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

[Big Bend Texas]

The Burkes and Ticonderga's have other vital missions (fleet defense) and will not always be around to defend U.S. cities and territory against nuclear missile attack.

They don't have to be since the missiles have enough range to protect our borders without having to sit just off of our shores.

 

[Dayton3]

They don't have to be since the missiles have enough range to protect our borders without having to sit just off of our shores.

The greater the distance the harder it is for them to intercept incoming missiles.

Many of the most vital targets in the U.S. are not on our borders anyway.

 

[Vrenn]

The greater the distance the harder it is for them to intercept incoming missiles.

Many of the most vital targets in the U.S. are not on our borders anyway.

You are making my point. Those same assets are needed across a wide ranges including Carrier Protection as well as military bases along the shores like Guam. There just aren't enough SM-2s and 3s to cover everything everywhere.

 

[Dayton3]

You are making my point. Those same assets are needed across a wide ranges including Carrier Protection as well as military bases along the shores like Guam. There just aren't enough SM-2s and 3s to cover everything everywhere.

Then shouldn't we build thousands more along with the facilities to support them?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The greater the distance the harder it is for them to intercept incoming missiles.

Many of the most vital targets in the U.S. are not on our borders anyway.

Dayton3 said:
The Burkes and Ticonderga's have other vital missions (fleet defense) and will not always be around to defend U.S. cities and territory against nuclear missile attack

Other targets were not what you spoke of or that I responded to.

 

[Dayton3]

Other targets were not what you spoke of or that I responded to.

I'm mainly when it comes to ABMs interested in protecting the continental U.S. from enemy nuclear attack.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I'm mainly when it comes to ABMs interested in protecting the continental U.S. from enemy nuclear attack.

You're all over the place. You don't need missile defense batteries all up and down the coasts to defend against ICBM's. They can be intercepted on the rise, in the mid phase or on the reentry phase.

It's really not a serious consideration anyway because such an attack means the destruction of whatever nation launches it.

 

[Dayton3]

You're all over the place. You don't need missile defense batteries all up and down the coasts to defend against ICBM's. They can be intercepted on the rise, in the mid phase or on the reentry phase.

It's really not a serious consideration anyway because such an attack means the destruction of whatever nation launches it.

The U.S. does not and never will have ABM bases in the right locations to stop ICBMs launched from the interior of Russia in the boost phase.

And the fact that the Russians and/or Chinese will be destroyed by the U.S. counterattack will be of no comfort to the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Americans who die in the attack.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The U.S. does not and never will have ABM bases in the right locations to stop ICBMs launched from the interior of Russia in the boost phase.

And the fact that the Russians and/or Chinese will be destroyed by the U.S. counterattack will be of no comfort to the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Americans who die in the attack.

We don't need to catch them in the boost phase since we can knock them out in the mid stage and reentry.

You're too paranoid, I grew up literally in the middle of four sites on Russia's first strike list, MADD works.

 

[Dayton3]

We don't need to catch them in the boost phase since we can knock them out in the mid stage and reentry.

You're too paranoid, I grew up literally in the middle of four sites on Russia's first strike list, MADD works.

MAD is only a theoretical exercise. There were rarely occasions during the Cold War where we can say definitively that MAD prevented a nuclear conflict.

How do we knock down ICBMs in the reentry stage without massive numbers of ABMs based here on U.S. territory?

And how we knock them down "mid stage" at all?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

MAD is only a theoretical exercise. There were rarely occasions during the Cold War where we can say definitively that MAD prevented a nuclear conflict.

How do we knock down ICBMs in the reentry stage without massive numbers of ABMs based here on U.S. territory?

And how we knock them down "mid stage" at all?

The proof is that for more than 50 years it has prevented a nuclear war.

The biggest worry are nuts like Kim and the Mullah's in Iran who are not rational actors which is why we work so hard to prevent Nuclear Proliferation.

We can easily deal with the possible threats from both Kim and Iran with a handful of interceptors.

What would a nation like the US, Russia, or China gain from a global nuclear exchange?

