Why Isn't Everyone In the U.S. clamoring for the U.S. to deploy more ABMs?

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Mar 22, 2022.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends, are we talking ABMs at home or ABMs surrounding Russia? Im all for more ABMs here at home if we have anything usefull at shooting down incoming ICBMs. From what I understand, most ABM systems are designed to shoot down missiles while they're launching, not while they're re-entering. This requires them to be based relatively near the expected launch site. Placing ABMs all around Russia would be a provacative move more likely to initiate nuclear war than prevent it.

    But if we have systems that can be effective launched from 'home', then hell ya lets build as many as we can.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are wrong. Most ABMs are terminal phase, not boost phase.
     
    Mushroom and modernpaladin like this.
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good. Then lets build a shitton of em here at home.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2022
    Dayton3 likes this.
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because President Obama removed our Eastern European ABM program a dozen years ago, so there are no ABM's in the theater of operations.
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then everyone should be clamoring for us to build thousands of them now.
     
  7. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, given how crappy their armor is, I am hoping if they try to launch an ICBM at the US, it will detonate in the silo, or hit the south pole.
     
    James California likes this.
  8. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,465
    Likes Received:
    9,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That’s a good question. I would like to see them at home and in every NATO country there is. And if Putin doesn’t like it… He can eat rocks while I flip him off and Take a leak in his Cheerios
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2022
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. Most ABM systems operate in the terminal phase, when they are coming down.

    Putting them around Russia (or anywhere else) would be stupid, as they would be completely ineffective. Missiles upon launch have a fixed speed, and can only accelerate so fast. At launch, it is almost impossible to shoot one, as physics limit the speed of any missile launched to try and intercept the first. Essentially, thing of trying to shoot a bullet, with another bullet. The "interceptor bullet" will simply never catch the first one. The only time that was possible was with the old NIKE Hercules system. And only because the interceptor used a nuclear warhead.

    The only other phase where the main engine has shut off, and it is coasting towards the target. This is where the GBM-GBI systems target it. By that time the course and speed are already set, all acceleration is done, and intercept is relatively simple. But the missile still needs ot be in front of the inbound missile, it can't be fired if it has already gone overhead for the same reason as the first solution you proposed.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  11. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Amortized over three years say that's only 70 billion a year. Are you suggesting the U.S. can't afford that out of a defense budget of 700 billion or so annually?

    I think there is a much darker and more ominous reason people oppose the U.S. deploying a defense against ICBMs.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never said that. I said we lack the political will to do so. And the costs would be significantly higher, as that $200 billion cost was extremely low.

    Because you are talking about housing a Battalion plus of Soldiers at each site. That means in addition to the basic system, you need to acquire the land, and then build facilities to house them. It is times like this I really curse at the waves of BRAC in the 1990's. As we closed so many bases and got rid of them, and most would have been almost perfect for such a facility. For example, even if for some reason tomorrow San Francisco demanded one, there is nowhere we would put one! Every single military base in that entire area was closed. In Los Angeles, I can only think of 2 places they could put this in the entire county, both on the border of Orange County less than 5 miles apart.

    The simple fact is, we could easily do it, but nobody will want to pay for it. Or to see a Battalion of Army stationed permanently at every location to support and operate it. Do not confuse what we can or can afford, with what politicians are willing to afford or do. We can't even get them to replace our current "land based ABM system", and it literally is a Cold War relic, dating back to the start of the Reagan Administration. The politicians for the last decade and a half have cancelled the replacement over and over again, saying it was a waste of money.

    And the one actually intended to operate in this capacity is limited to only 2 batteries, and they have been running them ragged for over a decade now. They simply refuse to see any new equipment for the military as needed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2022
    Dayton3 likes this.
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good. Then lets build shittons of em all over the US.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that is what I've been advocating in this thread you know...
     
  15. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Army was crazy to get rid of the Presidio in San Francisco. I stayed there once and it was beautiful. Probably the best view in SF of the Golden Gate was from the Presidio Burger King. Ah well...
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  16. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with ABM systems is the implication it makes. The implication is that we could survive an all out nuclear war if we just had enough of them.

    Russia is believed to have 6,257 nuclear warheads. If we had an ABM system that was able to stop 95% of them, we would still get hit with 312 nuclear warheads, and life in the U.S. would be over. If we could stop 99% of them, we would still get hit with 62 of them.

    If we got hit with only 1% of Russia’s missiles, most life in the U.S. would end.

    So do we really want to pin our hopes on spending billions and billions of dollars on an ABM system? All it would take is a 1% failure rate, and we’d be toast.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think a lot of folks have. Ukraine certainly wants more. Like SA300s etc. We can't give them Patriots, but we can do more for sure.
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blame Nancy Pelosi for that. She was the driving force in "demilitarizing" most of California during the 1990's waves of BRAC. They closed almost every single military base possible. Including the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which was the only military base that actually turned a profit. Every base in LA except for one (and that is a "white elephant" that they can't get rid of), every base in the San Francisco area, every base in Sacramento, that state more than any other was gutted of bases.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a retarded mindset, and I never understood those that make that claim.

