American Presidents that were shot right.

[J-Luck]

Are you taking the piss mate. You can't give the source of your claim that the latest test was successful as you described because you are plain wrong mate. You also said that US aircraft would intercept the incoming ICBMs right: WHICH AIRCRAFT?????

I DIDNT SAY THEY WERE SUCCESFFUL!!! 5/8 IS NOT CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL! READ YOUR OWN FLAWED ARTICLE, IT'S IN THERE. THEN GO TO CNN, FOX NEWS, and such! They will back up that part. Did you get the message in that page I left you?

[J-Luck]

Check it lol http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Second_U..._fails#Sources

[nutter]

J-Luck, so you were talking about THAAD. That system is NOT operational mate. So, now we have discounted THAAD, what aircraft or missiles are you claiming would intercept the incoming ICBMs?

[J-Luck]

Did you see... lol it's kinda funny. Why won't you aknowledge me? Feel bad that anytime you've used wiki anything it wasn't really a valid source of information??

[nutter]

Did you see... lol it's kinda funny. Why won't you aknowledge me? Feel bad that anytime you've used wiki anything it wasn't really a valid source of information??

No, it isn't changed mate.

Anyway, you cannot point to a single operational US aircraft or missile system that would actually intercept an incoming ICBM can you mate?

[ck5]

Lol mate, you trying to come across as a pillock or sonething mate? Arrested for saying that? Get a life mate. And let's not forget that the US was actively trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein at a time right.

No, actually it's the fault of the UK. I you may recall, you did say that America is still just a colony of the UK, and therefore any actions taken by the colony is the action taken by the parent country. In this case, the UK.

So by your own statement, the UK is responsible, not the US.

You need to learn how to discern who is really at fault....

As for your comment about picking off the POTUS, I second Tant's comment. And I fail to see how anyone in another country should have any business deciding who runs America.

I know if I was in office and someone from the UK tried to pick off the POTUS or VPOTUS, I could handle a couple of Tomahawks nailed Big Ben right about tea time.

[nutter]

lol. I never said the US is still just a colony of UK, that's just plain silly. A bit like your point mate.

[J-Luck]

YES IT IS CHANGED!!! IT says " Hi Nutter Butter!!!" Oh wait... someone re-changed it... probably you! Ill re-do it for ya.

[nutter]

Yes we could against those missiles. Not only do we have more, many more than most countries combined, but we also have missile defense.
Surface to air, air to air interceptors. You must get your facts straight "mate".
It's like that "right".

J-Luck, in the last few pages you've kept evading simple direct questions. WHAT operational missile defence missiles and aircraft does the US have that would intercept an incoming ICBM mate?

[eXcessiveForce]

For those who are interestedhttp://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf


I believe the AEGIS system is capable of bringing down and ICBM

[nutter]

For those who are interestedhttp://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf


I believe the AEGIS system is capable of bringing down and ICBM

no mate, that is designed to intercept TBMs not ICBMs, much like the Isreali Arrow or the Patriot PAC-3 or Aster. ICBMs are simply too fast for it to intercept. If you look carefully, you will realise that it isn't even designed to intercept ICBMs.

Even the THAAD is primarily designed to intercept IRBMs and TBMs and its ability to intercept ICBMs will be open to question.

[eXcessiveForce]

Most common, but now deprecated: The U.S. ground-based nationwide antimissile system in development since the 1990s. In 2003 this system was renamed to Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), to differentiate it from other missile defense programs, such as space-based, sea-based, laser, or high-altitude intercept programs. As of 2006, this system is operational with limited capability. It is designed to intercept nuclear-armed ICBMs in the mid-course phase, using interceptor missiles launched from Alaska. They use non-nuclear kinetic warheads.

[nutter]

Excessive force, not sure where you are quoting mate (source please) but that is a description of the THAAD system not Aegis upgrades, and it is NOT operational yet. It won't even achieve initial operating ability until 2007 innit. We covered THAAD several posts ago.

As a side note, Russia demonstrated a maneuvering reentry vehicle which would basically make THAAD obcelete if they deployed it. Fortunately for US they aren't thought to be deploying this new technology right.

[eXcessiveForce]

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/gmd_usa.html


according to several sites, GMD is operational and capable of defending against an ICBM.


I would be of the opinion that there are measures that are available that are still classified and therefore not available to the public, such as directed energy weapons.

While the current system may still leave a lot to be desired, it is operational

[nutter]

Mate, "currently installing" is not the same as operational. On a side note, we are talking about 10 missiles currently being installed. Even one Chinese SSBN carries 16 missiles which may or may not be upgraded to carry MRVs, but either way that's 6 interceptors short of a picnic mate.

As for "black projects" that would safe the day, no, don't buy that. The Airborne Laser project is public knowledge right down to the tests. If the technology was already operation in secret, the DoD wouldn't be spending megabucks on that mate.