Missile interceptor test...

[fairsheet]

Today, we're conducting a test over the Pacific, of a missile intended to interdict another missile. I've no heard yet, whether or not it was successful.

Anyway....this idea seems like one with a limited window of opportunity. Currently, offensive missiles aren't designed to avoid a counter missile. But, if we can design a missile that will intercept an incoming missile, I'm sure we can design one that would avoid an intercepting missile.

And as in football, the ball carrier has an advantage over the defender, because he's the one who makes the first move.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Then again, the receivers would be at a distinct disadvantage if the defense had skeet shooters in the backfield.

 

[fairsheet]

Currently, offensive missiles target a fixed point while defensive missles target a missile. If the latter can be made to work, then an offensive missile can designed, that would elude the defensive missile, whilst on its way to its final destination.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Currently, offensive missiles target a fixed point while defensive missles target a missile. If the latter can be made to work, then an offensive missile can designed, that would elude the defensive missile, whilst on its way to its final destination.

Of course. That said, "can be" and "has been" are two different things. This evolution of battlefield equipment has been going on for millennia.

 

[fairsheet]

Of course. That said, "can be" and "has been" are two different things. This evolution of battlefield equipment has been going on for millennia.

The only reason this one struck me so, is that it looks like an example of something becoming obsolete, even before it's been perfected.

 

[NightSwimmer]

The only reason this one struck me so, is that it looks like an example of something becoming obsolete, even before it's been perfected.

Yep. That's what they said about the Apple Newton.

 

[EatTheRich]

Clearly the idea behind this is to establish a limited window during which the U.S. is safe from nuclear retaliation, and use that window to launch a series of first strikes that will serve as a political "game changer."

 

[NightSwimmer]

Clearly the idea behind this is to establish a limited window during which the U.S. is safe from nuclear retaliation, and use that window to launch a series of first strikes that will serve as a political "game changer."

Clearly you have a very unique view of the world. Does it come with voices?

 

[EatTheRich]

I don't see what's so absurd about this analysis. As the TP pointed out, it is irrational to see it as a strategic advantage from the perspective of conventional wisdom. Military action seems like the logical resort of an empire in decline that has overwhelming military superiority (especially in nuclear weapons), but a declining share of economic and political influence. The U.S. has never pledged not to launch a nuclear first strike (as did the Soviet Union during the Cold War, for example), it has in fact threatened nuclear strikes in a variety of confrontations, including, when it had a nuclear monopoly, such unimportant issues as an election in Uruguay, and it is the only country to have actually waged nuclear war.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I don't see what's so absurd about this analysis.

I wouldn't expect you to do so.