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

[Dayton3]

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.

Interesting but except for two things:

1) I don't think any Russian SLBMs have a chance of 95% kill probability against our Minutemen in their silos.
2) The U.S. (nor the Russians) have ever adopted a policy of "launch on warning" (you said 'launch on watch') for our nuclear weapons. Such a strategy probably isn't even possible given the time constraints.

 

[White 6]

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.

So sad for you and your people, you have been sold a bill of good. Nuclear blackmail just does not work, with as many weapons that are out there. You should just tell that worthless piece of sh#t leader of your morally bankrupt country to call it off as it will not work. Nice try, but nobody buying it. Maybe you guys can just support yourselves without the benefits of taking over foreign countries.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Silly you, they have been doing it with the SM-3 for quite a while now.

 

[Vrenn]

Silly you, they have been doing it with the SM-3 for quite a while now.

Yes, a SM-3 can do the job up until the warhead goes into reentry. That means it can intercept it on the way up, and while it's still in orbit. But when it reenters, there isn't a thing on the table to intercept it today. This is why I brought up energy weapons like lasers and 10 years.

 

[Dayton3]

Yes, a SM-3 can do the job up until the warhead goes into reentry. That means it can intercept it on the way up, and while it's still in orbit. But when it reenters, there isn't a thing on the table to intercept it today. This is why I brought up energy weapons like lasers and 10 years.

1) SM3s have intercepted objects with the same speeds and altitudes of re entering ICBMs in the past.

2) People who constantly bring up energy weapons are showing they are not serious about ballistic missile defense.

 

[Vrenn]

1) SM3s have intercepted objects with the same speeds and altitudes of re entering ICBMs in the past.

2) People who constantly bring up energy weapons are showing they are not serious about ballistic missile defense.

Sure the sm-3 can do the job. As long as it's pre warned, already in a pre determined place and knows the trajectory. And that Nuclear Missile must be a Short or an Intermediate Range. NOT an ICBM. The News Stupids keep calling the warheads ICBMs when in reality they are MRBMs. But occasionally an ICBM will be intercepted but that is when all the ICBMs parameters are pre known. But an MRBM isn't traveling nearly as fast and has a more predictable flight path.

When the enemy is slinging almost 2000 warheads at you you honestly think that you can knock out all of them? How about half of them. Half is as bad as none. It's a military tradition to aim 2 warheads at any given target.

You keep trying to paint a rosy picture where All Out Nuclear War would be a walk in the park. Sure am glad you aren't the one with your finger on the button.

 

[Dayton3]

Sure the sm-3 can do the job. As long as it's pre warned, already in a pre determined place and knows the trajectory. And that Nuclear Missile must be a Short or an Intermediate Range. NOT an ICBM. The News Stupids keep calling the warheads ICBMs when in reality they are MRBMs. But occasionally an ICBM will be intercepted but that is when all the ICBMs parameters are pre known. But an MRBM isn't traveling nearly as fast and has a more predictable flight path.

When the enemy is slinging almost 2000 warheads at you you honestly think that you can knock out all of them? How about half of them. Half is as bad as none. It's a military tradition to aim 2 warheads at any given target.

You keep trying to paint a rosy picture where All Out Nuclear War would be a walk in the park. Sure am glad you aren't the one with your finger on the button.

If 2,000 Russian or Chinese ICBM warheads are targeted on the U.S. and we have at least 6,000 dedicated ABMs to defend the continental U.S. I would wager if I were a gambling man that at least 1,800 of them could be stopped before they hit targets in the continental U.S.

And you grossly exaggerate me claiming a nuclear war would ever be a "walk in the park".

I just believe that with the proper zealous preparation that the U.S. could survive such a war.

 

[Vrenn]

If 2,000 Russian or Chinese ICBM warheads are targeted on the U.S. and we have at least 6,000 dedicated ABMs to defend the continental U.S. I would wager if I were a gambling man that at least 1,800 of them could be stopped before they hit targets in the continental U.S.

And you grossly exaggerate me claiming a nuclear war would ever be a "walk in the park".

I just believe that with the proper zealous preparation that the U.S. could survive such a war.

