Read Dub's link, it explains how the ABM could be used to block remaining missiles after a first strike against China or Russia. Another possibility is that we are taking a 'trust mad against non-religious fundamentalists' and 'trust ABM against religious fundamentalists that believe they go to heaven if they die trying to kill us' because the latter won't have the ability to overwhelm the ABM shield, probably ever if we add to ABM more than they add to their ICBMs, assuming we keep spending more money then them on defense, which is a certainty obviously, which may keep our ABM numbers + tech more advanced than the religious fundamentalist's ICBMs.
Missile Defense
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
- Status
Read Dub's link, it explains how the ABM could be used to block remaining missiles after a first strike against China or Russia. Another possibility is that we are taking a 'trust mad against non-religious fundamentalists' and 'trust ABM against religious fundamentalists that believe they go to heaven if they die trying to kill us' because the latter won't have the ability to overwhelm the ABM shield, probably ever if we add to ABM more than they add to their ICBMs, assuming we keep spending more money then them on defense, which is a certainty obviously, which may keep our ABM numbers + tech more advanced than the religious fundamentalist's ICBMs.
At this point in time, trusting the ABM system to provide protection after a first strike would be suicide, because it is just nowhere near reliable enough.
Russia has ABM too, the 'Galosh' system around Moscow. It works, because it uses a tactical nuke detonated in the upper atmosphere to destroy inbounds. It doesn't have to intercept accurately. It's pragmatic, better to have a small nuke detonate high in the atmosphere, than a big one at ground level.
The US system requires a very accurate intercept, which is proving a very hard task. If even one Nuke got through it would be a disaster. 9/11 showed us what panic and disarray can be caused by the destruction of a few buildings in a built up area, a Nuke landing could never be considered victory, even if the opposition cannot launch more.
If was a hypothetical discussion in that link anyway, the US aren't likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against China or Russia, and if they did, I think the International community, previous allies, might have something to say about that.
It's not about the US nuking russia or china for no reason and hoping to survive, it's about making Russian and China scared that the US might do it so they will not be tempted to be militarily aggressive in their regions. And why do you say the moscow defense works, are you aware of test results and failure rates? If the US ABM works 2 out of 3 times, but the Moscow defense net works 1 out 150, or if Russia has openings in its early warning system that can be exploited to knock it out because it requires a centralized, possibly decapitated in a first strike authority or some other factor, then you couldn't say that theirs works or that ours is relatively a failure. I think US intelligence is of the opinion that Moscow's defenses are on the whole so underfunded and under-maintained that nothing high tech can be relied upon to work, and in the future this will be to the point that it's a non-factor in international affairs, and that China's never were any good and will probably not improve. High tech things like missiles have a finite unmaintained life span, and after a certain point you can for certain say none of it will work, and an ABM could be because of quantum luck of one missile working or whatever. I'm not a missile expert and neither are you probably, so you must admit this is possible and seems to fit the facts a little. I always thought the ABM was for Iran and suicide-enemies that have almost no missiles that may launch an unpreventable strike just to get to heaven, but the first strike thing looks plausible after reading that link.
Oh, I think we all know they'd have something to say about it, do they ever not have something to say..but I digress. When you have a sucessful technological society, technology seeds technology, causing each generation to be exponentially or orders of magnitudes better in every regard than the previous, etc, other countries won't benefit because their lack of money insures that their tech-ability and know-how will be drastrically reduced eventually and ours will be drastically superior, not today, but eventually, maybe 10 years from now I would say. ABM could be developed to the point that nothing could get through, and decoy detetion science improved until decoys would be the maginot line, if the technology keeps seeding better technology while we keep pouring in funding while everybody else has to abandon advancement and probably even maintainance of out-dated and potentially useless against future US tech, missile tech one day. Most people wouldn't want to believe this right now, but I believe it does fit the situation well, and that can't be denied, whether the future will absolutely go down that road might be hard to tell for people like us, but it's a possibility we should acknowledge, and one the US govt would aim for as well.
On a related note, I wonder why the US doesn't implement something like the Russian shield, but instead of high-altitude detonations, why not detonate nukes in space next to the incoming warheads? They must not be in space long enough, or could easily be changed to fly thru the atmosphere more, anyone know? It would be safe and give us the option of surviving an unlikely though possible massive first strike by Russia if it could work..probably not useful for some reason though..
Say what? If the USA has no intention of using nukes, it won't prevent a foreign Govt from a course of action. If they do intend to, they must be prepared for the reprisals, and there would be massive reprisals. Think 9/11 every day.
Yes, two recent success of the Russian system;
http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/12/test_of_abm_interceptor.shtml
Whereas the US ABM system is still in development (Galosh has been in operation for a very long time) and is no use against MIRVing warheads. Some of the recent successes used balloons as decoys, or no decoys at all. Hardly representative of a real attack.
