5 ms·
This is probably better interpreted as "the US has the best defenses against ballistic missiles". The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real
by Manuel_D 3y ago
This is probably better interpreted as "the US has the best defenses against ballistic missiles". The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat, and THAAD is the most thoroughly tested system against long range ballistic missiles. Is that going to stop 5,000 ICBMs with penetration aids launched against the US? Almost certainly not, and I don't think the author meant it that way.
- jupp0r 3y agoI see. We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations. The North Korea case shows that the step from having one missile to having 100 is extremely short compared to going from having no missiles to having one missile.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations We somewhat intentionally lack defences against MAD salvos. Our defenses will likely remain adequate for defending against the likes of Pyongyang.
- perihelions 3y agoI don't think that's a consensus view? Jeffrey Lewis says the opposite, - "The point is that North Korea is clearly aimed at overwhelming the US missile defense system in Alaska... At that cost, I am pretty sure North Korea can add warheads faster than we can add interceptors." https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1315005031075123202 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/13150050310751232...
- actionfromafar 3y agoCan someone explain - even if they got one through, wouldn't North Korea basically be a wasteland 30 minutes later?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> even if they got one through, wouldn't North Korea basically be a wasteland 30 minutes later The idea is if to have a credible threat to keep us from acting first, as well as giving many countries a vested interest in the stability of the regime: if the Kims go, North Korea goes, and so does somebody else.
- jojobas 3y agoCongratz, you grasped the facet of MAD that is unacceptable losses - for the US a single warhead getting through is too high a price to destroy pretty much anyone.
- onion2k 3y agoThe danger is that an unstable leader would do it anyway to martyr themselves and their country.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 3y agoI read that Patriot missiles cost $5m each. Should make a contract with SpaceX to crank 'em out for $20,000 each.
- dboreham 3y agoCost of individual military items is often clouded by the need to amortize development cost over a relatively small production run. Making an additional missile beyond the contracted quantity does not cost $5m.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 3y ago> a relatively small production run Over 10,000 have been built. The R&D cost should have been amortized away by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
- dirtyid 3y agoYes - best against moderately complex threats in limited numbers. For reference Recent SM6 test (FTM33) shot down 1 of 2 short range ballistic missiles with 4 interceptors in what's described as "most complex" test so far, but "most complex" hasn't hinted at dealing with anything like counter measures. Reality is, even US missile defense also haven't been seriously stress tested.
- Animatronio 3y agoThe Patriot has a very high failure rate and isn't all it's cracked up to be. https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/scuds-vs-patriots-desert-storm-1991/ https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/scuds-vs-patriots-desert-s... https://www.gao.gov/products/t-nsiad-92-27 https://www.gao.gov/products/t-nsiad-92-27
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y agoThat was 3 decades ago, and before PAC-3.
- bahmboo 3y agoThose are 30 year old documents. Much like everything else the patriot technology has advanced a lot since then.
- Animatronio 3y agoAlright, here's a more recent one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Riyadh_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Riyadh_missile_strike "However, according to Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at CNS, the Saudis failed to intercept the missiles following a malfunction of the MIM-104 Patriot system.[3] One video appeared to show a Patriot missile launch on Sunday night go rapidly wrong, with the missile changing course midair, crashing into a neighborhood in Riyadh and exploding. Another appeared to detonate shortly after being launched in the Saudi capital. " Pretty much the same failure mode as 30 years ago I would say, so maybe those ancient documents are still relevant today.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoWe’re watching a hot war where old PATRIOT batteries are downing Russia’s newest missiles. Given that context, this looks more like user error by the Saudis than any shortcomings of the system.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y agoAlso a poor example. The Saudi's are infamous for extremely poor training and readiness in there military forces. This is how they lost Abrams tanks in Yemen in a way that would never happen to US forces.
- michaelmrose 3y agoNobody has 5000 ICBMs Russia has around 300 supposing that they actually work.
- ummonk 3y ago"The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat" - no it isn't. It quite notoriously mostly failed to intercept Scud missiles in real combat. It has been heavily upgraded since and modern Patriot batteries would likely succeed at intercepting Scud missiles, but this hasn't been proven in real combat.
- Prickle 3y agoThis was IIRC an issue back in 1990s due to how the system calculated time. So operation of a system continuously for more than 20 hours would cause the system to become ineffective until it was rebooted. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smp/COMP205/LECTURES/ERROR/lec23/node4.html http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smp/COMP205/LECTURES/ERROR/lec23/node... Thanks in major part to Israel, modern patriot systems have been rigorously tested via fire. To equate the current systems to the ones from 30 years ago is very disingenuous. Patriot missile batteries in Ukraine have so far successfully intercepted all Khinzal Hyper-sonic Missiles launched by Russia. (At least, the ones that entered their Area of Operation)
- ummonk 3y agoThe comment I replied to specifically said "The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat". That is a false claim, as I asserted, and none of what you mention says anything about defeating Scud missiles in real combat.
- Manuel_D 3y agoYes, they have. The widely publicized failure due to clock skew does not invalidate all the successful interceptions: https://www.ngwrc.org/files/IRAQ'S%20USE%20OF%20SCUDS%20vet%20write-up.pdf https://www.ngwrc.org/files/IRAQ'S%20USE%20OF%20SCUDS%20vet%...