Why Is No One Clamoring for more ABMs to be built?

[JohnDB]

Patriot missiles aren't very effective...
Iron dome is better. There's another that deals with stealth tomahawk or stealth sam missiles...but it's cost prohibitive for deployment. It requires a tow missile...very short range and extremely close timing.

Satellite technology..."Star Wars" programs initiated under Ronald Reagan created a lot of new Satellite technology but no clear answers for anti missile tech...especially because most systems were based on "you get your own medicine" of detonating nuclear missiles as they launched.
The politicians all hated that entire philosophy completely.

Because ABMS causes nations to push the button on nuclear weapons much easier. The concept of "you didn't do anything to me but I will still completely destroy you " never really sunk in.

 

[Dayton3]

Give me a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer. So far, you have neglected to do so. So you get.

You said that ABMs were useless against sea launched ballistic missiles.

The only major difference by SLBMs and ICBMs is the location of their launch.

So again, why would ABMs be useless against them? We still know where their likeliest targets are.

 

[Vrenn]

You said that ABMs were useless against sea launched ballistic missiles.

The only major difference by SLBMs and ICBMs is the location of their launch.

So again, why would ABMs be useless against them? We still know where their likeliest targets are.

Unless you have a SM Loaded ship close by, you aren't going to get a firing solution in time. Once again, you are creating a solution that just isn't there. The SLBM system is usually withheld until the 2nd launching or it may be the first launch. Either way, the intercept solution will be so complicated that it probably won't be worth anything. Better to go for the Bombers and the land base where the solution for intercept is much higher.

 

[Dayton3]

Unless you have a SM Loaded ship close by, you aren't going to get a firing solution in time. Once again, you are creating a solution that just isn't there. The SLBM system is usually withheld until the 2nd launching or it may be the first launch. Either way, the intercept solution will be so complicated that it probably won't be worth anything. Better to go for the Bombers and the land base where the solution for intercept is much higher.

what makes you think that? The Standard missiles are designed and purposed to intercept incoming missiles as they approach their targets (whether ships or cities). They are not designed to "tail chase" enemy missiles just after they launch. No U.S. missiles are designed and purposed to do that for obvious reasons.

 

[Vrenn]

what makes you think that? The Standard missiles are designed and purposed to intercept incoming missiles as they approach their targets (whether ships or cities). They are not designed to "tail chase" enemy missiles just after they launch. No U.S. missiles are designed and purposed to do that for obvious reasons.

You are creating a real handy missile where it knows exactly the reentry trajectory, speed, etc.. And all parameters are pre programmed in and can hit a warhead the size of a locker, coming in at a speed of Mach 10+, at an angle that was determined minutes before, and what works in the testing doesn't work so good in reality.

 

[Dayton3]

You are creating a real handy missile where it knows exactly the reentry trajectory, speed, etc.. And all parameters are pre programmed in and can hit a warhead the size of a locker, coming in at a speed of Mach 10+, at an angle that was determined minutes before, and what works in the testing doesn't work so good in reality.

I've never suggested that. And Standards have never been tested under those conditions anyway.

But be reasonable. If you build a land-based AEGIS site to protect Los Angeles from attack there is no point whatsoever in testing it by launching simulated ICBMs against Chicago.

 

[krichton]

I think it's because they don't REALLY believe their own rhetoric about Putin resorting to nukes. IMO, he is FULLY capable of taking the step of using a low-yield device to flip the field in Russia's favor IF NATO came into the picture against Russia. In fact, he has been crystal clear in his statements of when and how he would deploy nukes. He sees them as a viable part of his conventional force posture. Just imagine a 5 or 10 KT airburst over a NATO airbase like Incirlik in Turkey.

The fallout would be negligible, the base would be removed, totally, and NATO would be left with the choice of escalating to the use of their own nukes, OR deciding to take a step back and freeze the conflict in place to keep things from spiraling out of control.

He has pushed this option for many years now and has a 10:1 advantage in such low-yield, tactical nukes.

Any launch like that would precipitate an equal, if not larger response by NATO, in kind. Who exactly would be coming up on top in that situation? Absolutely no one. What a ridiculous claim.

 

[Vrenn]

I've never suggested that. And Standards have never been tested under those conditions anyway.

But be reasonable. If you build a land-based AEGIS site to protect Los Angeles from attack there is no point whatsoever in testing it by launching simulated ICBMs against Chicago.

The point is, you won't know which direction the Nukes are incoming from. Unless you have a specific target you are protecting (like Washington DC) trying to cover anything else with ABMs just isn't worth it. Just take the hit and press one. Afterall, there is going to be about a 72 hour warning for ICBMs so you just don't launch them by surprise. I won't go into what goes into getting ready for the launch but the movies really don't do it justice. During that 72 hour period, both sides have the option to call it off.

 

[Dayton3]

The point is, you won't know which direction the Nukes are incoming from. Unless you have a specific target you are protecting (like Washington DC) trying to cover anything else with ABMs just isn't worth it. Just take the hit and press one. Afterall, there is going to be about a 72 hour warning for ICBMs so you just don't launch them by surprise. I won't go into what goes into getting ready for the launch but the movies really don't do it justice. During that 72 hour period, both sides have the option to call it off.

How would there be a 72 hour warning for an ICBM attack? IIRC they can be launched in a matter of minutes once the launch codes are transmitted.

 

[Vrenn]

How would there be a 72 hour warning for an ICBM attack? IIRC they can be launched in a matter of minutes once the launch codes are transmitted.

I can see you have a great plan to go to Global Nuclear War. Load the codes, launch the missiles and lay down and wait to die.

