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

[Dayton3]

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.

Very good post @Mushrooom. If I could'v liked it twice I would have.

It is amazing that even with the Russians today rampaging across the Ukraine and threatening the west with nuclear war, if you propose a new major military program for the U.S. you get people howling about the "military industrial complex" and how the "U.S. has more military spending that 80% of the other nations on Earth..."

 

[Mushroom]

It is amazing that even with the Russians today rampaging across the Ukraine and threatening the west with nuclear war, if you propose a new major military program for the U.S. you get people howling about the "military industrial complex" and how the "U.S. has more military spending that 80% of the other nations on Earth..."

It all boils down to the "Guns Vs. Butter" argument. People who generally do not have to worry about other people with guns stealing their butter also resent any buying of guns just to stop it from ever happening.

And those that scream about MIC are generally morons. Bloviating about garbage because they either want no spending at all, or only want spending on things they want and nothing else. YOu rarely hear sane and rational people using that as an argument. Only the extreme nutcases on both fringes of the political spectrum.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

So, Global Thermo Nuclear War won't be that bad according to you. I trained for the aftermath where those hundreds of thousands turned into hundreds of millions in the next 180 days. Where, even if you survived the first few days, the next 90 days may be hell on earth. And then surviving the next 6 months may turn out to be a definition of pure hell. Now that the food is gone, the next year will be more than interesting and deadly. If you think Covid Procedures are strong, if you don't comply with each and every nuclear procedure then you will die and it won't be a fast death. This is why MADD is just unthinkable. But you sillyvillians don't seem to think so. Luckily, the Military will be issued weapons and become the new Sheriff in town.

 

[Dayton3]

So, Global Thermo Nuclear War won't be that bad according to you. I trained for the aftermath where those hundreds of thousands turned into hundreds of millions in the next 180 days. Where, even if you survived the first few days, the next 90 days may be hell on earth. And then surviving the next 6 months may turn out to be a definition of pure hell. Now that the food is gone, the next year will be more than interesting and deadly. If you think Covid Procedures are strong, if you don't comply with each and every nuclear procedure then you will die and it won't be a fast death. This is why MADD is just unthinkable. But you sillyvillians don't seem to think so. Luckily, the Military will be issued weapons and become the new Sheriff in town.

All false. I never said that a global nuclear war "wouldn't be that bad'.

And I'm calling pure BS on the idea that you ever trained for anything of the sort. Considering you are apparently parroting 1960s ideas regarding nuclear contamination.

 

[Mushroom]

if you don't comply with each and every nuclear procedure then you will die and it won't be a fast death

Oh, that is complete garbage.

Hell, feel free to look up the story of Tsutomu Yamaguchi.

He was a Naval Engineer, who was in Hiroshima on business when the first atomic bomb on Japan detonated. He was three kilometers from the detonation site.

Although he was injured, he caught a train to return to his home office. He arrived, and his supervisor was berating him that he was a coward, and there was no way such a bomb could exist. This was at the Mitsubishi Shipyard, in Nagasaki. Once again, he was about three kilometers from the detonation.

He sadly passed away however. In 2010 at the age of 93.

 

[Vrenn]

All false. I never said that a global nuclear war "wouldn't be that bad'.

And I'm calling pure BS on the idea that you ever trained for anything of the sort. Considering you are apparently parroting 1960s ideas regarding nuclear contamination.

Newsflash: I come from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as an adult and I spent most of that time period in the US Military. I worked in "Deployment" Units who's jobs were to take what was left of the units and relocate them after the main forces were relocated to give the forces something to return to. And to help the sillyvillians survive. For many years, I had my own person Chem Suit. And my own weapon assigned. For the last few years, I was assigned all NBC and Firearms for the Unit. And that wasn't my real job. It just became my job when we did an exercise on a mobility. Before the Tankers and Bombers launched, we prepped the support for them. When that was done, we prepped the support for us to bug out to some "Corn Field in Kansas". Not really a cornfield in Kansas. Or was it? Sometimes, we would terminate after exiting the gate. Meanwhile, most of the base wasn't even aware that part was happening. We would quietly exit before the Missiles would arrive.

You sillyvillians that were around the military base were post toasties and completely dumb. I have said before, rather than survive smart, I would rather die dumb. I already know this is the attitude of the Military with the fingers on the buttons and that is what will prevent it all ending. And the Russians are no different than we are.

 

[Vrenn]

Oh, that is complete garbage.

Hell, feel free to look up the story of Tsutomu Yamaguchi.

He was a Naval Engineer, who was in Hiroshima on business when the first atomic bomb on Japan detonated. He was three kilometers from the detonation site.

Although he was injured, he caught a train to return to his home office. He arrived, and his supervisor was berating him that he was a coward, and there was no way such a bomb could exist. This was at the Mitsubishi Shipyard, in Nagasaki. Once again, he was about three kilometers from the detonation.