If those were the numbers, but those aren't the numbers. Moscow has an operational missile defense system The US has a system in test. The proposed US system would breach the 1972 ABM treaty, btw.
IF again.
Let's revisit this discussion if and when the US has a working ABM system that covers all of the US states, and has a capability to destroy all land based nuclear launch platforms, permament and mobile, and all submarines before a retaliatory strike can take place. The subs and mobile platforms rather being the fly in the ointment. We may not have unilateral MAD, but you still have a guaranteed nuclear reprisal. That, and the political reprisals, is what keeps the USA in check.
Decoys are a serious problem. (Much cheaper to make several dozen of them than even one Anti-ABM to shoot one decoy down.) Standard answer to this is you don't bother to shoot down the decoys. Instead you make a supper smart decoy discrimination system, but that also does not work, as it is relatively easy to make the real warhead simulate a decoy.
Summary:
Against an accomplished space-capable nation, Anti-ABMs are useless.
Actually, "worse than useless" as they do encourage a first strike, especially by a country like Russia, which still has lots of people living on the land. They would survive and either rebuild or use still large Russian army (many tanks etc. spread all over a huge land mass) to take what it needs from Europe. (In Contrast, not much the few American still living in US mid west could take for Mexico or Canada, even if they too had tanks, etc.)
Summary:
Against an accomplished space-capable nation, Anti-ABMs are useless.
Actually, "worse than useless" as they do encourage a first strike, especially by a country like Russia, which still has lots of people living on the land. They would survive and either rebuild or use still large Russian army (many tanks etc. spread all over a huge land mass) to take what it needs from Europe. (In Contrast, not much the few American still living in US mid west could take for Mexico or Canada, even if they too had tanks, etc.)
Decoys and non-ballistic, steerable inbounds. And cruise missiles. Let's not forget submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles.
ABM is political bullshit, costly, ineffective and nothing more than PR. Let's face it, if and when it was tested, and it failed, America would no longer exist, so the President nothing to lose either way. He was never going to get re-elected.
I agree. I have already noted the low probability of relative inexperienced nation, like Iran, getting success with ABM. They would be foolish to waste any they have that way when it could be delivered by ocean going private yacht to near NYC and then off loaded into the yacht’s small boat, piloted by suicide bomber for last 15 miles or so with much greater probability of success..
There are dozens of ways more reliable than an ABM for a simple nation with few bombs to set one off on NYC etc. Hell, less than 3% of the containers coming to NYC are inspected for nuclear device and then only after docked!
Last edited by a moderator:
This assumes ABM tech won't improve, it's conceivable with funding decoy detection can be perfected, you sound similar to people who just 1 year before the wright brothers flew in NC said that powered flight wouldn't happen for 1 million years. Money leads to progress, progress leads to victory, Russia probably will not be able to maintain what it has for long, in fact that link you provided said this was a test to see if they could extend their missile's operational life span, not for new or medium aged missiles, it's possible they use the current system for a few years then the missiles are worthless and they have no more money to continue with it. I'm just saying a reason ABM could be wanted by military leaders instead of just assuming it's automatically pork with no use.
Those are the numbers NOW, in a few years the missiles may be useless and Russia could be more desperate for money, or maybe they'll build some more, but if they can't afford more and they become useless in a few years, the ABM would be useful for insurance against a possible spare missile or two getting through a first strike against them. The US govt could calculate this to high degrees of confidence before acting, remember.
Of course I'm saying if, because we don't have classified data that the US Govt acts on so we have to put it in hypothetical language, well you should, but for some reason you assume you know better even though you can't, I mean, what's the point of making up things in front of somebody who tells you that's what you're doing..
Sounds good to me, but that means you would have to not make post saying ABM will never work and is pork, which I don't think you want to do because that's your gig, does that work on the girls btw?
Cargo checks can be instituted over night, an ABM system takes years, maybe they'll put them both into effect the same day, then the ABM wouldn't be so useless, right? Or is it still not worth it?
cruise missiles from where? Their bombers that will tangle with our f-22s? And their submarine fleet is pitiful and probably tracked every inch out of harbor, what do you think it will be in 10 years when Russia has more people and its maintanence keeps going down? I read a few years ago, when the US did a world-wide ping event on Russian subs, pinging everyone of them at once surprising the russians in each case, kind of puts things in perspective a little.
And no president gets re-elected 3 times, so what's your point? Democrats are better cause they can't get reelected either? Man, I swear democrats say the most retarded shit.. And computer simulations and testing can guarentee success of ABM eventually, it just needs money, progress and continual decline of adversaries. All what we see today.
