Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

Is this how I make an argument? I insult people for posting their opinion and then whine collectively about why I and the group of people I assosciate with are perceived as self-congratulatory?

On here? Yes.

[martinuzz]

Stormy Daniels presses libel charges against Trump, for his Tweet in which he called her unreliable.

[Max™]

Nuclear shields? Defense/Counter Arms races?

Oh god dammit folks, if we're gonna end up going full Gundam it better fucking not be Seed!

Seriously, that is well past the goddamn line.

[Lord Shonus]

Not just the development of nukes and other more conventional weapons, new tactics such as the use of aircraft carriers ended the glory days of battleships.

As for a shield against nukes, short of some kind of high tech deflector shield like you’d see in science fiction, or being under a mountain, I don’t think there is one.

A more metaphorical shield comprised of interceptor missiles or lasers is a good bit more plausible to the point of being almost possible with modern tech.  I do wonder what might change if the technology became sophisticated enough to significantly mitigate the nuclear threat of, say, Russia, before they were able to do the same against us.

Then again, I don't know how feasible that really is.  I've seen maps of a "5,000 warhead scenario" which implies that Russia has or at least once had the capability of launching a truly ludicrous number of ICBMs (or at least MIRVs) simultaneously to the point that even a laser defense system might not be realistically able to counter them all.

Any missile defense system is going to run into the problem that it is much more difficult (and thus more expensive) to shoot a missile down than it is to launch the damn thing in rhe first place. A small-scale launch from NK or similar isn't a problem because it will never be more than a few missiles. Russia (or the US) can build as many missiles as they want, so a viable system is an unwinnable arms race.

[Dorsidwarf]

Not just the development of nukes and other more conventional weapons, new tactics such as the use of aircraft carriers ended the glory days of battleships.

As for a shield against nukes, short of some kind of high tech deflector shield like you’d see in science fiction, or being under a mountain, I don’t think there is one.

A more metaphorical shield comprised of interceptor missiles or lasers is a good bit more plausible to the point of being almost possible with modern tech.  I do wonder what might change if the technology became sophisticated enough to significantly mitigate the nuclear threat of, say, Russia, before they were able to do the same against us.

Then again, I don't know how feasible that really is.  I've seen maps of a "5,000 warhead scenario" which implies that Russia has or at least once had the capability of launching a truly ludicrous number of ICBMs (or at least MIRVs) simultaneously to the point that even a laser defense system might not be realistically able to counter them all.

Any missile defense system is going to run into the problem that it is much more difficult (and thus more expensive) to shoot a missile down than it is to launch the damn thing in rhe first place. A small-scale launch from NK or similar isn't a problem because it will never be more than a few missiles. Russia (or the US) can build as many missiles as they want, so a viable system is an unwinnable arms race.

Ah, but if both sides have the capacity to build unlimited missiles they also have the capacity’s for unlimited anti missile missiles,

[Starver]

My unlimited anti anti missile missile missiles will handle that problem...

[Maximum Spin]

My unlimited anti anti missile missile missiles will handle that problem...

But really, those are just a particular kind of anti-missile missile. Which, being a kind of missile, will be vulnerable to the enemy's anti-missile missiles.

[Kagus]

Just tech up to tier 3 and drop some loyalists here and there, problem solved.

Oh wait, these are probably strat missiles... hmm...

[Starver]

My unlimited anti anti missile missile missiles will handle that problem...

But really, those are just a particular kind of anti-missile missile. Which, being a kind of missile, will be vulnerable to the enemy's anti-missile missiles.

But I already said I have anti anti missile missile missiles! They are therefore already capable anti anti anti anti missile missile missile missile missiles!! Checkmate recursionists!!!

[Maximum Spin]

It's not an infinite regress, it's just two people firing missiles at each other.

[scriver]

Simple! We just need to create some kind of awesome, impenetrable anti nuke shield-dome for each city, then they can all devolve into dystopian high tech city states as each one is taken over by a charismatic but ruthless warlord who provides safety at the cost of totalitarianism.

Oh, and of course rural areas are left out again. Goddamn city folks, always thinking only about themselves!

[Reelya]

Nah, the rural folks will face extreme natural selection pressures and evolve into a race of hardy flesh-eating mutants, who will then break into the cities en-masse and feast on the fleshy entrails of the soft and weak city folk.

[Shazbot]

Not just the development of nukes and other more conventional weapons, new tactics such as the use of aircraft carriers ended the glory days of battleships.

As for a shield against nukes, short of some kind of high tech deflector shield like you’d see in science fiction, or being under a mountain, I don’t think there is one.

A more metaphorical shield comprised of interceptor missiles or lasers is a good bit more plausible to the point of being almost possible with modern tech.  I do wonder what might change if the technology became sophisticated enough to significantly mitigate the nuclear threat of, say, Russia, before they were able to do the same against us.

Then again, I don't know how feasible that really is.  I've seen maps of a "5,000 warhead scenario" which implies that Russia has or at least once had the capability of launching a truly ludicrous number of ICBMs (or at least MIRVs) simultaneously to the point that even a laser defense system might not be realistically able to counter them all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARx2-wRn9-Y (illiterate version)

If by modern tech you mean the 1950's...  We could easily deploy an ABM system for a limited threat like North Korea or even China (China has a limited number of missiles as a conscious policy decision, unless things have changed). The Soviets simply had too many warheads on too many missiles to practically defend against. Treaty arrangements let us have a defense site for the national capital and for our Minuteman fields, the same as the Soviets. They ended up with a defense for Moscow and the US had a defense for North Dakota. Things may have changed since.

Rural folks need fallout shelters and really little else. Nobody is wasting a warhead on a cornfield.

[Starver]

It's not an infinite regress, it's just two people firing missiles at each other.

You say that as if it's a problem!!!!


Mwuahahaha!!!!

[Telgin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARx2-wRn9-Y (illiterate version)

If by modern tech you mean the 1950's...  We could easily deploy an ABM system for a limited threat like North Korea or even China (China has a limited number of missiles as a conscious policy decision, unless things have changed). The Soviets simply had too many warheads on too many missiles to practically defend against. Treaty arrangements let us have a defense site for the national capital and for our Minuteman fields, the same as the Soviets. They ended up with a defense for Moscow and the US had a defense for North Dakota. Things may have changed since.

My main point about it being "almost possible" was that by my understanding, even modern interceptor missiles are actually not very reliable.  Pretty much what Lord Shonus said: interceptors cost a lot of money and you need a huge number to have much hope of them protecting you against a large strike.  That's where my off hand comment about a laser system came from.  A laser system would have a (very) high installation cost, but after that it's reusable and can potentially disable or destroy many missiles.  A laser can't be actively dodged, and it only has to cause fairly superficial damage to a missile to make it tumble and break up.

Then again, the warheads might survive that and just blow up somewhere else.  Trying to destroy the warhead directly might be possible, but if it's protected by a heat shield for reentry then a laser might not do a whole lot of good.