Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 136 of 241 (444599)
12-30-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by tesla
12-30-2007 12:18 AM


Re: impending issues
Following the Kennedy memo, it was proposed that all nuclear bombs should be protected using code locks, and that there should be a “universal unlock” action message that only the president or his legal successors could send.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SE-11.pdf
Capiche?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:18 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:30 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 138 of 241 (444602)
12-30-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by tesla
12-30-2007 12:30 AM


Re: impending issues
The NCCS quote I provided states:
The President has command and control of the NCCS.
You are dense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:30 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:37 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 140 of 241 (444606)
12-30-2007 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by tesla
12-30-2007 12:37 AM


Re: impending issues
Wrong again.
The decision to launch is the President's ALONE.
There are guidelines in place for the President to consider. But there are no RULES that he has to follow. There are no "requirements to be met".
Military commanders have no authority to defy the President's order.
That's the whole point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:37 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:51 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 142 of 241 (444610)
12-30-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by tesla
12-30-2007 12:51 AM


Re: impending issues
Tesla, will you take the time to research your positions instead of pulling s*** straight out of your ass?
The Global Command and Control System (GCCS) is an automated information system designed to support deliberate and crisis planning with the use of an integrated set of analytic tools and the flexible data transfer capabilities.
GCCS - Global Command and Control System - United States Nuclear Forces
The NCCS is the STAFF under the Secretary of Defense. The NCCS maintains and runs the GCCS. They have no role in the decision to launch.
This Directive: (1) Establishes, pursuant to reference (a) National Security Decision Directive, United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, August 21, 1987 and the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff under the Direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense, who also serves as the Executive Agent for the Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS); (2) Establishes the DoD NCCS Executive Review Committee (ERC) in support of the Secretary of Defense; and (3) Assigns the responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities of the U.S. NCCS Support Staff (NSS) and its Director, and those of the ERC.
Page not found - Storming Media US - Covering the Globe & Back
not give exclusive power to the president
To repeat:
... that there should be a “universal unlock” action message that only the president or his legal successors could send.
ONLY. O-N-L-Y.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 12:51 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 1:06 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 144 of 241 (444710)
12-30-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by tesla
12-30-2007 1:06 AM


The ERC is under the Secretary of Defense.
Subordinate to. Reports to. Under the command of.
The Secretary of Defense is under the President.
Unlike the U.S. system, where only the president can authorize a nuclear-missile launch, the Russian leader enjoys no such monopoly. In Russia, three people control a cheget nuclear football: the president, the defense minister and the chief of the general staff. Any of them can give permission for a nuclear launch.
http://findarticles.com/...cles/mi_m1571/is_7_17/ai_72328612
I posted this link in Message 125.
You misread it:
yes but as the article points out: not exclusively.
What part of "only the president can authorize a nuclear-missile launch" and "monopoly" don't you understand?
Tesla, for a guy who thinks he has an insight into physics that the thousands of brilliant theoretical and experimental physicists working today have somehow missed, you show a remarkable lack of reading comprehension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 1:06 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 2:16 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 149 of 241 (444747)
12-30-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by obvious Child
12-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: End Time Belief and Political Power
A single decapitating attack would instantly remove the US's ability to respond to a nuclear attack.
The death of a President is the death of a President, whether by heart attack or nuclear attack.
Order of Succession:
* The Vice President
* Speaker of the House
* President pro tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security
Furthermore, it doesn't mean that only the president can launch.Sagan and Waltz describe several instances where US missile commanders jury rigged missile to launch on command, and not from the president.
If I jury-rig a landline telephone to deliver a deadly shock to anyone who picks up the reciever, does that mean telephones are deadly?
And that's only half the equation.
I know.
You didn't read the thread, did you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by obvious Child, posted 12-30-2007 5:29 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 12:17 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 150 of 241 (444749)
12-30-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by purpledawn
12-30-2007 4:39 PM


Re: The Call
I think it's important to include the sentence that immediately precedes the one you quoted from your first cite, PD:
Americans incline toward a similar but even more optimistic assumption about the control of nuclear weapons in an emergency: There must be a careful, deliberative process in place to protect us. Alas, that's not the case.
Tho I doubt Tesla will be impressed.
He rejects out of hand any evidence we might offer, because "it just can't be that way".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by purpledawn, posted 12-30-2007 4:39 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 153 of 241 (444833)
12-31-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by obvious Child
12-31-2007 12:17 AM


