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

[Dayton3]

Ever since the Russians invaded Ukraine we've had people talking about the possibility of the U.S.(and NATO) getting involved in a shooting war with the Russians and how that would inevitably lead to a strategic nuclear exchange.

If people really believe that then why aren't they clamoring for the U.S. to deploy thousands of more ABMs? I know most ABMs do not successfully intercept their targets but then again most missiles fired at airborne targets don't hit them. Still even at current interception rates if you launch 10 ABMs at an incoming missile the odds are you will stop it.

So why is no one mentioning ABMs?

 

[Esdraelon]

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.

 

[Vrenn]

Ever since the Russians invaded Ukraine we've had people talking about the possibility of the U.S.(and NATO) getting involved in a shooting war with the Russians and how that would inevitably lead to a strategic nuclear exchange.

If people really believe that then why aren't they clamoring for the U.S. to deploy thousands of more ABMs? I know most ABMs do not successfully intercept their targets but then again most missiles fired at airborne targets don't hit them. Still even at current interception rates if you launch 10 ABMs at an incoming missile the odds are you will stop it.

So why is no one mentioning ABMs?

No US missile defense system proven capable against ‘realistic’ ICBM threats: Study​

The facts remains that you can stop the ICBMs if you present 10 to to 1 ratio but you have to place them exactly the right place at the right time. It has to be perfect. Meaning, you can't stop the ICBMs until the energy weapons like Lazers with enough power and numbers are put into service. Maybe in 10 years time but not today.

 

[White 6]

Ever since the Russians invaded Ukraine we've had people talking about the possibility of the U.S.(and NATO) getting involved in a shooting war with the Russians and how that would inevitably lead to a strategic nuclear exchange.

If people really believe that then why aren't they clamoring for the U.S. to deploy thousands of more ABMs? I know most ABMs do not successfully intercept their targets but then again most missiles fired at airborne targets don't hit them. Still even at current interception rates if you launch 10 ABMs at an incoming missile the odds are you will stop it.

So why is no one mentioning ABMs?

We have enough, that it really does not matter.

 

[Dayton3]

We have enough, that it really does not matter.

We have what? 50 ABMs? A serious attack by Russia or China would involve launching at least 1,000 ICBMs/SLBMs. To deal with that scale of attack we need at least 10,000 ABMs ready to go.

 

[Dayton3]

No US missile defense system proven capable against ‘realistic’ ICBM threats: Study​

The facts remains that you can stop the ICBMs if you present 10 to to 1 ratio but you have to place them exactly the right place at the right time. It has to be perfect. Meaning, you can't stop the ICBMs until the energy weapons like Lazers with enough power and numbers are put into service. Maybe in 10 years time but not today.

APS is wrong and U.S. missile defense is right.

 

[White 6]

We have what? 50 ABMs? A serious attack by Russia or China would involve launching at least 1,000 ICBMs/SLBMs. To deal with that scale of attack we need at least 10,000 ABMs ready to go.

The deterrent is not that all could be shot down, never was and probably never will be. That is not feasible for any country. The deterrent is that they face the same destruction. That is guaranteed.

 

[Dayton3]

The deterrent is not that all could be shot down, never was and probably never will be. That is not feasible for any country. The deterrent is that they face the same destruction. That is guaranteed.

You really don't understand deterrence.

 

[White 6]

You really don't understand deterrence.

No. You don't. Mutually assured destruction is in fact the deterrence. Why? Does it actually ever keep you up at night? I doubt it. It has never kept me up at night, even when I was in NBC school.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You really don't understand deterrence.

Another tax and spend conservative

 

[Dayton3]

Another tax and spend conservative

Weapons are something we should be spending no. Especially weapons like ABMs whose sole purpose is defensive.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Weapons are something we should be spending no. Especially weapons like ABMs whose sole purpose is defensive.

Maybe if they worked a lot better. But there's no way in hell we're surviving any M.A.D. scenario exchanging nukes with Russia so it's just a waste of money. A gift to the M.I.C.

 

[Dayton3]

But there's no way in hell we're surviving any M.A.D. scenario exchanging nukes with Russia

What makes you say that? And no source from anyone against ABMs in the first place is acceptable.

ICBMs can and have been shot down. If you can stop one ICBM you can stop 10. If you can stop ten you can stop 100. And if you can stop 100 you can stop 1,000.