And with the kill rate of 50%, that means that the worst fears become a reality. Some warheads will go off twice on the same target while others will go dud on both warheads. The SM-6s will have some affect but not any high numbers.

We estimated apprx 85% of the US Population would survive the initial attack. Russia would have a lower number since the majority of their population is in or near their major population or military centers. Let's dwell on just America.

In the first 6 months, food will start out okay but will slowly become hard to get. Plus, medical supplies will dwindle as well. In the next 10 years, life will end as we know it. It won't end but it will change forever.

As for having 6000 ABMs in strategic pre determined places, you just started another nuke war on paper and the nukes go up as well as the number of ABMs. Life gets even more dangerous and that 85% survival rate goes down fast. And we will still have people like you that will try and convince us all that "It won't be so bad" while the other side may have those that preach "We have no choice but to launch".

You are betting my life and those of our children that you are right. And you don't have that right.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Silly you, they have been doing it with the SM-3 for quite a while now.

Sure they have. Live, armed, ICBMS. Did I mention the bridge I have for sale?

The U.S. has invested heavily into the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads although it has no effective defense against Russia’s nuclear forces and has no plans to develop such a capacity. The limited anti-missiles system the U.S. has are aimed at a North Korean threat. The U.S. systems have had a mixed success rate in testing.

Have nuclear weapons ever been used in war?​

Yes. The U.S. dropped two nuclear bombs against cities in Japan in the closing days of World War II. The U.S., at the time, was the only country with nuclear weapons. Most modern nuclear warheads are far more destructive than the weapons employed against Japan.

Again, have live nuclear weapons comparable to Russia's ever been shot down in any test? Hopefully, you'll take the hint this time. No, "that can't happen." Think.. this time.

 

[Mushroom]

This is why I brought up energy weapons like lasers and 10 years.

Which are pure bullshit.

Fact is, the US never seriously looked into them because of the obvious limitations. One of the reasons the US "won" this contest back in the 1980's is that the Soviets went all in for researching "LASERs", while the US was really researching kinetic kill weapons. Which is how it is really done today in the real world.

Want a simple two word answer as to why "leasers and energy weapons" will never be able to do this? Simple, here you go.

Thermal Blooming.

The US knew that, and still does some playing in this area. But every serious system since the 1980's has always been of a kinetic kill variety. PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, GBI, the list just goes on and on. Sure, amateurs that know nothing of any of the limitations talk about super lasers knocking missiles out of the sky like something out of an Austin Powers movie. But real professionals that know the limitations talk about kinetic kill vehicles.

So you can bring it up all you want, I really do not care. Thermal blooming will mean that that will always be a dead end.

 

[Mushroom]

It's a military tradition to aim 2 warheads at any given target.

Of course it is. I have even discussed that many times in here.

The best "accuracy" and PATRIOT system can achieve is 50%. Because by SOP we fire 2 missiles at every inbound target. So I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

 

[Mushroom]

Sure they have. Live, armed, ICBMS.

OK then, Braniac.

Tell me the last time any nation did a weapon test against a missile actually armed with a thermonuclear warhead.

I will sit back and wait on the answer for this. Also, by that silly reasoning no weapon test with any air defense system was valid, because none of the aircraft shot down had nuclear bombs on it, or actual air to ground weapons.

This is one of the most silly things I have ever read in here, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Dayton3]

You are betting my life and those of our children that you are right. And you don't have that right.

Sure I do. I do wish you would stop deliberately mistaking what I've claimed.

 

[Mushroom]

In the first 6 months, food will start out okay but will slowly become hard to get.

In case you are not aware, most of the "Nuclear Winter" theories were blasted to dust over 30 years ago.

Food will be an issue, only because most people do not live near production centers. Not that there is no food, just there is no way to get it to the huge "food deserts" that produce nowhere near enough to feed their population. That stands true for a nuclear war, elimination of all technology, or anything else that eliminated the global trade network that much of the world relies upon.

This should be obvious to any that lived through the early days of COVID. Shortages all over the place. Not that there was a real shortage, but panic buying and breakdown of much of the distribution system caused it. That is not a "nuclear war" issue, just a fact of life to all that are aware of those things.