Re: End Time Belief and Political Power
A suicide bombing killing the president followed by a launch would not allow enough time to transfer the authority and codes to whoever is left in charge.
You are naive if you think it would take any time whatsoever to delegate the authority to the appropriate official.
US missile commanders, well at least one, has bypassed the system and was able to be able to start WWIII whenever he wanted.
That has nothing to do with who is authorized to launch a nuclear attack.
The US delegated US launch authority to a various number of people.
Had you bothered to read the thread, you would have noticed that I've already mentioned that some military commanders were delegated the authority from the 1950s until the 1980s.
From Message 134:
Recently declassified U.S. government documents, now published by the National Security Archive, disclose one of the Cold War's deepest secrets, that during the most dangerous phases of the U.S.-Soviet confrontation during the early 1960s top military commanders had presidentially-authorized instructions providing advance authority to use nuclear weapons under specified emergency conditions.
The documents show that President Eisenhower approved "predelegation" instructions in late 1959 so that top commanders would have the authority to make a rapid nuclear response if a Soviet attack on Washington killed national command authorities, such as the President. The instructions remained in place in "basically the same" form through the 1960s, although information on the later period and the current situation is still classified.
You will note that the info is classified.
Information on any predelegation arrangements that Lyndon Johnson or his successors approved after March 1964 remains classified, although studies by Brookings Institution analyst Bruce Blair indicate that predelegation continued at least through the late 1980s. Whether predelegation in some form remains in place is an open question; the reluctance of federal agencies to declassify additional materials on Eisenhower's decisions suggests that it remains a sensitive issue.
The author of the book you linked can not be certain that the policy is still in place.
From the U.S. Army War College:
First, political leaders may have predelegated limited authority for nuclear release or launch under restrictive conditions: only when these few conditions obtain, according to the protocols of predelegation, would military commanders be authorized to employ nuclear weapons distributed within their command.
No webpage found at provided URL: carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/cimbala.htm
May have, Obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 12:17 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 4:08 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 155 of 241 (444848)
12-31-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by obvious Child
12-31-2007 4:08 AM


Re: End Time Belief and Political Power
True, but it does show that our systems are hardly as you think they are (among many other things).
Horseshit.
I was discussing authorization, not what-if scenarios.
While the threat of a actual deliberate exchange between the US and Russia is virtually nil, for the US to give up its long practice of worse case contingency plans seems very put of place.
The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s.
"Having spent a lot of my professional career investigating issues of nuclear control -- and having interviewed people who had been given delegated authority (to issue an order for nuclear retaliation) -- I believe that the Eisenhower precedent ended with the Reagan administration," Blair said.
David A. Rosenberg of Temple University, said the fact that the government was willing to release any predelegation documents suggested that with the end of the Cold War the policy was no longer in effect.
The biggest threat, as I've stated before and NO ONE seems to be able to argue against this, is merely the existence of the weapons themselves.
For the nuclear powers to disarm would be foolish. The technology could be acquired by a non-state actor.
The procedural and technical safeguards against unauthorized or accidental launch are inadequate in today’s circumstances. Although both sides impose very strict safeguards on their strategic nuclear forces to prevent an unauthorized launch, the actual level of protection against unauthorized launch defies precise estimation due to the complexity of the nuclear command-control systems and of the threats to them. Serious deficiencies are routinely discovered. There is reason to believe that state and non-state actors, including terrorists, may be able to exploit weaknesses in these systems of control by physical or informational means, heightening the risks of unauthorized or accidental launch.
http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/opstatus-blair.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 4:08 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 5:40 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 157 of 241 (444989)
12-31-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by obvious Child
12-31-2007 5:40 PM


