calling somebody who really is an expert in these things a cartoon character is like saying that somebody with a specialty in brain surgery knows nothing about first aid.
Ok, so you're an expert in the operations of a missle system that was introduced in the mid 70's and was known as Scud Busters during Desert Storm. But that was 28 years ago. You really don't think that the Arrow 3 will be the backbone for technology that will in the very near future eliminate the threat of ICBMs?
I had not noticed this thread, where I see some informed commentary (that still misses a lot) and the usual gibberish in the mix.
I will defer to "Mushroom" on the ability of anti-missile defenses such as the Arrow 3 to thwart ballistic missiles. I am neither a military technician nor have any engineering or scientific background to discuss things that relate to future developments of this sort. But I am quite knowledgeable about Iran, its forces, its tactics and doctrine, its history, its society, and am familiar enough with the US and what it can bring to the table in any conflict with Iran.
First things, first, though. Unlike what "Mushroom" claimed, any war with Iran will be ultimately due to US policy of trying to bully Iran into accepting things no sovereign nation would want to accept. Iran has already done more than enough appeasement for my liking and to give it the option of total capitulation, economic strangulation, and ultimately political chaos and civil war, on the one hand, or military war, I would take a military war. But that still wouldn't mean it is Iran that would have started the war. It would only mean that Iran will have wisely decided that war is better than letting the other side succeed in a policy that is not really about "containment", but instead causing an "implosion" in Iran. (Put differently, instead of letting the US turn Iran into what we saw in Syria at the time of the Syrian civil war, I prefer to see the US try to do what it did with Iraq during either Desert Storm or the 2003 war. I like Iran's chances a lot more in the latter dynamic than in the former).
Secondly, people simply totally underestimate what Iran would be able to do to US forces, US-allied forces, and the world economy, and even the US mainland, in case of a war. I can break all of that down for you, but for now, let me just say that a battle against Iran will not be won due to superior US technology or military hardware. If the US wins the battle, it will be either because it has managed to cow Iran's leaders and/or people to submission (implicitly or explicitly waiving its nuclear card), or it has been able to infiltrate and essentially buy key figures within Iran's establishment and military to force Iran into all sorts of wrong turns before and during any conflict with the US.
Finally, as someone who lived most of his life in the US, and who knows the US quite well having gone to high school, college and law school there and practiced law in the US for many years, and who once cared for the US because it did have (amidst all of its corruption, evil and dark chapters) some valuable ideals and lessons for human kind, I want to offer this advice: please get your own house in order! Your politics was already corrupted, but in the name of combating that corruption, and by engaging in the most outright forms of propaganda, lies, and "fake news", you have ended up with a system and government that has lost any of its redeeming qualities. It is a shame what has happened to America, and not just because of Trump.*
Once upon a time, a group of pro Israeli partisans who were at least at the time mainly focused on preserving a "Jewish homeland" for themselves, took all the lessons they had learned from Nazi Germany and applied them to many of the policies they were favoring in Israel. And, in the meantime, took the lessons of Goebbels and the like to use propaganda to turn truth into falsehood and reverse. But despite the corruption they were encouraging in American politics, many of these folks did at least have quite a few redeeming qualities nonetheless. Their vision for what they wanted for America and in America wasn't all that bad and they contributed in many ways in helping America come closer to the best of its ideals as it related to everything except its policies viz a viz Israel and in the Middle East. At that time, while the quip about the "US Congress being part of Israeli occupied territory" had a lot of merit, it was a much more benign occupation whose reach was somewhat limited. This was because at the time, the main blue print for US foreign policy still related to fighting the Soviets and, because, the pro Israeli lobby didn't have the same kind of friends it found in the military industrial complex either. The reach of these old time Zionists was mostly felt on the Democratic party and their media and personalities at that time. Fast forward to several decades where, first certain people promised to be able to bring the same support the Democrats enjoyed from the pro Israeli lobbyists and interests to the Republican party, and then helped come up with a grand strategy to replace the "containment" strategy of the Cold War years to justify the military budgets and perks enjoyed by the military industrial complex and its experts and spokesman, while feeding the ambitions an dreams of a group of pro Israeli zealots, all the while working with deranged people who believed (and were encouraged by these special interest groups to believe) in stories such as the Rupture (with the Christian Zionist evangelicals becoming the foot soldiers in this movement), you ended up with the Republican party (almost as a whole, minus its small true isolationist wing) being taken over by what are now full blown Nazis using all the same tactics. It doesn't matter if these modern day Nazis are able to conquer as much as they hope; the fact that they have already conquered America's politics and institutions is all the damage they needed to have done to America for Americans to wake up and try to reclaim their country.
I simply comment on the fallacy that such a system makes ballistic missiles "obsolete". That is as silly as proclaiming bullet proof vests as making the deaths of cops obsolete. Or atomic-nuclear weapons making wars obsolete.
And you miss the most important part of this entire equation. And Iran and North Korea have been doing over and over for decades. You go blaming the US for the miseries of your nation.
Not even seeming to notice that the vast majority of the actions are by the United Nations.
At this time, Iran is under 9 different UN Security Council Sanctions. Ranging from UNSCR 1696 in 2006 that demanded they stop all uranium enrichment. All the way to UNSCR 2231, which set out standards that Iran must meet in order to remove all of the sanctions being imposed against them by the UN.
There are an additional 9 UN resolutions (not related to the UNSCR), and also 9 sanctions by the EU. In addition to sanctions by China, Australia, Japan, Canada, India, Israel, South Korea, Switzerland, the UK, and many many others.
Yet, you are obsessing over the US. A country that Iran has not had diplomatic relations with since 1979.
Oh yes, poor babies Iran is! The US is so picking on them! If they go to war, it is all the fault of the evil US!
Well, maybe they need to pull their own head out of their arses, and listen to the rest of the world. Like maybe the UN? A body that intendes to prevent conflicts and wars. An international body that has Iran and North Korea about tied with the number of UN Sanctions held against it.
Yea, I have about as much care about the woes of Iran as I do the cries that some gang banger drug dealer feels he is being persecuted by the cops. Get out of gangs and stop selling drugs, and then the cops have no reason to hassle you.
Separate names with a comma.