 

[Dayton3]

And with the kill rate of 50%, that means that the worst fears become a reality. Some warheads will go off twice on the same target while others will go dud on both warheads. The SM-6s will have some affect but not any high numbers.

We estimated apprx 85% of the US Population would survive the initial attack. Russia would have a lower number since the majority of their population is in or near their major population or military centers. Let's dwell on just America.

In the first 6 months, food will start out okay but will slowly become hard to get. Plus, medical supplies will dwindle as well. In the next 10 years, life will end as we know it. It won't end but it will change forever.

As for having 6000 ABMs in strategic pre determined places, you just started another nuke war on paper and the nukes go up as well as the number of ABMs. Life gets even more dangerous and that 85% survival rate goes down fast. And we will still have people like you that will try and convince us all that "It won't be so bad" while the other side may have those that preach "We have no choice but to launch".
.

I would bet that over the long run it is cheaper and easier to deploy effective ABMs than it would be for the Russians to build effective ICBMs and their warheads.

 

[Mushroom]

Sure I do. I do wish you would stop deliberately mistaking what I've claimed.

He drank the kool-aid of "The Day After", obviously.

And I laugh as he tries to scream that he knows so much more than us "sillyvilians". That alone tells me all I really need to know about him, or how seriously to take his posts. And people constantly scream *I* am arrogant, and dismissive of civilians.

 

[Mushroom]

I would bet that over the long run it is cheaper and easier to deploy effective ABMs than it would be for the Russians to build effective ICBMs and their warheads.

The simple fact is, that would be impossible.

I admit, that even with a good ABM system, in the event of a WWIII, we would likely lose 20-30% of our population in the first month. Mostly major cities, as the majority of the country would be BumFrack, Oklahoma that the Russians likely never heard of. With more cows than people, so they would not even bother targeting it.

The majority of deaths would have nothing to do with the nukes, but the breakdown of transportation and distribution systems. Depending on how bad that is, we could lose another 20-50% of the population.

But the fact is, most of our nation can not sustain itself. Remove the stores, and most would simply starve. You could throw millions into a rich and fertile agricultural region, and they would starve to death. If bread is not available, they have no idea how to harvest wheat, grind it into flour, and make bread out of it. Give them a string and piece of metal, and they would simply look at you as others would be able to make a fishing hook and catch fish. Probably 85% of people in the US have little to no survival knowledge.

This has nothing really to do with "Nuclear War", it has to do with the simple facts that most are sheep, and completely dependent upon others to allow them to live. When you have people that literally think that hamburger comes in plastic trays, you know who will be bird food if something really bad was to happen.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, time's up. Why "can't happen"?..

The W47 is the only US ICBM or SLBM warhead to have been live fired in an atmospheric missile and warhead test, on May 6, 1962.

Not even the MIC is that insane. The supposed "tests" are set ups for show. To ensure endless military spending. Fear, fear, fear. There's no "winning" even according to your own rosy(sic) projections in any case. Naked nationalistic fervor seems all the OP really cares about. We already far outnumber the Russians. Who the fuck cares which nation's people survive with more? Just the insane. That's who. Everyone loses who engages in war. All wars end in diplomacy, not violence. Russia-Ukraine will be no exception.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tell me the last time any nation did a weapon test against a missile actually armed with a thermonuclear warhead.

Wow, I see you figured out the answer before I even gave it away this time. Why not the first time?

Oh, and I already said "silly me" but that was intentional.

 

[Dayton3]

Okay, time's up. Why "can't happen"?..

Not even the MIC is that insane. The supposed "tests" are set ups for show. To ensure endless military spending. Fear, fear, fear. There's no "winning" even according to your own rosy(sic) projections in any case. Naked nationalistic fervor seems all the OP really cares about. We already far outnumber the Russians. Who the fuck cares which nation's people survive with more? Just the insane. That's who. Everyone loses who engages in war. All wars end in diplomacy, not violence. Russia-Ukraine will be no exception.

None of that is remotely true.