Re: End Time Belief and Political Power
Try analyze instead of just regurgitating whatever you find for a change.
I think I will rely on the expertise of a Brookings Institute senior fellow, rather than you, dear.
If a missile launch occurred right after the detonation killing everyone on your list of succession, we'd be out of authority.
Really. You think our missile warning systems are that poor?
You think that contingency plans aren't in place in the highly unlikely event that every person on that list is killed?
I feel like I'm talking to a bot.
You've managed to drive 2 other posters off a thread with your nonstop ill informed bloviating. Are you trying for 3?
There is reason to believe that state and non-state actors, including terrorists, may be able to exploit weaknesses in these systems of control by physical or informational means, heightening the risks of unauthorized or accidental launch.
Again, had you bothered to read the link, the access they are talking about is thru the Russian system.
Furthermore, non state actors can be located and stopped.
But the difficulty of producing one is rather high, unlike merely stealing one.
Yeah. That's going real well, isn't it? Since non proliferation treaties were signed, 6 nations have acquired nuclear technology.
North Korea, a known weapons dealer to terrorist organizations, is just the latest in a long line of threats.
I'd like to hear your plans for negotiating disarmament with Israel, Iran and North Korea. Especially since Israel denies having any nuclear weapons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 5:40 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 01-01-2008 1:22 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 160 by obvious Child, posted 01-01-2008 4:28 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 162 of 241 (445269)
01-01-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by obvious Child
01-01-2008 4:28 PM


It would help if you understood what they were saying instead of just copy-paste.
You have demonstrated no understanding of the issues at hand. Your what-if scenarios are worthless.
For cruise missiles and SLBMs offshore yes, and these systems don't work against truck bombs.
That's the best you've got? A truck bomb?
Check out this scenario:
collision detection: Nuclear-strike simulator
A 400 kt truck bomb is detonated in front of the White House.
If you think that's going to wipe out every one on that succession list, you got another think comin'.
I do. It's called pre-delegation.
There's a difference between succession and predelegation.
The VP doesn't have nuclear launch authority. Were the President killed or disabled, he would, thru the rules of succession, not predelegation.
Were everyone on that list killed (highly unlikely), I am certain there are additional successors that are known to the chain of command.
Everyone needs to go to virtual.
That's ridiculous. Let's assume everyone on this planet agrees to go virtual. How do we verify their status?
After all, a virtual system just means the weapons are disassembled.
Furthermore, were a nation to assemble a weapon and launch, our response time would be considerably longer.
That's a risk you're willing to take?
All a virtual system does is remove the specter of an accidental launch by a nuclear power. None of the problems that you are trying to circumvent (terrorist access, truck bombs, etc.) are mitigated in the least by a virtual system.
Well, we probably gave Israel weapons. And Pakistan's design was likely stolen by Khan during his time in the West.
So what? The fact remains, they have the weapons.
You are saying that we should be able to lob a nuke over, killing millions of innocent people.
Bush would have no problem nuking a NSA with a nuclear weapon. Neither would most Americans.
And, despite your hyperbole, millions wouldn't be killed. Hundreds of thousands, yes. Millions, no.
Why would NK give a weapon to someone who may use it against them?
What makes you think NK would be hit by Al Quaeda? Or any other terrorist group that would target America/Europe?
Plus if they used a nuke against us, we'd figure it out and they'd be gone.
I'm not talking about MAD wrt to North Korea.
I'm talking about the possibility of NK selling weapons to NSAs/terrorists.
The Russians funded and gave millions of weapons to people we'd consider terrorists and never a nuke.
So. You're omniscient now.
1. You have no idea when or if Israel became a nuclear power.
2. You have no idea if anyone gave Israel the weapons.
3. You have no idea, if they were given weapons, who gave Israel the weapons.
4. You have no idea what the USSR gave away or to whom.
You are pulling these fanciful what-if scenarios straight out of the Ian Fleming novels you read late at night.
Do you understand the concept of a deterrent?
Oh my goodness gracious! Obvious has done gone an caughted me. I ain't got no idear t'all bout no de teer ant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by obvious Child, posted 01-01-2008 4:28 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by obvious Child, posted 01-03-2008 2:36 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 164 of 241 (445621)
01-03-2008 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by obvious Child
01-03-2008 2:36 AM


