Cold war 2?

[KCHughes]

Is nobody going to heed my advice? Seriously, there is nothing to worry about. "Cold War 2" is a myth.

[StrOwez]

"We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.

 

 

 

Top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iran's missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.

[hohto]

Is nobody going to heed my advice? Seriously, there is nothing to worry about. "Cold War 2" is a myth.

 

 

 

But we could be heading to it if things keep going like this.

[mrmyk]

i'm not sure a cold war would occur really as well..we know it didn't actually accomplish anything last time nor would anything happen this time. Also due to the theory of M.A.D a nuclear war shouldn't happen. Just hope it wont happen :(

[assassin_696]

There will never be nuclear war. Everyone knows the outcome of that. Everyone dies, the planet itself gets destroyed, and it's game over all because you couldn't settle your differences, and no one wants to play that game. It's why the Cold War never happened...Well, it never, uhh...heated up.

 

 

 

It came pretty close, and all it takes is one mistake...

 

 

 

The only way to secure peace is unilateral disarment, as hard as that may seem for the power crazed nation states.

[Nom]

The whole world is paranoid :roll:

 

 

 

There is absolutely no point in worrying about anything like this, no country is going to be stupid enough to initiate nuclear hostilities. Everyone here is going on predicting what the consequences will be of Russia launching nukes at the shields, blah blah, it's not going to happen because if someone doesn't survive to completely obliterate them then they've destroyed the world.

[mrmyk]

There will never be nuclear war. Everyone knows the outcome of that. Everyone dies, the planet itself gets destroyed, and it's game over all because you couldn't settle your differences, and no one wants to play that game. It's why the Cold War never happened...Well, it never, uhh...heated up.

 

 

 

It came pretty close, and all it takes is one mistake...

 

 

 

The only way to secure peace is unilateral disarment, as hard as that may seem for the power crazed nation states.

 

 

 

i think in some ways disarment is good but in other ways it is bad. Even if all governments disarmed there is always the chance that a group who is not part of the government can get ahold of 1 and reak havock without anything in their path.

[malo2]

someone mind filling me in on the "Estonian crisis"? and how old is this?

[Ambassadar]

Anyways if you ask me, this kind of shield systems are just a waste of money. The explosion will happen anyways and with this kind of shields they'd just infect other important places. Bet Berlin wouldn't like to get too much radioactive stuff from a missile which was aimed to London. Also all shields can be passed: just bomb the shield with few nukes and voilÃÆÃâÃâá: no shield.

 

It isn't a literal force shield or anything hohto. It would be a series of radar stations to monitor nuclear launches and track the missiles. Then there would be anti missile batteries made up of missiles designed to shoot down ICBM's or lasers that could scramble the electronics of an ICBM or eventually burn holes in it to destroy it that would render the ICBM's useless. The ICBM wouldn't explode. A nuclear reaction isn't that easy to start. It takes some precise engineering to detonate a nuke.

 

 

 

Defence is the best attack (and visa versa), the less you can be hurt the more you can hurt.

 

 

 

I think the saying you are looking for is the best defense is a good offense.

[sycosis5]

if russia are an inteligent country and i know they are they wont start this i mean we have blair and bush sending people to iraq and there geting killed i mean instead of starting a war try and end the current one

[hohto]

It isn't a literal force shield or anything hohto. It would be a series of radar stations to monitor nuclear launches and track the missiles. Then there would be anti missile batteries made up of missiles designed to shoot down ICBM's or lasers that could scramble the electronics of an ICBM or eventually burn holes in it to destroy it that would render the ICBM's useless. The ICBM wouldn't explode. A nuclear reaction isn't that easy to start. It takes some precise engineering to detonate a nuke.

 

 

 

Used the word "shield" as a word to describe the defensing system :P No I wasn't thinking of a gigantic rune kite shield being build to Poland or Czech.

 

 

 

I'd like to hear how well has that system passed all tests (so it wouldn't be same kind of a lunatic idea as the Star Wars project), could it be re-engineered, why can't the bombs be redone and how many simultaneous nukes could it stop?

[Ambassadar]

All the worries about nuclear fallout from blowing up a nuke en route shouldn't be worried about. The impact is going to happen in space.

