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

Ok. So why would Ukraine then need ABM systems?

 

I've posted nothing about Ukraine needing ABMs. I'm talking about the U.S. needing an ABM system.

 

Ok.

 

Well, one issue is that if a system is widely known to exist, the development of countermeasures to it are faster and more effective. Russia's propagandaists have touted their ways to defeat missile defense in order to maintain the belief in deterrence. If we have a way to defeat nukes that Russia is aware we have, then they would already be working on a system to get past it. Ultimately, we're left in a situation where MAD is always possible unless there's a major imbalance of intelligence. And nothing short of 100% interception would be acceptable given the stakes. Russia's demonstration of hypersonic capabilities is a message to the US that they can still hit us with things that can't be intercepted, and that could include something like a tactical nuke. The hypersonic capability itself is kind of moot for Ukraine itself, at least until/unless they start being more effective at intercepting regular missiles.

 

1) And of course you believe the people even you call "Russian propagandaists".
Why?

2) And you're yet another person that trots out the ridiculous "only 100% interception is acceptable".

For me if the choice is between the U.S. getting hit by 10 nuclear weapons and getting hit by 100 nuclear weapons I'll take the 10 every time.

3) you're yet another person who is smitten with the illusionary capabilities of hypersonice cruise missiles.

 

Not for sure, but it could be based on real systems they have. All I hope is we never have a leader who is willing to gamble millions of lives without an existential threat.

 

It doesn't require 10.

It only requires two to three warheads in the 400-750 kt range detonated at an altitude of 85 miles.

In the 1950s and 1960s it would have taken 100s of warheads to take out the US, but not any more.

 

j

EMP is probably a vastly overrated threat. Just as Fallout used to be and nuclear winter is.

 

It is also stupid-simple to protect against.



There, that is literally the level of technology you need to completely defeat EMP.

At one time, a lot of our facilities were protected against EMP. And most of our military equipment that is critical is still protected against it. But technically, it is no more complex than a steel garbage can.

 

~ Co2 climate change catastrophe was more important ...

 

A bunch of nuclear warheads detonate in the atmosphere and CO2 climate change will pale in comparison.

 

~ Sad but true ...

 

ABMs don't work all that well, but they reduce stability despite that.

The sane don't want more nuclear instability.

 

Kindly explain that in a logical fashion, and give an example of it ever happening in the past.

Why some believe that with absolutely no proof or prior examples, I have absolutely no idea.

 

Back in the 80s, intercontinental interceptor ABMs sucked, they were terrible. They still freaked out the Soviets.

 

Maybe they're tired of having missiles shoved up their backside.

 

Umm... what ballistic missiles are being used against them?

 

There were none in the 1980s. The first true ABM system dates to the 1990s.

 

The SS-26 STONE - Iskander has been used over 100 times in Ukraine since the invasion started.

 

I am referring to the tests of Reagan's Star Wars, which started in the 80s. That's the way I remember it, is that correct?

 

How likely is it systems like Sa 300s wouldn't have been able to intercept them? And are you actually advocating for advance ABM systems be used by Ukraine?

 

The program was nowhere even close to anything by the end of the 1980's. The first hard tests were being done at the White Sands Missile Range, to see if a software update would allow the system to intercept a ballistic missile. They did three or four tests and had good results, but the Gulf War kicked off so they rushed the software package to the Middle East. That was the first true "live fire" that went beyond just being a concept.

 

It could be very likely. The main fact, is that the ABM system has to be located in a place where it can do an intercept in the first place. If the targets were in Eastern Ukraine (which most of them were) and the ABM systems are all in Western Ukraine (which they were), they can't do squat but watch.

ABM systems actually have a rather small footprint. That is why if they are land based they are set up to defend key locations. They can't defend everything from any threat. Only a select area.

Think of it like a bulletproof vest. Yes, offers great protection from betting hit in the body. Does no damned good to keep you from getting hit in the legs or arms. Missile defense is like that. We protect the most important locations, and can do nothing but watch when the missile will land outside of that area.

But ABM systems are not what Ukraine needs. Too expensive, too complex, not enough time to train the operators in how to use them. What they need are more conventional air defense systems. After all, most of the missiles being used are actually cruise missiles. And almost any air defense system can shoot them down as they are basically just dumb suicidal jet drones.

 

We've been using theater and ICBM anti-missile systems as if they were the same. Made the same mistake myself. The initial tests of Reagans Star Wars went so badly, that they made the tests so easy you could say they were cheating.

In any case, Putin is going to escalate the violence, and if we can get some anti-missile systems into Ukraine, that would be a very good idea.

 

I'm not suggesting they do. I'm saying that the war in Ukraine and Russia threatening the U.S. and its allies with nuclear weapons should inspire us to build ABMs to protect ourselves.

Is that hard to understand?