You sure got somethin' against the Ruskies.
You know, for a pup of 25, you sound an awful lot like a John Bircher.
I am going to post a more detailed response tomorrow, but I would like to dispense with a couple of things tonight.
Obviously you have no idea what a attack would include. ... blah blah blah ...
My previous post was in response to your pile of horse apples that "a truck bomb will wipe out everyone on the succession list".
Now, having no way to defend that scenario, you've chosen to fabricate a ridiculous plot worthy of a Tom Cruise movie.
I get the distinct feeling that no matter how many times I tear your paranoid blithering to shreds, you're going to ignore my response and foam at the mouth about an even more convoluted fantasy.
You have no idea just how many times hair trigger has almost ended all life on the planet.
Au contraire mon frere. I am well aware of the glitches inherent in the current system.
But the fact remains, your "solution" creates more problems than it solves.
In fact, your 'solution" does nothing to prevent a scenario like the gibberish you posted tonight.
What, praytell, would prevent those wiley Ruskies from carrying out such a fiendish plot if all nuclear weapons were disassembled?
You think the Russians are incapable of covertly assembly the necessary weaponry?
How do we verify their status?
The same way we verify their status now.
Yeah. That's going real well.
Explain to me how a terrorist steals a weapon that doesn't physically exist.
A terrorist steals the parts.
Now was that so tough?
How can you nuke a NSA when you don't know where they are? Can you shoot something you cannot see?
Um. You don't have to be real precise with a nuke.
Care to tell me just how large some of the Pakistani cities are?
Oh! I see. It's just Pakistan you're worried about.
Well. Given that a 400kt bomb can't even wipe out Washington DC, I'm not too awful worried.
AQ? Not likely ... blah blah blah ... Try use critical thinking before responding.
You were the one who said, and I quote:
Why would NK give a weapon to someone who may use it against them?
Now you're nattering on about "not being able to control terrorists" and "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".
Try to focus, mmmkay?
Now.
We "can't control terrorists" BUT "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".
Either we can't control terrorists and they are a threat OR we can control terrorists and they do not pose a threat.
Try to pick a side and stick to it.
Strike One. I don't know if the US helped, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did.
Dear, I never disputed that there are rumors that Israel has nukes. I brought it up! I merely pointed out that no one knows whether or not Israel has nukes and you for damn sure don't know whether or not the U.S. gave them nukes.
Actually we do. The USSR kept relatively good records about its WMD.
I'm going to ask that you document this claim.
But. For the moment, let's assume it's true.
Doesn't that kinda take alla the air out of your virtual system? After all, if the Russians sold off some of their weaponry, that means there are nukes out there that can't be accounted for. Up to 100 1kt bombs, they say.
More tomorrow!
Ciao bella.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by obvious Child, posted 01-03-2008 2:36 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:06 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 165 of 241 (445823)
01-04-2008 12:37 AM


Obvious.
I have intermittent internet service tonight.
The rest of my reply will have to wait until tomorrow.

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 168 of 241 (446054)
01-04-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:06 AM