 

 

 

I'd like to hear how well has that system passed all tests (so it wouldn't be same kind of a lunatic idea as the Star Wars project),

 

I know there have been tests where they did shoot down a missile with another missile. That was a couple of years ago I think so it is a work in progress but the technology is there and it will only improve.

 

 

 

could it be re-engineered

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

 

 

why can't the bombs be redone and how many simultaneous nukes could it stop?

 

To answer this you need to first know how a nuclear bomb explodes. Fission bombs are detonated by reaching critical mass in a piece of plutonium or uranium. This is accomplished by creating a perfect explosion around the ore that creates a uniform shock wave to start the chain reaction or else by a detonator that fires one piece of ore into another at very high speed. Fusion bombs are tougher to detonate and I think they require a fission blast to reach the energy requirements to start the fusion reaction. Somehow some way you have to reach critical mass to start the reaction and if a missile blows up whatever process you have to create that then the bomb won't go off. If they could design a system where it would explode if certain situations were met like an object coming within a certain range of it or something then yeah I guess you could do that but the interceptions are going to be happening in space so it would be kinda pointless.

 

 

 

The how many simultaneous nukes could it stop is most likely a classified question. My guess is we have no idea what they already have developed. There's no telling. I know they were making some cool laser beams that could potentially shoot down stuff but I haven't kept up with it in a few years.

 

 

 

More on nukes and missile defense:

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb1.htm

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense.htm

[Satenza]

Putin isn't some radical extremist. He understands and even critisised America's forceful tactics. He is pissed with America's pushing and he wants it to stop. He won't launch a missile at Europe to make it stop, he values defence.

[Defender2516]

I'm not to sure why Russia is "worried" about spying as we can already do that with satalites.

 

 

 

Trust me, the stuff that they show on the military channel is NOTHING compared to what we really have hidden.

 

 

 

I am a bit curious though. Since America Defends Isreal, and their getting pounded by 100+ rockets a week, i'm suprised we haven't set up anti-missle defenses there.. they really need them bad.

 

 

 

As for Russia, I would never trust them ever.. nor assume what judgements they will take. Not every person in power is sane.

 

 

 

Look at Iran.. its clearly obvious that once they obtain a nuke, they WILL fire it at Isreal, they want them dead at any cost, even if it kills them.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[warri0r45]

Why in the name of God does anyone need nuclear weapons nowadays? :lol:

 

 

 

We never needed them but we do now. Mutually assured destruction.

 

 

 

Thats an awful strategy, lets look at North Korea, are they being deterred-no.

 

 

 

Short of a leader being clinically insane and his/her subordinates being the same, M.A.D. assures we don't annihalate the biosphere. If north kora fire one off, you can say buh-buy to a whole country. It's not about deterrance from making the things - it's deterrance from firing them.

[rocketman089]

Short of a leader being clinically insane and his/her subordinates being the same, M.A.D. assures we don't annihalate the biosphere. If north kora fire one off, you can say buh-buy to a whole country. It's not about deterrance from making the things - it's deterrance from firing them.

 

Problem is that the only way of discouraging them is to have a bigger stockpile yourself.

[Ambassadar]

I am a bit curious though. Since America Defends Isreal, and their getting pounded by 100+ rockets a week, i'm suprised we haven't set up anti-missle defenses there.. they really need them bad.

 

 

 

The type rockets Hezbollah fires are short range smaller rockets and don't stay airborne very long. The missile defense system is made for taking down large Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles that go into space and take half an hour or more to get to their target.

 

 

 

The smaller amount of time the missiles are in the air that Hezbollah fires, the fact they don't go into space, and how much smaller they are makes it a lot different problem than the "missile defense shield" that was being talked about earlier.

[das1330]

Putin is just trying to act tough because it gets him better ratings in the polls. the system is effective in shooting down up to 5 missiles, but the 6000+ russia has would overwhelm the system. the interceptor missiles themselves have no warhead aboard, just an aluminum block. they are designed to hit a missile and break it up, not explode it. as far as kill rates, the missiles are about 90% ~ effective in tests.

[hohto]

Putin is just trying to act tough because it gets him better ratings in the polls.

 

 

 

He already is pretty popular and if he serves a new term, it won't really matter how well has he done in ratings. If he got a new term, they'd need to change their laws and that law change would pretty much mean the same as him automaticly being pushed for a new term.