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

[Mushroom]

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

You see, this is where I actually laugh at most that people post in these threads.

In reality, this was my actual job starting in 2007. This is a topic I know a hell of a lot about, and I laugh at how little most know about it.

Some like you scream some random nonsense, but do you actually know all the systems we have (or have had) in operation, and their capabilities? Can you discuss PATRIOT PAC-3, MEADS, SM-2/SM-3, THAAD, GBI, or any other systems? Or do you simply rely upon what little you may have read about in forums like this? Likely from those that are even less informed, but have a political slant or agenda they are trying to push?

Me, I am actually informed in this area, as it was my job for years. Want to talk about the Chinese DF-31D "Carrier Killer", I can discuss that, any why I think it is all a smokescreen, with specific technical reasons why. No "political BS", I actually hate politics. I also have a strong distaste for anything even remotely political, and that does not deal in actual facts.

You, I am now actually largely seeing as a troll. Little informed, just throwing out coprolite because you are pushing an agenda and know little of the actual topic or systems being discussed.

But please, feel free to actually discuss factual information, and prove me wrong.

 

[Mushroom]

None of that is remotely true.

Which is why I challenged him in my last post to "prove me wrong".

I bet he does not, and continues with the political BS. But I will gladly tip my hat to him and retract that if I am proven wrong, and he actually does act other than as a troll.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Some like you scream

Go ahead. Quote me screaming you silly bugger. What's clear is that you and your buddy think all this shit's fun and games. It's not. Get back to me when you've grown up half as much as you pretend from your comfy armchair.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But please, feel free to actually discuss factual information, and prove me wrong.

I did and you just laughed like a troll. Either piss off or make your own points. So far you've just longwindedly stroked your ego and made mine instead.

 

[Mushroom]

What's clear is that you and your buddy think all this shit's fun and games.

No, actually this is something very serious to me.

To give an idea, look no farther than my profile picture. Taken in 2007 at the White Sands Missile Range. And a "tip of the hat" to Dr. Strangelove, one of my favorite movies. When I first professionally worked in the area of Air and Missile Defense. On other similar sites, I am known as "Oozlefinch", as "Mushroom" was already taken. An obscure term, but one that means a lot in Air Defense circles.

Oozlefinch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You see, here is the problem. You are actually dealing here with somebody that takes this very seriously, as that was literally my job. Many years in this field, have the deployment ribbons and deployments to combat zones to show for it. And as I said, I am well known here for "cutting through the political coprolite", as it means nothing to me. I have even talked clearly how much I hate politics, and could not give a damn about it.

You, it is obvious that you are all about politics, as your statement "think all this shit's fun and game" proves. Reality and facts mean nothing to you, you have an axe to grind, and that is all that matters. Notice, I even extended an olive branch, asking you to "prove me wrong", and you did the exact opposite. Instead of discussing things logically and based on facts, you came back with fear mongering and hysteria.

Which is why from now on, I simply dismiss you as a troll. You do not discuss things based on facts and logic, but on FUD. But please, let me know if you want to discuss things based upon facts and we can try again.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

Actually, their missiles with the individual satellite correction for every warhead are pretty accurate. For example, in this video a representative of a manufacturer said, that the actual error of Sineva warhead never was more than 20 meters.

There still is some kind of uncertainty in reliability of missiles and warheads, that's why, may be, the next step of the peace-time escalation will be denouncing of test ban treaty and resuming of the actual nuclear tests and drills with the nuclear weapon usage. Or, if they are really provoked, they can just take their chances.

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.

The best time of LoW at drills was 7 minutes (five minutes from the POTUS decision). Two minutes to identify the attack and make a decision - it's not realistic under the current circumstances.
The flight time of Bulava missile on 3 thousand miles on supressed ballistic trajectory - 7 minutes. They need 3 minutes to launch all missiles. They can choose time of their attack, so they can exploit any already existing holes in the US survey or C2 systems (you know, SBIRS is far from being completed) or even create the new ones.

It's not that they can easily do it at any given moment, but such an attack is more simple (and more possible) than was Pearl-Harbor attack.

 

[justoffal]

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?