I, unlike you, know that their systems almost killed everyone.
It's not their system that I'm talking about. It's your delusional "coordinated truck bomb attack" that is sooooo 1950s.
Are you seriously suggesting that typhoon and oscars don't exist? That cruise missiles can't be launched off of cargo ships?
I haven't answered your questions about missile defense yet.
That Russia doesn't have the capacity to do this?
I have the capacity to mow down a few dozen shoppers at the local mall with an automatic weapon. That doesn't mean I am going to.
How can a nation launch a first strike attack with weapons they do not have?
They would have the weapons, dink. They would just be disassembled.
Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now. Plus if we lock down the parts, specifically the critical masses, there's not much they can do. Actually it's easier then that. If we went to entirely implosion type and destroyed all of the shaped charges and fort knoxed the machines to make them, there's nothing they can do.
This hasn't been proposed. This is just another example of one of your drug fueled reveries.
If a virtual system of this sort has been proposed by a reputable source, please. Provide a cite.
The fact that they'd get nuked back in a week.
Again. Assuming your delusions are somehow feasible, how would the U.S. respond if the Russians launched a coordinated truck bomb attack on nearly all of our facilities?
South Africa (here is where I again prove I know what I'm talking about and you are a ignorant talking head) after apartheid dismantled its secretive gun weapons (that's uranium based since you obviously don't know) due partially to its obsecence (sic) cost.
Dear. We haven't been discussing South Africa.
You are a master of the non sequitur.
Plus if everyone went to complete and total virtual arsenals, there would be no parts to steal other then the several ton machines necessary to produce the parts (along with the knowledge itself).
That is not the virtual system that has been proposed by anyone in a position of power.
The only virtual system that has been proposed is disassembly, a la Pakistan.
Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now.
The danger isn't that they will steal from us. The danger is that they will steal from an unsecured facility in Russia.
I notice that you haven't provided any proof of your claim that the USSR kept track of their WMD.
We can see whales from space are you're saying we can't figure out that the Russians are building a large number of weapons?
Underground facilities. A la North Korea.
But you do have to know where they are.
That isn't as difficult as you think. Any number of times, we have had a very good idea of the general area where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. If we were also pretty darn sure he had a nuke, we wouldn't hesitate to light his ass up.
Wipe out as you mean level everything, no. But to render the city useless and much of the surrounding area radioactive, a 400kt is rather overpowered. Several 20~50 kt weapons would be better. And they'd be cheaper too.
So what? You said millions would die. They wouldn't.
The reason terrorists haven't used a nuke is because they haven't had access to them.
Oh, but you don't know that. After all, you claim that Russian weapons are missing.
Not at all. My point, my fundamental point has been to remove weapons entirely.
You missed the point.
Those supposedly missing weapons could be in the hands of NSAs right now. Or maybe the Russians just squirreled them away.
If all weapons were disassembled, those weapons could be used by NSAs or Russia in your paranoid truck bomb fantasy. Hell, they could be used by any number of bad actors.
You need to answer 4 questions:
1. What makes you think Russia would attack? No more of your fevered imagination, buster. Cite reputable sources that feel a scenario such as the one you proposed is likely.
2. Why is predelegation necessary if, as you admit, a truck bomb would not wipe out Washington DC (leaving the line of succession intact)?
And, as a corollary, since you've mentioned the Joint Chiefs' predelegation twice, why would the Pentagon be exempt from a truck bomb?
3. Why do you think that it would be difficult to assemble/transport nukes out of sight of even our best spy satellites?
4. Why do you think that virtual system verification would be effective?
And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.
I agree. You're disturbed.
How does having no weapons in existence create more problems then having hair trigger systems which have almost wiped out all life on the planet numerous times?
I'm calling bullshit on this one. All life on this planet, hm? Cites, please.
Now. About missile defense.
First, let’s take a look at our current capabilities.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is an agency under the Department of Defense. Its mission is to develop, test and prepare for deployment a missile defense system. Using complementary interceptors, land-, sea-, air- and space-based sensors and battle management command and control systems, the missile defense system is able to engage all classes and ranges of ballistic missile threats. Using:
” 24 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) emplaced in silos in Alaska and California.
” 21 Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) sea-based interceptors.
” 7 Navy Aegis BMD Destroyers configured for the Long-Range
” 3 Navy Aegis BMD Cruisers and 7 Destroyers, armed with SM-3’s to engage short- to intermediate-range missiles, and also perform the LRS&T mission.
” 549 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles.
” A Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar capable of providing robust discrimination capabilities.
” Active upgraded early warning radars in California and the United Kingdom and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar in Alaska.
” 2 Forward-Based X-Band Radars (AN/TPY-2) delivered (one deployed to Japan).
” Initial Global Integrated Fire Control (GIFC) capability.
” A Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system on line at three Combatant Commands with situational nodes within the National Capital Region.
All of these systems are in place and operational.
Command and Control:
BMDS (Battle Management and Communications). ensures the critical flow of information for the survival of our nation, friends, and allies. It provides warfighters at both the strategic and tactical levels of command the capability to plan the ballistic missile defense fight while concurrently tracking all potential ballistic missile threats; directing weapons to engage on a distributed network; and pairing any sensor with the best available weapon system to defeat ballistic missile threats at any range, in any phase of flight, in all theaters, and with coalition partners.