If you can stop 1,000 ICBMs then you've survived a major nuclear attack.

It's all just a matter of scale.

 

[Vrenn]

What makes you say that? And no source from anyone against ABMs in the first place is acceptable.

ICBMs can and have been shot down. If you can stop one ICBM you can stop 10. If you can stop ten you can stop 100. And if you can stop 100 you can stop 1,000.

If you can stop 1,000 ICBMs then you've survived a major nuclear attack.

It's all just a matter of scale.

You mean it's just a matter of time. The ABM systems today aren't good enough for 100%. And when dealing with conventional, anything nearing 100% is good enough but anything near enough 100% for Nukes is a failure. Hitting a Mach 10 Warhead is accurately is nearly impossible with enough accuracy to bet existence on. Give it 10 years and things may change drastically.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you can spend one trillion you can spend 10 trillion. If you can spend ten trillion you can spend 100 trillion. And if you can spend 100 trillion you can spend 1,000 trillion.

It's all just a matter of scale.

reductio ad absurdum

 

[Dayton3]

You mean it's just a matter of time. The ABM systems today aren't good enough for 100%. And when dealing with conventional, anything nearing 100% is good enough but anything near enough 100% for Nukes is a failure. Hitting a Mach 10 Warhead is accurately is nearly impossible with enough accuracy to bet existence on. Give it 10 years and things may change drastically.

Why do you think intercepting nuclear warheads has to be "100%". Sure, if a nuclear warhead strikes a major city it will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. If the nuclear warhead works properly of course.

But our country would survive.

Which is why we should invest heavily in Civil Defense as well as ABMs.

 

[Mushroom]

If people really believe that then why aren't they clamoring for the U.S. to deploy thousands of more ABMs? I know most ABMs do not successfully intercept their targets but then again most missiles fired at airborne targets don't hit them. Still even at current interception rates if you launch 10 ABMs at an incoming missile the odds are you will stop it.

Mostly, it all comes down to cost.

Right now, we have 2 real ABM systems that work, and have been fielded. One if the variations of the GBM-GBI system, that is based out of Alaska and California. Those are very accurate, but only cover a relatively small area and have a limited number of missiles they can fire.

The other is the AEGIS SM-3 system. This is a working system, and we only installed that system in Poland and Romania in the form of "Aegis Ashore". That could be rolled out and deployed in the US, in much the same way the earlier NIKE system was deployed in the 1960s. But I can't see anybody wanting to spend the money for that to happen. Each installation would cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 billion, not including the cost to create a training facility and to train all those to operate it.

If we had the political will, we could have a system in operation in only a year or so. But we are still living in a "Post-Cold War" climate, and nobody wants to consider the costs of putting such a system into place. Or the large increase this would mandate for the Army. Figure each installation would requite a Battalion of ADA, that is around 300-500 people per installation. Even putting it only around the 15 most populous sites in the country, that is more than double the entire size of the ADA branch at this time. And figure a cost of around $200 billion plus.

 

[Mushroom]

We have what? 50 ABMs?

Trick question.

Technically, I can think of at least 92.

Every single Ticonderoga class cruiser, every Burke class destroyer, and the two GBM-GBI systems in Alaska and California.

 

[Mushroom]

The facts remains that you can stop the ICBMs if you present 10 to to 1 ratio but you have to place them exactly the right place at the right time. It has to be perfect.

Wrong.

First of all, they would not be at that kind of a ratio. Never-ever-ever.

And also, you have to recognize that you can never defend everywhere. Just at the locations that are most at rick, or where getting hit would do the most damage.

To put it simply, it makes no sense to defend say Stockton, California. So you write it off and worry about places you do need to defend, like Seattle.

And even in the most crazy Cold War scenarios, the Soviets would not have targeted any single location with more than 2-3 nukes.

This is the kind of false logic that gets people every single time. Also, nobody would be stupid enough to launch everything they had. Even most US expectations for a "Nuclear War" only had them using a fraction of their arsenal. Not launching everything they had, no matter what.

 

[Mushroom]

The ABM systems today aren't good enough for 100%.

Nothing ever was 100% at anything.

Caution: False logic at play.

By that logic, seat belts are not effective 100%. Therefore we should never use seatbelts.