When our Sats see the ruskies moving their assets to alternative locations, loading up the other hundred or so bombers, the Navy all head out in different directions at flank speed, start patrolling the ice cap heavily, moving their Government to other "Locations" and more, then you can bet they are preparing for a Nuclear War. There is a lot more to it but it's quite visible and takes about 72 hours before the first cover is blown off of the first ICBM.

But the US will just use your plan and launch everything and wait to die.

 

[Dayton3]

I can see you have a great plan to go to Global Nuclear War. Load the codes, launch the missiles and lay down and wait to die.

When our Sats see the ruskies moving their assets to alternative locations, loading up the other hundred or so bombers, the Navy all head out in different directions at flank speed, start patrolling the ice cap heavily, moving their Government to other "Locations" and more, then you can bet they are preparing for a Nuclear War. There is a lot more to it but it's quite visible and takes about 72 hours before the first cover is blown off of the first ICBM.

But the US will just use your plan and launch everything and wait to die.

About the only way to survive or win an all out nuclear conflict is to attack without warning

 

[Vrenn]

About the only way to survive or win an all out nuclear conflict is to attack without warning

'The only way to win an all out Nuclear War is to not have one in the first place. There has been checks and balances built in to allow both sides the time to say, "Hey, wait a minute". DAMM works. But it wasn't until Fail Safe was released and evaluated that the US Military and the Soviets took a good hard look at it. Fail Safes depicted a situation where WWIII full Nuclear Exchange would have happened.

 

[Batcat]

I think it's because they don't REALLY believe their own rhetoric about Putin resorting to nukes. IMO, he is FULLY capable of taking the step of using a low-yield device to flip the field in Russia's favor IF NATO came into the picture against Russia. In fact, he has been crystal clear in his statements of when and how he would deploy nukes. He sees them as a viable part of his conventional force posture. Just imagine a 5 or 10 KT airburst over a NATO airbase like Incirlik in Turkey.

The fallout would be negligible, the base would be removed, totally, and NATO would be left with the choice of escalating to the use of their own nukes, OR deciding to take a step back and freeze the conflict in place to keep things from spiraling out of control.

He has pushed this option for many years now and has a 10:1 advantage in such low-yield, tactical nukes.

Surprisingly Putin’s conventional forces suck. In a war with NATO he almost would have to go nuclear to win.

 

[Vrenn]

Surprisingly Putin’s conventional forces suck. In a war with NATO he almost would have to go nuclear to win.

He can't win in Nuclear. The very fact that he may resort to Nuclear War automatically moves him into the loser category. There will be no real winners in Nuclear Wars.

 

[Batcat]

He can't win in Nuclear. The very fact that he may resort to Nuclear War automatically moves him into the loser category. There will be no real winners in Nuclear Wars.

What scares me is that Putin is willing to fire on a nuclear power plant. It also seems that the Chernobyl reactor isn’t being well taken care of. Much of Europe could be impossible to live in if Russian forces cause reactor meltdowns.

“Real threat of nuclear danger” after Russian attack: Putin's forces control Europe's largest nuclear power plant

A Russian bombardment hit the Energodar nuclear power plant in the Zaporizhzhia region, Europe's largest in southeastern Ukraine, last night. The attack unleashed a fire that threatens to cause a disaster ten times larger than Chernobyl in 1986, the city's mayor, Dmitry Orlov, reported via his...

en.mercopress.com

Nuclear Energy Group 'Gravely' Worried About Ukraine Plants, Repeats Offer To Help

"We cannot afford to lose any more time," the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general announced.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Vrenn]

What scares me is that Putin is willing to fire on a nuclear power plant. It also seems that the Chernobyl reactor isn’t being well taken care of. Much of Europe could be impossible to live in if Russian forces cause reactor meltdowns.

“Real threat of nuclear danger” after Russian attack: Putin's forces control Europe's largest nuclear power plant

A Russian bombardment hit the Energodar nuclear power plant in the Zaporizhzhia region, Europe's largest in southeastern Ukraine, last night. The attack unleashed a fire that threatens to cause a disaster ten times larger than Chernobyl in 1986, the city's mayor, Dmitry Orlov, reported via his...

en.mercopress.com

Nuclear Energy Group 'Gravely' Worried About Ukraine Plants, Repeats Offer To Help

"We cannot afford to lose any more time," the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general announced.

news.yahoo.com

It's part of Pootan's script. Narcissists operate that way. If you can't think of a reason, create one.

 

[Mushroom]

The Burkes and Ticonderga's have other vital missions (fleet defense) and will not always be around to defend U.S. cities and territory against nuclear missile attack.

Which is why I did say "technically".

And why that is the system that was used in the "AEGIS Ashore" program.

 

[Mushroom]

They don't have to be since the missiles have enough range to protect our borders without having to sit just off of our shores.

Not really.

There are only a few windows where a missile can be launched against an inbound missile. You can not just fire at it anywhere in its path.

 

[Mushroom]

The greater the distance the harder it is for them to intercept incoming missiles.

Not harder, as much as the intercepting missile has to be even larger, to increase the fuel it has on board. That would make the resulting missile even larger, and slower to reach maximum speed. That in turn reduces the window available to perform an intercept.

This is why the longest range missiles we have are the GBI, which is a three stage missile, not unlike what is used for many major space flights. You can quite literally make a missile to do an intercept anywhere, but it is always best for accuracy to reduce the distance to the launching facility.

 

[Mushroom]

You are making my point. Those same assets are needed across a wide ranges including Carrier Protection as well as military bases along the shores like Guam. There just aren't enough SM-2s and 3s to cover everything everywhere.

But you are missing that is why I along with Dayton think we need to look into AEGIS Ashore for use in the US. Likely nothing as vast as the old NIKE program, but at least our 10 major cities is very doable. And the technology is sound.