He sadly passed away however. In 2010 at the age of 93.

That's one. Feel free to look up the story of the few hundred thousand that didn't make it.

 

[Dayton3]

Newsflash: I come from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as an adult and I spent most of that time period in the US Military. I worked in "Deployment" Units who's jobs were to take what was left of the units and relocate them after the main forces were relocated to give the forces something to return to. And to help the sillyvillians survive. For many years, I had my own person Chem Suit. And my own weapon assigned. For the last few years, I was assigned all NBC and Firearms for the Unit. And that wasn't my real job. It just became my job when we did an exercise on a mobility. Before the Tankers and Bombers launched, we prepped the support for them. When that was done, we prepped the support for us to bug out to some "Corn Field in Kansas".

So you are admitting you had no relevant experience to support your ridiculous claims.

 

[Vrenn]

So you are admitting you had no relevant experience to support your ridiculous claims.

Wow, you are pulling an ultrartwingnutjob routine on this. The ONLY thing I didn't experience was the actual Nuclear Exchange itself. And neither has anyone else. You just fruitcaked yourself to death on this one.

 

[Mushroom]

That's one. Feel free to look up the story of the few hundred thousand that didn't make it.

Yes, a total of around 225,000 died in those two bombings.

Roughly the same number that died in the bombings of Hamburg and Tokyo.

Your point is what, exactly?

Were either Hiroshima or Nagasaki rendered lifeless afterwards?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It all boils down to the "Guns Vs. Butter" argument. People who generally do not have to worry about other people with guns stealing their butter also resent any buying of guns just to stop it from ever happening.

And those that scream about MIC are generally morons. Bloviating about garbage because they either want no spending at all, or only want spending on things they want and nothing else. YOu rarely hear sane and rational people using that as an argument. Only the extreme nutcases on both fringes of the political spectrum.

This all boils down to the "ad hominem" argument.

 

[Dayton3]

This all boils down to the "ad hominem" argument.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atomic weapons more powerful 75 years after Hiroshima

Explosive yield of nuclear weapons 'increased exponentially' since Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

Horrors of Hiroshima, a reminder nuclear weapons remain global threat

Despite the annihilation of two major Japanese cities in 1945, atomic bombs have not been relegated to the pages of history books, but continue to be developed today – with increasingly more power to destroy than they had when unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945.

news.un.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

What do you mean by that?

Look it up.

 

[Dayton3]

Atomic weapons more powerful 75 years after Hiroshima

Explosive yield of nuclear weapons 'increased exponentially' since Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

Horrors of Hiroshima, a reminder nuclear weapons remain global threat

Despite the annihilation of two major Japanese cities in 1945, atomic bombs have not been relegated to the pages of history books, but continue to be developed today – with increasingly more power to destroy than they had when unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945.

news.un.org

You are intelligent enough to know that raw power (yield) is NOT the main determiner of how lethal a nuclear weapon is?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are intelligent enough to know that raw power (yield) is NOT the main determiner of how lethal a nuclear weapon is?

Didn't say it was. Also, let me know when an ABM test succeeds in neutralizing 1 to 3 modern ICBMs.. Oh, that's right. Silly me, that can't happen.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

There are three basic kinds of deterrence.
Type I Deterrence is the deterrence of a direct attack. Type II Deterrence is defined as using strategic to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts, other than a direct attack on the United States itself. Type III Deterrence might be called "tit-for-tat", graduated, or controlled deterrence. It refers to acts that are deterred because the potential agressor is afraid that the defender or others will then take limited actions, military or nonmilitary, that will make the aggression unprofitable.

Type I Deterrence demands, first of all, the Second Strike Capability. Our Strategic Forces must survive his first counter-force strike and then, under any circumstances, must be ready to cause in his camp "unacceptable damage".

Type II Deterrence demands, first of all, Credible First Strike Capability. It means capability to attack enemy's strategic forces to degrade his capability of retaliation strike to the level in which he can't cause in our camp "unacceptable damage".

Type III Deterrence means, first of all, ability to fight some kind of a Limited Nuclear War.

So, what do we have now? The USA do not have, in fact, capability to fight a Limited Nuclear War. The few tens of B61 in Europe is really nothing.
What about the Credible First Strike Capability?
In the absolute majority of more or less realistic scenarios where Russia is a more or less prepared aggressor (and made even minimal measures to protect her strategic forces and population), fighting for really valuable (for them) goals, the USA can't degrade Russian strategic forces enough to avoid retaliation strike from them (which definitely will cause unacceptable damage because of our nearly non-existing Civil Defence and ineffective ABD). Therefore, the USA don't have reliable Deterrence Type II.