The BMDS currently uses a variety of existing radars. Some are integral to individual Elements, or at fixed sites. Others are forward-based, such as the AN / TPY-2 radar which detects ballistic missiles early in their flight and provides precise tracking information for use by the BMDS. Employing a variety of sensor systems provides coverage and extended ranges for more sophisticated engagement strategies.
Detection:
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense uses a variety of satellites (Defense Support Program) and radars (Cobra Dane radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radars, Sea-Based X-Band radar, Forward-Based AN/TPY-2 radar, and the Aegis AN/SPY-1 Radar) to obtain information on launch warning, tracking, targeting, and discrimination via the BMDS Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications system and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Fire Control and Communications component. This information provides the Ground-Based Interceptor with the ability to locate, identify, and destroy the incoming ballistic missile warhead.
The first AN / TPY-2 radar has been forward-deployed to Shariki Air Defense Missile Site in Japan to provide early warning and a capability to search for and track threats to the U.S. homeland, friends and allies, and deployed U.S. forces. The radar will acquire, track, discriminate, classify, identify, and estimate the trajectory parameters of threat missiles and missile components. It will pass this target data to the Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control system for further dissemination as part of an integrated, layered defense system. Earlier detection with forward-based radars, coupled with layered sensors, will give the BMDS a continuous tracking and discrimination capability with more shot opportunities to engage the target, resulting in an increased probability of successful engagement.
Intermediate and Short Range Missile Defense:
Three Aegis cruisers and three Aegis destroyers, equipped with the latest “go-to-war” BMD-capable weapon system and armed with the Standard Missile-3 interceptors, are capable of intercepting short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense also serves as a forward-deployed sensor by extending the battlespace and providing early warning of an intercontinental ballistic missile launch.
Aegis sensors transmit track data to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense command center via the BMDS. This Long-Range Surveillance and Track capability assists in the defense of the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, by providing tracking data to cue other system sensors and initiate a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense engagement. This capability is resident on all BMD-equipped Aegis ship.
Intermediate and Long Range Missile Defense
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense uses a variety of satellites (Defense Support Program) and radars (Cobra Dane radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radars, Sea-Based X-Band radar, Forward-Based AN/TPY-2 radar, and the Aegis AN/SPY-1 Radar) to obtain information on launch warning, tracking, targeting, and discrimination via the BMDS Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications system and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Fire Control and Communications component. This information provides the Ground-Based Interceptor with the ability to locate, identify, and destroy the incoming ballistic missile warhead.
THAAD consists of four principle components: truck-mounted launchers, interceptors, radar, and fire control/communications. The launcher can rapidly fire and reload the interceptors and provide storage and transportation of the interceptors. The THAAD radar supports the full range of surveillance, tracking the target and guiding the interceptor during flight. THAAD’s Fire Control and Communications component provides the Element’s battle planning, fire control, and communication backbone, linking THAAD to the BMDS and other air and missile defense networks used by the Armed Services.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Element will provide the BMDS with rapidly deployable ground-based missile defense components that deepen, extend, and compliment the BMDS to enable any Combatant Commander to defeat short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles. THAAD is a land-based Element that has the capability to shoot down a ballistic missile, both inside and just outside the atmosphere, using “hit-to-kill” technology (directly hitting the incoming missile to destroy it), providing regional or limited area terminal defense. THAAD provides an effective defense against ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction by making it likely that their lethal payloads will be destroyed before reaching the ground.
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is the most mature Element of the BMDS. Now operational with the U.S. Army, this Element is a land-based system built on the proven Patriot air and missile defense infrastructure, making it easier to enhance system capability through upgrades of previously-fielded assets. As the best defense against short-range ballistic missiles, Patriot was deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, where it successfully engaged all threatening ballistic missiles within its scope of operation. The Under Secretary of Defense approved the transfer of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and realignment of the Medium Extended Air Defense System programs from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army in March 2003. provide 360-degree coverage on the battlefield. The system components will be linked to the BMDS’s Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications Element, including access to a broad range of sensors from across the Armed Services. It will also be integrated with other U.S. and allied systems. The MEADS will provide short-range defense for vital civilian and military assets, defend deployed troops, and provide continuous air and missile defense coverage for rapidly maneuvering forces.
Systems in development:
Multiple Kill Vehicle
Airborne Laser
Ballistic Missile Defense Space Systems
Kinetic Energy Interceptors
I have every confidence that these systems, in addition to those already online, will provide adequate missile defense.
All info from http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/faq.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:06 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:50 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 171 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 12:17 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 172 of 241 (446170)
01-05-2008 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 11:50 PM


