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

[Grumblenuts]

Stop trying to scare people, and deal in facts.

Air bursts:

In nuclear warfare, air bursts are used against soft targets (i.e. lacking the hardened construction required to survive overpressure from a nuclear explosion) such as cities in countervalue targeting, or airfields, radar systems and mobile ICBMs in counterforce targeting.

"such as cities" as opposed to say, oh heck, the "NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS", i.e. "ARMY FIELD MANUAL 8-9 NAVY MEDICAL PUBLICATION 5059 AIR FORCE JOINT MANUAL 44-151" for example, which is obviously concerned mostly with maintaining deployed troop morale (self-propaganda).

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

If Putin uses these “battlefield Nukes” then Nuclear war is the only result. Period.

The difference between Strategic and Tactical when it comes to Nuclear Weapons is a fantasy. Let’s be honest. Just for a moment.

Let’s say that a nuke goes off over a camp with British Soldiers. The leadership in London will not be able to go and explain to the people that their sons died by nuclear fire because of a tactical nuke. They would be torn to shreds by the public in a minute. The same would be true here. Nobody will accept that the nuke was Tactical, not Strategic. All they would hear is Nuke. Think January 6 was bad? Think the riots in all the cities was a bad thing? That would be a minor argument at a family picnic by comparison.

Any leader, anyone. They would have to respond. That is the reality when dealing with Nukes. It is the forbidden weapon. You just don’t use them. Using one is pulling the trigger on Armageddon. America would respond. Britain would respond. France, would respond. Everyone would respond. Nukes would fly.

But lets say you believe Biden wouldn’t. Would Boris Johnson sit on his hands knowing that he would be out of office before the day is out, and someone who would pull the trigger will be the next PM in a day? Would France? Hell France has riots over taxes on Gasoline going up a penny. The French PM would have to fire his weapons.

Someone would fire, everyone would know that, and so everyone would fire.

Putin pulling the trigger on even one nuke, is the match on the fuse. The world explodes right after. And frankly, it’s time.

We won’t live in peace. We won’t agree to disagree. We won’t leave each other alone. It’s no longer possible to live in harmony. We scream and shout that we must destroy our fellows categorizing them as enemies. Over nothing.

When Fukushima happened. I said we should save some words for extreme circumstances. Like Catastrophic. Catastrophic is not finding a flat tire on your car. It isn’t Catastrophic when your boyfriend, or girlfriend dumps you for someone else. It isn’t catastrophic when you break a nail, or a shoestring.

Enemy is another of those words. Political opponents are not enemies. Enemies should be saved for when you are engaged in hostile actions. In other words, wars.

Russia is rapidly becoming an enemy for world peace. And the world must stand firm, and step up to stop this.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When Fukushima happened. I said we should save some words for extreme circumstances. Like Catastrophic. Catastrophic is not finding a flat tire on your car. It isn’t Catastrophic when your boyfriend, or girlfriend dumps you for someone else. It isn’t catastrophic when you break a nail, or a shoestring.

Yeah, but what if some comedian cracks a joke about your celebrity wife's hair cut in public?

 

[Silver Cat]

We're not anywhere close to heading into a nuclear war, that kind of fearmongering is precisely why we're in the shape we are today.

Putin's an evil bastard but he's not stupid nor is he crazy, he knows that using nukes means the end of Russia, his friends, his family and himself.

He just thought the nuclear blackmail was going to work again and finally the Euro's are calling his bluff.

As a result we've watched him destroy his own army, prove how ineffective they are, and he's drained his war stocks badly of vehicles including aircraft, armor, ordinance, ammunition and everything else he'd need in a real war.

The sanctions will bankrupt him personally, and send his nation into a deep, deep, recession they won't be able to recover from for years and that means he won't be able to rebuild his military.

One of his biggest exports is weapons and their failures to take Ukraine militarily are going to badly hurt those arms sales and the Euro's are taking away his ability to blackmail them with threats of turning off the gas in the winter.

Biden is responsible for this invasion as much as Putin with a good share going to his former boss with both of them refusing to provide Ukraine with what they needed to prevent Russia from being willing to attempt it.

Only after his poll numbers hit their lowest point yet after the invasion began did someone in the WH kick him in the ass and convince him that if he wanted to save his presidency he'd better get off the fence and start sending whatever we could to at least give the pretense the US still has a leadership role in the world and that we're willing to stand up with smaller nations when totalitarian bullies want to engage in wars of conquest.

Trump on the other hand spent four years warning all of Europe this day would come if they did not divorce themselves from their dependency on Russian Energy imports. They laughed at him of course.