Well maybe because the detonation of even just 10 of Russia's 6000 nuclear charges never mind our own would be enough to destroy the entire global ecosystem. Soon after that there would be totally unavoidable Mass starvation and death from radiation poisoning. The word strategic should absolutely be banned from any use of connection with nuclear weapons because there is no strategy whatsoever. There is only destruction and death regardless of who pushes the button and that's for everybody including the button pusher.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

Did I say a thing about Nuclear Winter? Stop typing for me. I said food shortages along with other shortages as time goes on which is exactly what YOu are saying. And if you think Covid is bad, the food shortage because of dire transportation and manufacturing needs will make it look like a walk in the park.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

I hope you survive it and all your guns are lost or taken from you. I'll give you 2 weeks time before you revert back to a complete animal.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

Okay, let's say you built your ABMs and got them into place. Putin is unstable. You just set up a condition of use em or lose em.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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've already got the most extensive ABM capability in the world both in size and technology largely thanks to joint development projects with Israel over the last 20 years.

Intercepting ICBM's is a different ballgame but we're leading the world in that technology right now with a number of successful tests done at sea.

To kick that program into high gear would take a massive increase in spending, personnel, logistics and there's no way a democratic administration would even consider it.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

He knows that would be the end or both Russia and Himself. He's not crazy or stupid and he'd lose everything by employing nukes.

This war is purely about economics and Ukraine's Resources and other than moving into the other former republics if he's allowed to get away with this invasion we don't have a lot to fear for the near term future.

Once he's gobbled them up along with all of their resources that equation changes dramatically because he knows his nucler blackmail has worked.

Stop him now to avoid a larger war in 10 years which very likely would result in WWIII but he's not going to start WWIII over Ukraine.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Notice, I even extended an olive branch, asking you to "prove me wrong"

LOL. That you imagine saying that somehow demonstrates how mature or serious you are is hilarious. It's certainly no way to extend an olive branch even if the circumstances called for such a thing. If you were serious you'd recall that you'd already covered your avatar, already bloviated far too long about your associated service record, already understand that not everything is about you, your particular expertise. You'd have already acknowledged that you missed my point the first round, "proved" you wrong to some extent, and have stuck to the "message" rather switching to lame assault upon my character mode.. something you're obviously no expert on.. as it should be.

I don't care if you think you're Einstein. You still have to provide sources of fact other than yourself.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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

Why would they need to? Having a life warhead doesn't change the math in comparison to just a mass of the same size and shape.

Your question makes no sense.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

That simply isn't accurate, last summer they did tests during reentry that were successful.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why would they need to? Having a life warhead doesn't change the math in comparison to just a mass of the same size and shape.

Your question makes no sense.

It made plenty of sense when I said it first. Point being, this, of course, is about politics just like everything else. This is a political discussion board. Yes, if one were simply interested in choosing the best fitting screw to fasten something with they'd go to the hardware store. But if you want to discuss the MIC's potential incentives for "testing" weapons designed to neutralize a supposed enemy's?.. No time like the present..

 

[Mushroom]

I hope you survive it and all your guns are lost or taken from you. I'll give you 2 weeks time before you revert back to a complete animal.

There you go, projecting once again.

You do not know me, my beliefs, or anything else. You simply attack me because I do not agree with you.

 

[Mushroom]

Why would they need to? Having a life warhead doesn't change the math in comparison to just a mass of the same size and shape.

Your question makes no sense.

I agree, it is completely irrelevant. However, I was not the one that was demanding proof of a test against a real missile with a real warhead.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This war is purely about economics and Ukraine's Resources and other than moving into the other former republics if he's allowed to get away with this invasion we don't have a lot to fear for the near term future.

Once he's gobbled them up along with all of their resources that equation changes dramatically because he knows his nucler blackmail has worked.

Stop him now to avoid a larger war in 10 years which very likely would result in WWIII but he's not going to start WWIII over Ukraine.

"Stop him now" how exactly? Putin's problems don't magically disappear if he succeeds in taking Ukraine. It was a desperate move to begin with, so yes, he has proven himself somewhat insane and prone to miscalculate. His future is bleak no matter what happens at this point. All he can sensibly do now is stop the war diplomatically, the sooner the better.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I agree, it is completely irrelevant. However, I was not the one that was demanding proof of a test against a real missile with a real warhead.

Yes, you simply can't acknowledge the obvious. You've made that patently clear.