Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Trump will pull NATO apart and make it better just you watch.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
    I'd rethink that if I were you. The US has deployed THAAD in a few places, has developed (although later cancelled) various laser tech for downing missiles and the Russians have had anti-missile batteries for decades.

    What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life?
    The flipside is what good are very large, very complicated, very expensive missile systems when their launch pads are incredibly difficult to conceal and defend?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

    However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
    To defend a country from an attack or invasion, a nuclear bomb is the ultimate deterrent, having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
    Keep the nuclear deterrents functional and ahead of the opponent's air defense.

    I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?
    Aircraft carriers are not incapable of defending from a ballistic missile though. I guarantee you there's all sorts of technologies being developed in the background. Maybe something similar to APS systems used in some tanks?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The first duty of any government is to guarantee the safety of it's people.
    Their first duty is to maintain their hegemony over their legal or de facto borders. Governments generally don't give a toss about people unless it's in their interest.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    2% of the country's earning is not a ridiculous sum to ask for. It doesn't matter if that country is poor, all NATO is asking is that they take that requirement and responsibility seriously. Otherwise, don't join.
    Defence spending should not be linked to percentages, it should be linked to how effective the spending is and what is proportional to the country's needs. I don't think the US or NATO should be dictating to individual states on how to spend their budget. After all, it is not a legally binding agreement.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I try to inject a touch of reality.

    User to be in both, though been out of the former a few years, and the latter a few more years.
    Oh really. .. what did you do in them?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buonaparte)
    Defence spending should not be linked to percentages, it should be linked to how effective the spending is and what is proportional to the country's needs. I don't think the US or NATO should be dictating to individual states on how to spend their budget. After all, it is not a legally binding agreement.
    That's too arbitrary when governments can change. The percentage is the fairest way of doing it - and has been the chosen way since NATO began.

    (Original post by cbreef)
    Oh really. .. what did you do in them?
    I was, briefly, an officer in the RAF.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Aircraft carriers are not incapable of defending from a ballistic missile though. I guarantee you there's all sorts of technologies being developed in the background. Maybe something similar to APS systems used in some tanks?
    I'm not an expert in the matter but can't the AEGIS system shoot down ballistic missiles?


    SS
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That's too arbitrary when governments can change. The percentage is the fairest way of doing it - and has been the chosen way since NATO began.



    I was, briefly, an officer in the RAF.
    How briefly? Were you kicked out?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    I'm not an expert in the matter but can't the AEGIS system shoot down ballistic missiles?


    SS
    yes it can but it's not a widespread piece of tech. Plus it can't shoot down ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles) due to poor range.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    I'm not an expert in the matter but can't the AEGIS system shoot down ballistic missiles?


    SS
    I believe it was designed to be more geared towards theatre missiles rather than ICBMs, the limitation in the system would be the missiles it has rather than the radar.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Yeah it can. But it's not on every ship. Not even close.
    It's used by a few Asian and European countries, but it's not widespread
    I read your post completely wrong. Apologies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    How briefly? Were you kicked out?
    Long enough to know / remember things.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well. It is. The US currently spends about $8-10b a year on its space related projects. And that's not including NASA (who's budget is a further $20b).
    It's all relative - US defence spending last year was more than $600bn, so NASA's pretty small compared to that - plus, judging from what we see in the media, there's usually quite a fight to hang on to NASA budget, whereas 'defence' seems to be a bottomless pit into which the US pours gigantic sums almost without consideration.

    The real thread should be "Reduce Defence Spending". The world simply cannot go on ploughing such a large share of production, income and human capital into war fighting and weapons systems. We desperately need to divert this money into environmental issues, climate change, space exploration, human health and many other important issues.

    Behind the thinly disguised talk of 'defence' lies a constant preparation for war, with the threat of it always hovering in the background. The wars of the last century were appalling catastrophes and any future major war would be still worse. We can't go on planning this as a race.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's all relative - US defence spending last year was more than $600bn, so NASA's pretty small compared to that - plus, judging from what we see in the media, there's usually quite a fight to hang on to NASA budget, whereas 'defence' seems to be a bottomless pit into which the US pours gigantic sums almost without consideration.

    The real thread should be "Reduce Defence Spending". The world simply cannot go on ploughing such a large share of production, income and human capital into war fighting and weapons systems. We desperately need to divert this money into environmental issues, climate change, space exploration, human health and many other important issues.

    Behind the thinly disguised talk of 'defence' lies a constant preparation for war, with the threat of it always hovering in the background. The wars of the last century were appalling catastrophes and any future major war would be still worse. We can't go on planning this as a race.
    The guy said "a fraction should be put into space", I showed that - literally - a fraction is.

    I'd love it if it was the case that defence spending was irrelevant, but the world isn't that place. Ask the Falkland islanders if they don't want defence. Or the people of Syria. Ask the Rwandans whether they'd rather have had some decent defence in 1994. Or the Bosnians and Serbs in 95.

    While the amounts are large on paper, in reality they amount to fractions of the total spend of any government. In our case, technically less than 2% of the GDP. More money is wasted in the NHS than is spent on defence in this country.

    Yes, any future full scale war would be bad. But not defending those at risk would be worse.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I'd rethink that if I were you. The US has deployed THAAD in a few places, has developed (although later cancelled) various laser tech for downing missiles and the Russians have had anti-missile batteries for decades.