Who's laughing now?

Trump was the devil for daring to tell the Euro's that the US could no longer be the financier and primary force in NATO so they'd better start living up to their obligations and they were all insulted and all but chased him out of the room, then openly derided him behind his back.

Who's laughing now?

Trump was labeled a warmonger who would star WWIII standing up to Putin and Kim, Solemani, and Al Baghdadi.

Yet when we directly confronted Russia in Syria and bombed the shit out of their base and assets used to deploy chemical weapons on civilians he was labeled a fool and dangerous.

Yet Putin did nothing because he knew he could not win.

When a battalion of Russian Troops started an attack on our own troops in Syria , Trump gave them the greenlight to take whatever actions they deemed necessary to stop that threat.

Two hours later, that threat had been completely eliminated.

What did Putin do?

We'll be fine.

Russian economy already has recuperated from the first panic sales while American and European economies are suffering from the higher fuel prices.
The Democrats try to beat enemy with carrots and feed friends with sticks.
The USA need to gain a credible military solutions for enemies and keep a credible currency for friends.

 

[Silver Cat]

I have seen that video many times, and each time I am reminded of the ending of "War Games".

How about a nice game of chess?

The only problem is that now they can win. May be, it will be a flawless victory, may be, the price will be terrible, but acceptable (comparing with alternatives).

 

[BackAgain]

I wish Reagan’s “Star Wars” plan hadn’t been denigrated with that bullshit misnomer. I would imagine that we’d have constantly upgraded the system.

Wouldn’t it be terrific if we could pretty much fire lasers from satellites at incoming targets which could detect missile launches upon ignition? Back ‘em up with upgraded ANTI BALLISTIC MISSLES?

Yeah yeah. It might not be perfect. Probably no weapon system or defense system ever can be. But it would still pretty much gut the ability of shit nations like Russia under Putin to threaten U.S. with “MAD.”

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 624845

Russian economy already has recuperated from the first panic sales while American and European economies are suffering from the higher fuel prices.
The Democrats try to beat enemy with carrots and feed friends with sticks.
The USA need to gain a credible military solutions for enemies and keep a credible currency for friends.

No link. No source. Is it credible or is the source being concealed for some strange reason.

 

[Silver Cat]

If Putin uses these “battlefield Nukes” then Nuclear war is the only result. Period.

The difference between Strategic and Tactical when it comes to Nuclear Weapons is a fantasy. Let’s be honest. Just for a moment.

Let’s say that a nuke goes off over a camp with British Soldiers. The leadership in London will not be able to go and explain to the people that their sons died by nuclear fire because of a tactical nuke. They would be torn to shreds by the public in a minute. The same would be true here. Nobody will accept that the nuke was Tactical, not Strategic. All they would hear is Nuke. Think January 6 was bad? Think the riots in all the cities was a bad thing? That would be a minor argument at a family picnic by comparison.

Any leader, anyone. They would have to respond. That is the reality when dealing with Nukes. It is the forbidden weapon. You just don’t use them. Using one is pulling the trigger on Armageddon. America would respond. Britain would respond. France, would respond. Everyone would respond. Nukes would fly.

But lets say you believe Biden wouldn’t. Would Boris Johnson sit on his hands knowing that he would be out of office before the day is out, and someone who would pull the trigger will be the next PM in a day? Would France? Hell France has riots over taxes on Gasoline going up a penny. The French PM would have to fire his weapons.

Someone would fire, everyone would know that, and so everyone would fire.

Putin pulling the trigger on even one nuke, is the match on the fuse. The world explodes right after. And frankly, it’s time.

We won’t live in peace. We won’t agree to disagree. We won’t leave each other alone. It’s no longer possible to live in harmony. We scream and shout that we must destroy our fellows categorizing them as enemies. Over nothing.

When Fukushima happened. I said we should save some words for extreme circumstances. Like Catastrophic. Catastrophic is not finding a flat tire on your car. It isn’t Catastrophic when your boyfriend, or girlfriend dumps you for someone else. It isn’t catastrophic when you break a nail, or a shoestring.

Enemy is another of those words. Political opponents are not enemies. Enemies should be saved for when you are engaged in hostile actions. In other words, wars.

Russia is rapidly becoming an enemy for world peace. And the world must stand firm, and step up to stop this.

What is more difficult - to explain people why the UK shouldn't send their soldiers in another continental conflict, why HMNB Clyde was destroyed by a Russian nuke and now the UK have no chances to win a nuclear war against Russia, or really recuperate British economy after the Russian limited counter-value nuclear strike, killed, say, 50% of the British population and destroyed all British major cities?
Words are cheap. Infrastructure is expensive.

