Customer Discussions > History forum

Where's our National Missile Defense?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 24, 2012 3:26:34 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
The US has the technology to have an effective National Missile Defense capable of protecting us from rogue nations like North Korea and Iran in addition to strategic adversaries like China and Russia. Why isn't it in place and operational?

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 3:57:44 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
It doesn't work. It needs a lot of tech that doesn't exist yet. It's expensive, and for the ones shooting the missiles at it, it's cheaper to just add a few more missiles and/or decoys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 5:44:09 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 9, 2012 7:25:29 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 6:01:13 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
DR: In terms of 'ape s**t-ness', one might suggest that Russia, in the form of the USSR back then, had some reason to feel that the west's military attentions weren't benign. After all, the placing of nuclear missiles in Cuba was in retaliation for the US having placed nuclear missiles in Turkey, close to the USSR's borders:

-The U.S. and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter squadron on NATO's southern flank. One squadron totaling 15 missiles was deployed at five sites near İzmir, Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF personnel, with the first flight of three Jupiter missiles turned over to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control of nuclear warhead arming.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter

Next, both some Tico cruisers and Burke destroyers are getting SM-3 and BMD capability: -A total of five US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke class destroyers have BMD capability as of November 2010. [1] [16] In 2010, all remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers that have SPY 1B systems (CG-59-CG-73) will be refitted with TBMD engagement technology.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

The Ticos aren't being built anymore, as they are an older design, and were all built between 1981 and 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

And the satellite USA-193 which was the target of the BMD missile shot to it's hydrazine fuel tank was fired on by the USS Shiloh (CG-67) and USS Lake Erie (CG-70). Same source.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 6:20:17 PM PDT
DarthRad says:
Yes, the Ticonderogas are small cruisers, and were originally classified as destroyers during their design phase. There is not a huge difference in size or capability between them and the Arleigh Burke destroyers, which are very large destroyers by old WWII standards. In WWII, the Arleigh Burkes would have been classed as light cruisers probably.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 7:21:55 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
DR: Given that no one is building cruisers now, and really hasn't for a while, the Ticos are about the current definition for their size. The classic cruiser line ended with the USS Long Beach back in the early 60s. What got classified as cruisers since were what were originally built as destroyer leaders, or DLs/DLGs/DLGNs.

In 1975, the USN rearranged their ship typing to better fit the rest of the world, whose frigates were smaller than destroyers, while prior to then, US frigates were what was otherwise started as destroyer leaders, aka DLs. So, in '75, the bigger DL types became cruisers, the smaller ones dropped to destroyer, and the former destroyer escort type became the proper frigate line.

Now, it's true that the Tico started design life as DDG-47, a missile destroyer. Before she was launched, it was clear that she was a bigger ship than were the now cruiser Belknaps and Leahys, making the change to cruiser the only logical choice.

If one goes by tonnage, Ticos and Burkes would both be cruisers back in the 40s. But, FFG Perrys would be bigger than almost all WW2 destroyers. There has been so much evolution in warship types, missions, and such, that it isn't that useful to try to compare 1990s ships to 40s ship, anymore than trying to compare WW2 carrier forces to WW1 battlefleets would make much sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 1:28:11 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Well if you like conspiracy theories the sinister HAARP device up in Alaska may be able to create a missile shield by super heating the upper atmosphere.

I doubt that many people believe that. But then again if HAARP really could do this how many people would know ? That would be highly classified information.

Earthquake creation. Mind control radiation. Ground penetrating radar to find the Atlantean devices under the Giza necropolis (and use them for military purposes !). Those are all possible capabilities that have been suggested for the HAARP device.

Tesla technology.

Jeff Marzano

Occult Ether Physics: Tesla's Hidden Space Propulsion System and the Conspiracy to Conceal It

Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series)

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 5:30:53 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 1, 2012 9:43:27 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 6:35:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 6:36:10 PM PDT
Smallchief says:
It's time for your parents to put you back in the basement tethered by a stronger chain.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  6
Total posts:  9
Initial post:  Jun 24, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions