| Author |
Message |
|
AIr-Strike31
|
 Posted: Apr 08, 2005 - 12:07 AM
|
 
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 31, 2005 - 05:26 AM
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
I agree with TC, I don't think that IBCMs are our biggest threat. In my opinion its not likely, I think we should still be considering, the possibility of another terrorist attack, if anything.
Oh, and nukes don't make me to nervous either, like TC said. It's idiots with nukes that make me nervous. (lol)
Thanks guys!  |
_________________
Striker-out!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 20, 2013 - 2:32 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
locum
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2005 - 01:28 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005 - 02:20 AM
Posts: 132
Status: Offline
|
| What a waste of money!! Kill ratio= 50%?? You will need 100% and that is unrealistic. Yep a lasershot with the YAL-1A costs US$ 1,000, that's cheap. They started the Airborne Laser program with a budget of 1.1 billion USD, it stands now at 2.2 billion. In 2003, a live firing at a Scud was planned. It did not happen, it's not going to happen in the coming years even maybe not at all. Mutual assured destruction is the best insurance against a nuke attack. Though a Mini Missile Defense system can be useful against accidentally fired missiles or an attack with a few missiles fired from coutries like Iran, Pakistan or N.-Korea. |
_________________
Nulla tenaci invia est via.
Tzaruch shemirah, hasof bahr
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat1
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2005 - 05:09 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 07, 2004 - 05:38 AM
Posts: 235
Status: Offline
|
| Well, the kill ratio when up a few days ago. In all fairness, the US is trying to keep ahead before potential threats aquire nuclear ICBM capabilty. Hopefully MSD will be usefull by this time. It's still a mystery to me why the decision to deploy and then test. It's scary to think about. Do either N. Korea or Iran have nuclear delivery capabilty? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