What about the Second Strike Capability?
The Russians believe that under some circumstances (the Russians are ready the USA - not) their first counter-force strike can destroy roughly 100% of Minitmen, 100% of bombers on bases, Ohios in ports and few Ohios on "hard duty" in Northern Atlantic. Then they will have time to shelter their population, and their Moscow Region ABD will intercept more than 100 incoming RVs. So, the second (retaliation) US strike will cause "terrible, but acceptable" loses, and their third (counter-value) strike will totally eliminate the USA (and they hope that the USA will surrender after or even before the Russian first strike instead of committing murder-suicide). It's not that they are going to attack the USA just for lulz, but in the tension situation, when the stakes are high and the USA are not ready - then they can prefer to attack first.

So, yes. We need better attacking forces, we need better ABD, we need better Civil Defense, and, of course, we need more resources in our state reserves to make our deterrence reliable.

 

[Grumblenuts]

they will have time to shelter their population, and their Moscow Region ABD will intercept more than 100 incoming RVs.

Someone proposed attacking Moscow with Recreational Vehicles?

 

[White 6]

There are three basic kinds of deterrence.
Type I Deterrence is the deterrence of a direct attack. Type II Deterrence is defined as using strategic to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts, other than a direct attack on the United States itself. Type III Deterrence might be called "tit-for-tat", graduated, or controlled deterrence. It refers to acts that are deterred because the potential agressor is afraid that the defender or others will then take limited actions, military or nonmilitary, that will make the aggression unprofitable.

Type I Deterrence demands, first of all, the Second Strike Capability. Our Strategic Forces must survive his first counter-force strike and then, under any circumstances, must be ready to cause in his camp "unacceptable damage".

Type II Deterrence demands, first of all, Credible First Strike Capability. It means capability to attack enemy's strategic forces to degrade his capability of retaliation strike to the level in which he can't cause in our camp "unacceptable damage".

Type III Deterrence means, first of all, ability to fight some kind of a Limited Nuclear War.

So, what do we have now? The USA do not have, in fact, capability to fight a Limited Nuclear War. The few tens of B61 in Europe is really nothing.
What about the Credible First Strike Capability?
In the absolute majority of more or less realistic scenarios where Russia is a more or less prepared aggressor (and made even minimal measures to protect her strategic forces and population), fighting for really valuable (for them) goals, the USA can't degrade Russian strategic forces enough to avoid retaliation strike from them (which definitely will cause unacceptable damage because of our nearly non-existing Civil Defence and ineffective ABD). Therefore, the USA don't have reliable Deterrence Type II.

What about the Second Strike Capability?
The Russians believe that under some circumstances (the Russians are ready the USA - not) their first counter-force strike can destroy roughly 100% of Minitmen, 100% of bombers on bases, Ohios in ports and few Ohios on "hard duty" in Northern Atlantic. Then they will have time to shelter their population, and their Moscow Region ABD will intercept more than 100 incoming RVs. So, the second (retaliation) US strike will cause "terrible, but acceptable" loses, and their third (counter-value) strike will totally eliminate the USA (and they hope that the USA will surrender after or even before the Russian first strike instead of committing murder-suicide). It's not that they are going to attack the USA just for lulz, but in the tension situation, when the stakes are high and the USA are not ready - then they can prefer to attack first.

So, yes. We need better attacking forces, we need better ABD, we need better Civil Defense, and, of course, we need more resources in our state reserves to make our deterrence reliable.

No way those idiot could take out 100% of Minuteman or 100% off bombers on bases without a withering counter attack being in the air and that does not account for sub or ship based delivery system. There is no winning that type of Nuclear war. They know it. We know it, except for you, of course.

 

[Silver Cat]

No way those idiot could take out 100% of Minuteman or 100% off bombers on bases without a withering counter attack being in the air and that does not account for sub or ship based delivery system. There is no winning that type of Nuclear war. They know it. We know it, except for you, of course.

There are ways. Mostly when, as now, the Russians increase their readiness, and the USA, as now, decrease it to avoid "accidential" accidents, because some decision-makers don't believe in the possibility of the non-accidential nuclear war.
For example - Russia increases number of RVs on their SLBMs up to 10 (in violation of the New Start treaty, of course), and then, in three minutes, launch 112 missiles from their SSBNs from Canadian Sector of Arctic. 1120 warheads, with 95% probability of single-short kill, and 7 minutes of flight time, means, that roughly all 400 silo-based Minutemen will be destroyed. Even if few of them survived, there are pretty good chances, that their warheads (one warhead per missile) will be intercepted by the Russian ABD or erzats-ABD.

Of course, if we put our Minutemen on Launch on Watch, put the bombers on Airborn Alert and send all our SSBNs in the North Atlantic, yes, it can decrease chances of the deliberate Russian attack, but also it can provoke them to launch a preemptive attack. "He laughs last who shoots first", you know. And Biden, looks like, decided to play Texas Red in this game.