 

[Silver Cat]

No link. No source. Is it credible or is the source being concealed for some strange reason.

Russian ruble makes almost full recovery despite western sanctions

Russia implemented a number of measures to limit the damage to its economy, such as strict limits on on currency exchange, withdrawals and hard-currency transfers.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[SavannahMann]

What is more difficult - to explain people why the UK shouldn't send their soldiers in another continental conflict, why HMNB Clyde was destroyed by a Russian nuke and now the UK have no chances to win a nuclear war against Russia, or really recuperate British economy after the Russian limited counter-value nuclear strike, killed, say, 50% of the British population and destroyed all British major cities?
Words are cheap. Infrastructure is expensive.

Turn it around. Imagine that it was the Wedt that had the advantage. And what would happen to the Russian leadership of the table was turned.

We don’t need to imagine do we? The Romanovs can offer their testimony can’t they?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One isn't, hundreds or thousands adds up to a whole lot of nuclear contamination when it falls back to earth.

What falls back?

 

[Silver Cat]

Turn it around. Imagine that it was the Wedt that had the advantage. And what would happen to the Russian leadership of the table was turned.

We don’t need to imagine do we? The Romanovs can offer their testimony can’t they?

When the West had an advantage - the Russians decided to retreat. When the choice is to lost Poland, or to lost 30 million Russians (Americans) both sides will decide to lost Poland. If the choice is to lost Crimea/Alaska or to fight a battle which will cost at least 30 million Russians/Americans killed - both sides will decide to fight the war.

 

[Vrenn]

If Putin uses these “battlefield Nukes” then Nuclear war is the only result. Period.

Many think the Tactical Nuke will be quite small. Well, it will be at least as powerful as the ones used on Japan (20KT). That is about the power that we can deliver in a conventional package (MOAB at 20KT) and it can be delivered in a satchel, Missile or Artillery Shell. Many believe that the US has discontinued use but they still keep the B61 in the EU Armories.

The difference between Strategic and Tactical when it comes to Nuclear Weapons is a fantasy. Let’s be honest. Just for a moment.

Let’s say that a nuke goes off over a camp with British Soldiers. The leadership in London will not be able to go and explain to the people that their sons died by nuclear fire because of a tactical nuke. They would be torn to shreds by the public in a minute. The same would be true here. Nobody will accept that the nuke was Tactical, not Strategic. All they would hear is Nuke. Think January 6 was bad? Think the riots in all the cities was a bad thing? That would be a minor argument at a family picnic by comparison.

Any leader, anyone. They would have to respond. That is the reality when dealing with Nukes. It is the forbidden weapon. You just don’t use them. Using one is pulling the trigger on Armageddon. America would respond. Britain would respond. France, would respond. Everyone would respond. Nukes would fly.

But lets say you believe Biden wouldn’t. Would Boris Johnson sit on his hands knowing that he would be out of office before the day is out, and someone who would pull the trigger will be the next PM in a day? Would France? Hell France has riots over taxes on Gasoline going up a penny. The French PM would have to fire his weapons.

Someone would fire, everyone would know that, and so everyone would fire.

Putin pulling the trigger on even one nuke, is the match on the fuse. The world explodes right after. And frankly, it’s time.

You don't give diplomacy it's dues. Let's say that Putin gives the order. Either he will be out of power right before the failed blast or he will be out of power right after and a huge "I'm Sorry" Will be going out fast.

We won’t live in peace. We won’t agree to disagree. We won’t leave each other alone. It’s no longer possible to live in harmony. We scream and shout that we must destroy our fellows categorizing them as enemies. Over nothing.

When Fukushima happened. I said we should save some words for extreme circumstances. Like Catastrophic. Catastrophic is not finding a flat tire on your car. It isn’t Catastrophic when your boyfriend, or girlfriend dumps you for someone else. It isn’t catastrophic when you break a nail, or a shoestring.

Enemy is another of those words. Political opponents are not enemies. Enemies should be saved for when you are engaged in hostile actions. In other words, wars.

Russia is rapidly becoming an enemy for world peace. And the world must stand firm, and step up to stop this.

 

[Mushroom]

I would imagine that we’d have constantly upgraded the system.

Wouldn’t it be terrific if we could pretty much fire lasers from satellites at incoming targets which could detect missile launches upon ignition? Back ‘em up with upgraded ANTI BALLISTIC MISSLES?

It never died, that itself is a misnomer.

PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, GBI, there are functioning systems that are based on that program.

Most interest in the "space based" aspect died when the ASM-135 ASAT was a proven technology. But by that point most of it was already under derision because of misconceptions, but the research into kinetic kill weapons continued (and that was always the main focus of the program).

But LASERs will never be a working system. It is simply not workable, other than in movies.

 

[Mushroom]

What falls back?

Which is exactly my point. The 15k kg or so that remains of the missile after the detonation? Which is really an impossible amount of mass, as in reality it will be under 10 k kg, as a significant amount of mass would have been the fuel that was already expended. And most of the rest of the mass would be atomized, scattered in the upper atmosphere where the amount scattered over tens of thousands of square miles would almost entirely be absorbed by the water or background levels of radiation.

That is nothing when compared to the millions of tons from a near ground burst, that will start to fall less than a mile from the blast. That is like worrying about a pea sized chunk of uranium in a 100 square mile city. As opposed to "real fallout", which would be the size of a large mountain and cover thousands of square miles. He keeps saying it is a huge deal, but can in no way explain why or how, other than by screaming he is right without ever giving things like the mass involved (which I have), real references (which his contradict him), or the like.

But he is also making a common mistake, in that he thinks I am actually trying to debate him. I can tell he is wrong, and so locked into his belief that no facts will ever sway him to reconsider his beliefs. Therefore I am actually talking to the others who might be reading. In the hopes that they realize what is actually being discussed, and can then make up their own minds based on the actual science and not the fear mongering being given.

It is not like there have not been high altitude tests already done, and the amount of radiation from those already studied.

High-Altitude Nuclear Explosions Dangerous, but not for Reasons Gingrich Cites

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Scientific American did a rather good analysis of the risks on this over a decade ago. And even they concluded the risks to people was negligible, the only risk was to satellites in orbit.

But side note, the analysis is primarily based on the STARFISH PRIME test in 1962, and the only high altitude test that had such an impact. That is out of around 2 dozen such tests by the US and USSR, no others had those kind of EMP results. And none of the tests had any kind of significant radiation detected afterwards. The ability to defeat highly charged particles like EMP and how to defeat them have been known for almost 200 years. Quite literally when President Andrew Jackson occupied the White House.

 

[Mushroom]

Many believe that the US has discontinued use but they still keep the B61 in the EU Armories.

To be accurate, the B61 is a variable yield freefall device, ranging from around .5 to 350 kt. And I doubt that if it was ever used it would be dialed at anything but the maximum yield.

Otherwise, it would be like buying a new Mustang, but locking the transmission so it could never leave first gear.

 

[SavannahMann]

It never died, that itself is a misnomer.

PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, GBI, there are functioning systems that are based on that program.

Most interest in the "space based" aspect died when the ASM-135 ASAT was a proven technology. But by that point most of it was already under derision because of misconceptions, but the research into kinetic kill weapons continued (and that was always the main focus of the program).

But LASERs will never be a working system. It is simply not workable, other than in movies.

You better explain that to the Navy. They deployed Laser weapons already.

 

[BackAgain]

It never died, that itself is a misnomer.

PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, GBI, there are functioning systems that are based on that program.

Most interest in the "space based" aspect died when the ASM-135 ASAT was a proven technology. But by that point most of it was already under derision because of misconceptions, but the research into kinetic kill weapons continued (and that was always the main focus of the program).

But LASERs will never be a working system. It is simply not workable, other than in movies.

Your last sentence is unduly pessimistic.

Work on a space-based laser defensive system has already begun. The U.S. Military Wants to Kill Nuclear-Armed ICBMs with Lasers . That was from 2019.

We may not be there yet. But then again, if we were, I assume it would be classified, anyway. In any event, we have good reason already to believe that a powerful enough laser to punch a hole in an ICBM in its boost phase is achievable. And it wouldn’t take much more to destroy the target or make it incapable of reaching anywhere near us.

 

[Vrenn]

It never died, that itself is a misnomer.

PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, GBI, there are functioning systems that are based on that program.

Most interest in the "space based" aspect died when the ASM-135 ASAT was a proven technology. But by that point most of it was already under derision because of misconceptions, but the research into kinetic kill weapons continued (and that was always the main focus of the program).

But LASERs will never be a working system. It is simply not workable, other than in movies.

Since the Lazer has matured, what it requires is power. to date, the systems that have the power are Naval Ships (Lazer systems are already coming online), large aircraft like the AC-130 with lots of AC power, Fixed ground installations and the F-35 which has an excess of AC power.

Never say never. This is the year for the Lightning II