Actually, boost phase occurs for quite some time. It's not a matter of shooting them down just outside the silo or platform. Early warning systems can usually detect a launch within 5 or so seconds of it happening. The actual intercept would happen pretty darn close to the n. pole if it was coming from the former soviet republic... Also, nailing the inbound ICBM during boost also solves the MIRV issue (or non-issue if you will).
Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:08 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: No Defense over Canada If the intercept is during the boost phase then the interceptors have to be fairly close - Off the coast of Korea or Japan in the case of NK scuds. If its reentry then Alaska. On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:25:12 -0500, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The MIRV is an issue, I agree, however the purpose of the missile defense > would be to destroy the missile prior the re-entry, before the split occurs, > with the theory being that the individual warheads would burn up. > > We already put a lot of money into locating missing nukes, and protecting > the ones they have now. > > I thought the number of nukes that were missing were just a handful. > > I think we should do both. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:47 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: No Defense over Canada > > > > That's true, but are we expecting nukes from Russia soon? > > > > Put another way, which should be a higher priority based on cost and > > feasibility: > > > > 1.) Protecting against ICBMs fired from Russia (or anywhere)? > > (Remeber, all Russian and NATO warheads will be MIRV'd for which there > > is NO protection even if our billion dollar bungle worked as > > advertised.) > > > > or > > > > 2.) Protecting against a WMD smuggled into the US and detonated in a major > > city? > > > > I'd say we'd be much better off putting our money into partnering with > > Russia to locate destory all unaccounted for nukes. I think there's > > like 400+, each capable of leveling a major city! > > > > Canada's "warning" was rhetorical to let the US know how stupid it is > > in even pursuing an ICBM shield when there's hundreds of unaccounted > > for nukes; especially after 9/11 when we learned that our enemies are > > unconventional. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148721 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