Fix your links.
You've made the page go all wonky.
So therefore you agree. The Russians DO have the capacity to render succession useless.
No. Again. A remarkable talent for missing the point.
Your ignorance is appalling.
Babycakes, nowhere in your cites is there a definition of "virtual system". 2 cites to Amazon and 1 cite to Survival magazine? Hey. Is that anything like Soldier of Fortune?
Much to my chagrin, my University does not carry a subscription to Survival magazine, so I am unable to read the article.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a cite that I can actually read?
You assume that we wouldn't be able to tell that they were building large numbers of truck bombs.
Ding ding ding! Johnny, tell Obvious child what he's won!!!
If you are convinced that we can detect nuclear weaponry being assembled underground, how, praytell, did we manage to miss North Korea's entry into the nuclear club?
Why should I when you can't even prove you know the difference between a gun type and implosion type?
TRANSLATION: I am a puss and I haven't any cites. So I am going to bluster and fume and hope she doesn't notice.
Cites!!!
The one we fettered out with satellites?
First. Fetter: a shackle for the ankles or feet.
Unless you are suggesting that we somehow managed to disable the nukes from space, I don't think you meant "fettered".
Second. We "fettered" North Korea's nukes via seismographs, when they performed an underground test.
The only satellite data we had was "construction of some platforms and crates hundreds of miles from the possible test site, near a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon."
Or perhaps you have some satellite data you'd like to share. Please, do tell.
True, it's not that difficult...
End of story.
We justified bombing Japan to prevent loss of American lives. This wouldn't be any different.
Are you saying that a 400kt used in DC wouldn't kill millions?
That's right. Did you even bother to look at the link I provided?
Well that depends on what you think of Ol' Drunkard may he rest in peace.
No. That depends on the evidence you have to offer that 100 1kt weapons are missing.
Cites?
Possibly, but you are again ignoring one of key points I made about disassembly.
But that's not how disassembly has worked in the past, precious. See also: Pakistan.
God you annoy me.
Thank you!
1) The Bomb itself would be part of a larger attack.
So. The. F***. What.
You have yet to demonstrate that the entire line of succession would be destroyed.
You think all of these people...
* The Vice President
* Speaker of the House
* President pro tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security
...all hang out in the exact same spot at the exact same time?
2) Other members of the succession would be killed at the same time across the country.
So. You are proposing that, due to their remarkable intelligence gathering capabilities, these wiley Ruskies know the exact location of all of these people on any given day?
3) At the same time as the bombs went off, short range (read cruise) would be launched as well as weapons from Oscars and Typhoons.
You still haven't answered one of my questions:
1. What makes you think Russia would attack? No more of your fevered imagination, buster. Cite reputable sources that feel a scenario such as the one you proposed is likely.
Several hundred or several thousand? Impossible.
Your nightmare scenario doesn't require hundreds.
TRANSLATION: Virtual systems do nothing to prevent a nuclear attack. Dozens of nuclear weapons can be assembled, shipped to the U.S., positioned via trucks, and take out vital military and government facilities.
By then, the retaliatory strike would have already been launched.
A week later. Remember! It's a virtual system!
Thus they built up HUGE amounts of bio weapons. We know this as we can now properly verify ...
Cites?
Here's my cite:
Bioweapons treaty in disarray as US blocks plans for verification
Nature 414, 675 (13 December 2001)
Now, if you disassembled (i already mentioned this, you just pretended it didn't exist) these weapons and destroyed the shaped charges ...
You just keep dreamin'!
1983 had 59,938 weapons.
I didn't ask: Is there enough nuclear weaponry to destroy life on earth?
I asked: You claim that accidents (faulty systems, etc.) have endangered "the entire planet". Where is your proof?
Obviously you haven't looked at the success rates of the missile shield. or how its tests are cheats.
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Cites?
Your first link is 8 years old.
Your second link is 6 years old.
I provided up to the date info.
Plus a real Missile attack will involve a thousand+ weapons. Our missile defense cannot handle that.
Two things.
1. You still have yet to provide evidence that Russia is likely to attack.
2. Cites?
It's amusing watching you being a Dubya Cheerleader.
Dubya can kiss my shiny metal ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:50 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:16 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024