About Putin's headache
|April 27th, 2007||#1|
| || |
Putin's headache info
It seems some high ranking Americans are ready to say anything in order to get Europe down on its knees to pray for a system which has the soul target of stopping rockets on the way to the USA. What happens to Europe itself, when these (possibly) atomic heads are brought to explosion in the air, does not seem to concern anybody. However it must be clear to many on these forums, that radio-active clouds could still reach America and these bring a slower but much more painful death to recipients.
Last edited by Englander2; April 27th, 2007 at 05:17.. Reason: spelling mistake
|April 28th, 2007||#2|
| || |
You don't seem to understand how nuclear warheads work if you believe that a successful in-air interception will trigger detonation of the payload. An education is in order.
No need to thank me.
After reading, post any questions you have and someone will be along to answer anything you didn't understand.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
Last edited by bulldogg; April 28th, 2007 at 02:17..
|April 28th, 2007||#3|
| || |
I have a question professor.
What if a Mufti from Iran, cleverly disguised as an Irish Tinker woman, travels west with a nuclear device cleverly disguised as an accordion in the back of "her" caravan.
How will Uncle Sam's anti-nuclear missle programme save old and new Europe alike?
|April 28th, 2007||#4|
| || |
Interesting query from my esteemed colleague of the clergy. Aye, well, see that's why all Irish tinkers will be forbidden to travel from Iran. All the Irish in Iran must stay where they are and die in place.
|April 28th, 2007||#5|
| || |
I don't understand why Russia is getting so nervous about this missile defense system. Do they really think we still want to nuke them? Or do they still want to nuke us?
"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." - George Washington
|April 29th, 2007||#6|
| || |
BD, you're right about the warheads of today being extremely difficult to coax into going critical or supercritical on cue. First, processing the component materials to a level of purity is almost impossible. Then, the mechanics of critical assembly became Swiss watchmaking, just a figure of speech, when America completed minification of payloads. Now, clusters of small warheads could be combined as one large payload or many separately targetable ones.
The process has been stolen, copied, and prayed over, that they would work as designed but most will fizzle as high explosive triggers. There is still the brute force, simpler, but extremely destructive warheads that have a high success rate.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill
|April 30th, 2007||#7|
| || |
The possibility of a nuclear warhead going critical from being intercepted is almost null. As for concerns about this being a gambit just to protect America at the expense of Europe consider this: The United States and most of Europe are allied via NATO and it is therefore not too unreasonable to assume that an attack on America would target much of Western Europe also. The United States is the most powerful member of NATO and we have a unique ability to bring any war anywhere to our enemies thanks to our fleet of (14?) nuclear power aircraft carriers, if memory serves me correct the United States has 2/3's of the world's active aircraft carriers in our fleet. As a whole wouldn't it be in the best interest of the United States and our European allies alike if the United States survived such an exchange with as little damage as possible, even if it is at the expense of a Europe that is quite likely already being targeted anyways?
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
|April 30th, 2007||#8|
| || |
Don't you think the EU saw your point, too? If what you say is remotely true or even possible, do you really think any of the EU nations would hop on board with the missile shield plan?
|April 30th, 2007||#9|
| || |
Only problem with this wonder system is that it protects us against the least likely delivey.
As Padre said, if/when a nuke finds it´s way through defences it´s not going to be a missile launch.
That however is NOT to say we don´t need to defend against such a possibility ALSO.
"We are the pilgrims, Master
We shall go always a little further,
it may be beyond the last blue mountain barred with snow,
Across that angry or glimmering sea..."
|April 30th, 2007||#10|
| || |
Russia sees ANY NATO activity near Russian borders as hostile.
One of the points brought by them that a little anti-missile program could become a huge undertaking later and give the US a huge advantage (if it will be able to shoot down the Russian missiles right after the launch).
However, in my book, the main purpose of the Russian statements is internal. They want to show their people how threatened they are, so they should get more loyal to the Government and not pay too much attention to some pesky details like civil freedoms or corruption in the government.