    The flipside is what good are very large, very complicated, very expensive missile systems when their launch pads are incredibly difficult to conceal and defend?

    ICBMs can fly above mach 20 which is practically impossible to defend from. US military leaders themselves have said that they could only defend from top ICBM if they knew the exact projectory beforehand. It is also very important to shoot it down at an early or mid flight stage as it is easiest. If an ICBM was fired over the pacific etc. it would be impossible for someone to shoot it down without knowing it was to be fird days in advance.
    These ICBMs change trajectory in mid flight and involve numerous guidance systems like satellites, lasers etc. to prevent 1 system from being interfered with and stopping it.


    The americans tested a missile defense shield against an ICBM that worked, however they knew the exact trajectory beforehand.

    How would someone attack a launch pad ? Immense air defense would defend from an aerial attack. If an ICBM or other missile was used to take it out then a counter strike would be used.
    Militaries have extensive underground networks to conceal warheads and nobody fully knows where any of them are, these are also extremely well defended and near impregnable.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Aircraft carriers are not incapable of defending from a ballistic missile though. I guarantee you there's all sorts of technologies being developed in the background. Maybe something similar to APS systems used in some tanks?
    How to defend from a missile that constantly changes trajectory, is guided by multiple systems, travels at around mach 25 and is landing vertically ?
    Also there are technologies being developed to prevent the defense, like the recent chinese quantum satellite being released.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

    However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
    To defend a country from an attack or invasion, a nuclear bomb is the ultimate deterrent, having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
    Keep the nuclear deterrents functional and ahead of the opponent's air defense.

    I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?

    "While nobody can defend from an ICBM"
    Yes they can, many countries have the capability. just search ICBM defense.

    having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
    Actually it means a lot. Having the power to bomb Strategically and have a platform to provide Re armament and Repairs and many other services provides a massive amount of power to Countries.
    Sure you can Nuke a Area in Afghanistan that is known to have a Massive terrorist base but When you add the civilian casualties and environmental and social consequences it is not realistically going to happen.
    But when you have a plane that can continue to fire missiles at trucks carrying Weapons and Destroy manufacturing plants with minimal or no civilian casualties that is a far better option.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    ICBMs can fly above mach 20 which is practically impossible to defend from. US military leaders themselves have said that they could only defend from top ICBM if they knew the exact projectory beforehand. It is also very important to shoot it down at an early or mid flight stage as it is easiest. If an ICBM was fired over the pacific etc. it would be impossible for someone to shoot it down without knowing it was to be fird days in advance.
    These ICBMs change trajectory in mid flight and involve numerous guidance systems like satellites, lasers etc. to prevent 1 system from being interfered with and stopping it.


    The americans tested a missile defense shield against an ICBM that worked, however they knew the exact trajectory beforehand.

    How would someone attack a launch pad ? Immense air defense would defend from an aerial attack. If an ICBM or other missile was used to take it out then a counter strike would be used.
    Militaries have extensive underground networks to conceal warheads and nobody fully knows where any of them are, these are also extremely well defended and near impregnable.
    Why else put so much money into stealth aircraft...? And PGMs? Put 2 and 2 together.

    The US also has, and has had, systems that show launches of missiles anywhere on the globe pretty much as they happen. That's been a known capability of theirs for decades.

    And no, various radar systems on satellites render hiding things underground pretty redundant, bar a very few freak geological features. Again, that's been a known capability for decades.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.
    Guys, you're missing something:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

    Shelling a city is a war crime. That war from the link took place after the Georgians shelled cities, and Russian soldiers. So what did the Russians? Destroyed the Georgian army, secured the Ossetia and fell back.

    Some weapons are maintained in order to make sure that an enemy will NOT use it either.
    State to state war is unlikely for political and economical reasons. Certainly not because somebody has good missles. Their only purpose is to scare potential enemies and make sure that they'll never push you to an edge.

    I take it that political science is not your course. But it used to be mine.

    (Original post by mcneill98)
    I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?
    There are ways to stop such missles. Will they work is another issue. But this is exactly one of the reasons that Russians decided to take the Crimea fromu Ukraine. They had rockets out there, that cover the Black Sea.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's all relative - US defence spending last year was more than $600bn, so NASA's pretty small compared to that - plus, judging from what we see in the media, there's usually quite a fight to hang on to NASA budget, whereas 'defence' seems to be a bottomless pit into which the US pours gigantic sums almost without consideration.

    The real thread should be "Reduce Defence Spending". The world simply cannot go on ploughing such a large share of production, income and human capital into war fighting and weapons systems. We desperately need to divert this money into environmental issues, climate change, space exploration, human health and many other important issues.

    Behind the thinly disguised talk of 'defence' lies a constant preparation for war, with the threat of it always hovering in the background. The wars of the last century were appalling catastrophes and any future major war would be still worse. We can't go on planning this as a race.
    As much as I don't want to sound like I'm advocating war, the greatest leaps forward in human history have generally been in times of conflict. The amount of technological & in even social progress made in the Second World War exceeded any other point in history.
    Would the exploration of space have happened so quickly if the Cold War hadn't have happened? Both the USA & USSR competed to out do each other during it.
    It comes down to the matter that mankind tends to do better when facing adversity rather than trying to co-operate, perhaps unfortunately.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.