Forget religion and ideology wars are almost always motivated by economics and a nuclear exchange eliminates any possible such gains.

 

[Dayton3]

The proof is that for more than 50 years it has prevented a nuclear war.

Where do you get 50 years? Until 1964 the Soviets didn't have enough nuclear weapons deployed to seriously threaten the U.S. From 1964 to the effective end of the Cold War in 1989 was only 25 years.id

Who suggested anyone is going to "plan" a global nuclear exchange?

Try again.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Where do you get 50 years? Until 1964 the Soviets didn't have enough nuclear weapons deployed to seriously threaten the U.S. From 1964 to the effective end of the Cold War in 1989 was only 25 years.id

Who suggested anyone is going to "plan" a global nuclear exchange?

Try again.

2022-1964=58 years.

MADD didn't cease with the end of "The Cold War", it's why the US, Russia, FR, China, India, and Pakistan and Israel all maintain nuclear arsenals.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Who suggested anyone is going to "plan" a global nuclear exchange?

What the hell do you think happens when one nation starts lobbing ICBM's?

That starts a chain reaction which is why MADD works.

 

[Dayton3]

What the hell do you think happens when one nation starts lobbing ICBM's?

That starts a chain reaction which is why MADD works.

Can you name five instances in the last 58 years (your number by the way) where you can say unequivocally that "MAD" was the primary factor in preventing a nuclear conflict?

You can't of course.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Can you name five instances in the last 58 years (your number by the way) where you can say unequivocally that "MAD" was the primary factor in preventing a nuclear conflict?

You can't of course.

MADD not only prevents nuclear conflicts it has prevented the US, USSR/Russia from going to war head to head globally.

If not for that threat Russia would never have stopped expanding in Europe nor could we have prevented them from putting their nukes into Cuba.

It's not there solely to prevent an exchange of nukes it's there to, and has been successful at preventing major conflicts between nuclear powers globally.

 

[Vrenn]

Then shouldn't we build thousands more along with the facilities to support them?

AT ove4r 4 million per copy, the cost goes up when you figure we would need a few hundred thousand of them. Just for the SM-6 Missile, that would make them the most expensive military system even over the B-2, F-35, B-29. The SM-6 is the newest SA Naval that is in production today. To give you an idea, even the F-22,
F-35 and B-2s stealth is worthless. But even so, it's line of sight where only the ships can see them. The good thing is, if the ships can see them then so can the fighters. But in order to take out that one carrier it's going to take hundreds of fighters willing to die. Almost every ship is going to light up the sky with SM-2, 3 and 6 missiles and Fighters. The cost of this one fight will make what both sides in Ukraine are spending look like pocket change. But you can't take those resources away from it and use it for other things.

 

[Vrenn]

Then shouldn't we build thousands more along with the facilities to support them?

No, neither russia nor the US can afford doing that at over 4 mil a copy. You would need hundreds of thousands of them strategically prepositioned across the globe. MADD does the job along with economics.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 Russians don't have anywhere near those numbers. Neither do the Chinese.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

AT ove4r 4 million per copy, the cost goes up when you figure we would need a few hundred thousand of them. Just for the SM-6 Missile, that would make them the most expensive military system even over the B-2, F-35, B-29. The SM-6 is the newest SA Naval that is in production today. To give you an idea, even the F-22,
F-35 and B-2s stealth is worthless. But even so, it's line of sight where only the ships can see them. The good thing is, if the ships can see them then so can the fighters. But in order to take out that one carrier it's going to take hundreds of fighters willing to die. Almost every ship is going to light up the sky with SM-2, 3 and 6 missiles and Fighters. The cost of this one fight will make what both sides in Ukraine are spending look like pocket change. But you can't take those resources away from it and use it for other things.

There's just not anything anywhere to support any of these claims.... . Why make them?

Warplanes: Just How Effective Is the F-22

With the F-22 finally entering service, there is still a lot of debate over whether the aircraft is worth the cost (about $400 million each, including the enormous development costs, about $100 million each without) About five years ago, the British Def

www.strategypage.com