Are you a missile scientist then? Because I swear you're just some teenager that does mental copy-n-pasting of anti-american crap, but I might be wrong. Let me know. Anyways, ABM will improve because America has money pouring in, our adversaries don't have money to improve decoys, this you don't have to be a scientist to know, that means ABM will surpass decoys if possible and only a fool would say something consistant with laws of physics is impossible. It's a matter of how long, and will it be fast enough to be useful, the answer there is not known but it's good to hedge your bets for the worst cases, right?
You seem to think the US defenses are perfect. It would only take a few to get through to really screw things up.
Probably? You make very firm arguments, and base them on if and probably. Russians subs are not tracked at every turn, and while the US has an array of sonar buoys around the globe, these would soon be destroyed in wartime. A friend of mine works in submarine detection as it happens, and it is not a cut and dried affair. He cannot tell me much, but I do know that subs still have a tactical use, and are not made obsolete by any detection methods.
That is just not true. Attempt to provide evidence, or retract this statement.
It's not an 'Anti ABM Treaty' either, the 'A' in ABM stands for 'Anti'! Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. The only caveat of note is that declared areas may be protected by ABM (hence Galosh around Moscow, and the failed system the USA installed around a Minuteman Silo in Alaska), but nationwide systems are prohibited. The USA may test it's ABM solution, but deploying it nationwide would be a material breach of the treaty. What would be the point in a treaty with an exit clause either side could just invoke at leisure!
Anti-American? Ah, I thought you were ringing out like some enthusiastic Patriot, and what with this, and the 'democrats say the most retarded shit' line you are losing some credibility.
You are full of jingoism, but pepper it with ifs and maybes.
Listen kid, the USA had a previous anti missile system, the Patriot Missile Defense system. It sucked. It sucked lots. It wasn't even reliable against SCUD missiles. But you seem to think that a hypersonic target can be destroyed 100% of the time, if you spend enough money? The 'adversaries' of the USA do not have to 'improve' decoys, as the current ABM system cannot yet handle realistic attacks. Balloons are used. They do not move in a hypersonic ballistic trajectory!
Less ifs and maybes please, and more numbers. Real numbers, and real word examples. Build your argument on that, not "USA#1!" Rhetoric.
I've never understood why it should be hard to take out a ballistic missile. We already have missiles that can very reliably hit jet fighter aircraft, even though the aircraft is actively maneuvering to avoid the missile. Ballistic warheads travel in a very predictable arc. They might have some small capacity to change course as they fall, but it's nothing compared to the maneuverability of a jet. And the warhead won’t even be trying to jam/trick the missile with multi-megawatt ECM, like most modern fighters carry. So if we can hit a jet, why not a missile?
We can hit them if we have good data on where they are going. The anti-ABM must get close to that trajectory because ot the high speed of the re-entering ABM. That ABM spend hundreds of tons of fuel and perhaps 10 minutes accelerating at several Gs to gain that speed.
If the anti-ABM can not get to near where the ABM will be, then the race is lost. That is the problem.
APL/JHU where I worked has hit 7 of 8 first trys with anti-ABM launched from Aegis ships! It is a "kinetic kill" system (No warhead as that adds too much weight for acceleration required in final maneuvers.) Thus, although collision hitting is amazingly difficult, it is "doable." - It is the getting to where you need to be on time that is hard, perhaps impossible if you think in terms of a warhead kill.
Last edited by a moderator:
Velocity. ICBM's are really, really fast. We are talking what, 6km/s, or more? ICBM's can be converted to use as launch vehicles for small payloads into orbit, so they move pretty quick!
At the speeds we are talking about, precision guidance of an interceptor is paramount. And we are talking about adding on the relative velocity of the intercept vehicle too here, which is also going to be pretty quick.
So you need precision radar, and really fast computers, to calculate the trajectory, plot the intercept, and steer a really fast interceptor towards a relatively small and very fast target. (a low yield MIRV (say, 300 to 500Kt, bearing in mind Hiroshima was a mere 20Kt) is a cone shape, about six feet long, and two feet in diameter at it's widest). A Soviet SS24 would drop 10 MIRVs at a time from one ICBM, and chaff, and decoys.
Therefore, there is a lot of work to do, and just one failed intercept is a very big problem.
kmguru
Staff member
Depends on what the missile defense technology is. And if you need to protect 100 nuclear missiles, then forget living on this planet, because the retaliation may make this planet unlivable.
There is research going on many fronts from sending blasts of hyper energy particle pulses to small rockets from space that would have very fast electronic guidance system to hyper velocity gatlin guns to chemical lasers....
We definitely need a missile defense system with advanced control systems...
Shame 'Snake' stopped posting, because this;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6700585.stm
rather shoots this;
down! The real situation is that Russia is modernising it's nuclear arsenal, not letting current stocks fall into disrepair. Sorry Snake, your intel is flawed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6700585.stm
rather shoots this;
down! The real situation is that Russia is modernising it's nuclear arsenal, not letting current stocks fall into disrepair. Sorry Snake, your intel is flawed.
- Status