    It is impossible to ever protect everywhere. The most you can ever do is protect your most critical locations.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    SA300s are not ABMs. The are very advanced surface to air (anti aircraft) missiles. Now they like the Patriots no doubt have anti missile capability as a side effect but they aren't dedicated anti ballistic missile missiles.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  21. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Marines still have MCRD in San Diego, Camp Pendleton, Miramar Air Base, and a base at 29 Palms. The Navy has a hospital base in San Diego. The Air Force still has a number of bases in CA. But I did my Basic Training at Ft Ord, and it is closed for good.
     
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I am well aware of that. But notice, none of those you listed are in LA County.

    The only exceptions are really three. Los Angeles Air Force Base, which is largely a joke (which is why I purposefully ignored it). I know of it, but did not even count it.

    The others are Los Alamitos, and the Seal Beach Naval Weapon Station (the "White Elephant" in my earlier post). Largely empty and unused, the mission was lost when Long Beach closed almost 30 years ago. But it is also a National Wildlife Refuge, so the Navy is stuck with it.

    None of the other bases you mentioned is in LA Country. And you have other in California. Travis, Fort Hunter-Liggett, Bridgeport, Barstow, Edwards, Fort Irwin, quite a few. Almost all in the middle of nowhere, and most likely have never heard of most of them. But in the BRAC of the 1990's, every base anywhere close to a large population center was closed. Ord, all the SF bases (I was stationed at one of them), Tustin, El Toro, Van Nuys, Long Beach, Sacramento, the list just goes on and on and on.

    Which for the purposes of this thread are worthless. Great, "AEGIS Ashore" could protect 100 square miles of mostly desert, but not the people which is the actual job of the military.
     
    Dayton3 and Seth Bullock like this.
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just wanted to circle around to this to give an idea.

    During my time in the Marines in the 1980s, I did training at many bases in California. MCRD and Pendleton, of course. I went to Fort Ord in 1982 as part of the JROTC program. El Toro was where I attended NCO school, Long Beach had the largest exchange when I was stationed at Seal Beach. Most of my uniforms and other things came from Tustin. And from 1990-1993 I was stationed at Mare Island, and visited most bases and facilities in the Bay area.

    Today, most of the bases I listed are long gone. Ironically, I grew up just a mile or so from LA-96, a NIKE site right next to the Van Nuys Airport (Van Nuys Air Force Base, another closed base I often went to). About ten years ago I first visited SF-88 (a NIKE site just north of the Golden Gate Bridge - now a museum). I used to live almost literally across the street from T-33, the NIKE site at Travis Air Force Base (the launcher site is now under a facility for parking school busses).

    I remember the NIKE system, and it was all over the country. We can not even recreate that, as those locations are all turned over to civilian use, unsuited for use today because of "urban sprawl". Plus I know the politics of places like LA or SF would scream all sorts of coprolite if such was ever to be proposed again in the future.

    I do strongly believe that we need to bring such a system back, and have thought so for ages. But for over two decades, I have been in the "Missile Defense" area, and seen how the politicians put absolutely no thought into it. They may talk the talk (President Obama), but in reality cancel every proposal but the bare minimum to keep it alive at all. GBI-GBM has been a reality for almost 20 years, but still largely kept at minimal levels. THAAD still at two batteries, not the dozens of batteries that were wanted over a decade ago. MEADS, the PATRIOT replacement is barely alive. Ironically, only because Germany is still funding it, the US ditched it a decade ago as no President has seen a need to replace a system that is over 40 years old!

    Tell me, how many are using for day to day service a 35 year old car? The first PATRIOT Battalion was activated in 1984. When I was in PATRIOT myself starting in 2007, the real joke was that I was the only person in the Battalion that was older than my Launcher. But we can't get Congress or the President to actually agree to spend the money to update us to anything newer. I remember when THAAD was the "big deal", then we made out first "provisional Battery". In 2008.

    It is now 14 years later, and we are at a whopping 2 "Provisional Batteries". That as I said, are in horrible condition because they are constantly deployed to trouble spots. South Korea, Japan, Poland, Israel, Hawaii, Guam, they are rarely at home. Turnover is horrible, as those in the units are tired of being deployed all the time. But, why do we not have more of them being activated?

    When I rejoined in 2007, we had a speech by a high ranking General, with what he saw as the "future of Air Defense". Each Air Defense Battalion is three Batteries. In 2007, it was three Batteries of PATRIOT (some units have a Battery of AVENGER - basically STINGER in HMMWVs). At that time, by 2011 they expected a change. One Battery of THAAD, 1-2 batteries of MEADS (the PATRIOT replacement - PATRIOT if they had not been replaced yet), and 1 battery of AVENGER.

    Well, today it is the exact same today as in 2007. No MEADS, no THAAD, AVENGER is in the same few units that it was 15 years ago. The last 3 Presidents changed nothing, the current President is changing nothing, I expect no change from the next President.

    This is what drives me crazy. When the main Air Defense system is older than those that operate it, that is nucking futs. We have newer systems, but nobody wants to actually spend the money to deploy THAAD or MEADS. Hell, I bet most who read this have no idea what I am even talking about. That also shows the disconnect between what real "Air Defense" is, and what people think it is. Yet, I know people will cry about the "MIC", and how such systems make a war more likely.

    To that, i say to tell that to Ukraine.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2022
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  24. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough. Who is going to fire ballistic missiles at them?
     
  25. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    at who? Ukraine? If your talking about nuclear armed ballistic missiles hopefully no one.
     

Share This Page