3 ms·

At the time the Nike/Spartan systems were being developed, remember that interception was a lot harder and precision and accuracy was a lot lower.

openasocket 9y ago
Ah, I forgot we're talking about systems designed in the late 50's and 60's!
rootusrootus 9y ago
And even today, isn't the latest system under development only running about 50/50 on successful intercepts? It's a hard problem to solve.
- openasocket 9y ago
  That's really unsettling. Could you launch like 10 of them at a single ICBM and reduce the odds of failure to 1/1024?
  - arethuza 9y ago
    Which would be fine if anyone launched a single ICBM attack. Probably explains why Moscow, which had a large ABM system installed to protect it, was targetted by ~400 weapons from various countries. e.g. The UK Chevaline system was pretty much designed to allow the UK to be confident of destroying Moscow.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Cost / accuracy tradeoffs. Keep in mind that decoy RVs (inflatable mylar targets) are cheap. Overwhelming your adversary's sensing and response systems is a classic tactic, and not just in military combat.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Merad 9y ago
    The goal of the current US missile defense system is to be able to counter 10s of incoming warheads by firing 200+ interceptors. The last I heard, only about 25 interceptors had been deployed. Bear in mind, however, that everyone with modern ICBMs uses MIRVs, so a single missile will release 5-10 warheads. Honestly, the system is mostly meant to counter the growing threat from North Korea. Trying to defend against a real attack by Russia/China/almost any other opponent simply isn't realistic with current technology.
    - tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
      Yup. And there is technology to spot naive decoys (e.g. IR signature), and technology to make decoys more sophisticated. The ABMs have to hit the MIRV before the warheads deploy or knock out every potentially damaging warhead. Russia and USA as the nuclear triad are in leagues of their own, with China/UK/France lagging far behind. China deliberately does not have a MAD capability or strategy. With an attack from an adversary like NK/Pakistan, we would hope we could throw a flock of ABMs at their missiles as fast as they could launch them and immediately blast the shit out of them in retaliation. China might well be able to get stuff through, but we could limit the damage. Russia is another ballgame. In an all-out nuclear assault, we could hope to knock out a few warheads here and there, but the numbers are grim. We would be facing a large proportion of our population centers looking like Hiroshima circa September 1945. So yeah, North Korea is a leading threat, since they are led by a madman who could start a new bloody war in the Korean Peninsula that would devastate our closest allies in the region and pull in China and Russia, and may someday soon if unimpeded be able to actually develop a damaging missile or two that could reach our western shores, but Russia is an adversary led by a murderous autocrat who gives few fucks and could potentially push buttons that would make us a smoldering wasteland in a matter of hours. All a matter of perspective.

openasocket 9y ago

Ah, I forgot we're talking about systems designed in the late 50's and 60's!

rootusrootus 9y ago

And even today, isn't the latest system under development only running about 50/50 on successful intercepts? It's a hard problem to solve.

openasocket 9y ago
That's really unsettling. Could you launch like 10 of them at a single ICBM and reduce the odds of failure to 1/1024?
- arethuza 9y ago
  Which would be fine if anyone launched a single ICBM attack. Probably explains why Moscow, which had a large ABM system installed to protect it, was targetted by ~400 weapons from various countries. e.g. The UK Chevaline system was pretty much designed to allow the UK to be confident of destroying Moscow.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Cost / accuracy tradeoffs. Keep in mind that decoy RVs (inflatable mylar targets) are cheap. Overwhelming your adversary's sensing and response systems is a classic tactic, and not just in military combat.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Merad 9y ago
  The goal of the current US missile defense system is to be able to counter 10s of incoming warheads by firing 200+ interceptors. The last I heard, only about 25 interceptors had been deployed. Bear in mind, however, that everyone with modern ICBMs uses MIRVs, so a single missile will release 5-10 warheads. Honestly, the system is mostly meant to counter the growing threat from North Korea. Trying to defend against a real attack by Russia/China/almost any other opponent simply isn't realistic with current technology.
  - tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
    Yup. And there is technology to spot naive decoys (e.g. IR signature), and technology to make decoys more sophisticated. The ABMs have to hit the MIRV before the warheads deploy or knock out every potentially damaging warhead. Russia and USA as the nuclear triad are in leagues of their own, with China/UK/France lagging far behind. China deliberately does not have a MAD capability or strategy. With an attack from an adversary like NK/Pakistan, we would hope we could throw a flock of ABMs at their missiles as fast as they could launch them and immediately blast the shit out of them in retaliation. China might well be able to get stuff through, but we could limit the damage. Russia is another ballgame. In an all-out nuclear assault, we could hope to knock out a few warheads here and there, but the numbers are grim. We would be facing a large proportion of our population centers looking like Hiroshima circa September 1945. So yeah, North Korea is a leading threat, since they are led by a madman who could start a new bloody war in the Korean Peninsula that would devastate our closest allies in the region and pull in China and Russia, and may someday soon if unimpeded be able to actually develop a damaging missile or two that could reach our western shores, but Russia is an adversary led by a murderous autocrat who gives few fucks and could potentially push buttons that would make us a smoldering wasteland in a matter of hours. All a matter of perspective.