The dominance of the USA Anti-Missile Defense - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14718841
United States is the first country in the world initiated the designing, development and deployment of anti-missile systems. US have gradually changed the focus of missile defense systems from the facility to the zone defense on a regional scale.
Russia has always criticized the Americans developed the missile defense system, citing the violation of the Soviet-American Treaty limiting strategic arms and the AMD Treaty. According to the Russian side, deployment of a missile defense system in depth of the leading NATO countries headed by the USA near Russian borders presents a heightened danger to the strategic nuclear forces of the country and destabilizes global military-strategic situation as a whole.
Despite numerous Russian proposals on cooperation in the field of missile defense, Washington did not accept any of them. The Pentagon continues its project despite the concerns of Russia. The initial groundwork for the deployment of information and intelligence and shock-military components of the anti-missile system was created in Europe. All of which are already deployed close to Russian borders. At the same time command and control centers for cooperation in the field of missile defense between the United States and their closest allies were established and tested in a real-time. While it has been devoted one’s attention to the deployment of the sea-based missile defense systems. They will form the basis of a global structure to intercept ballistic missiles, and because of its mobility will be a threat to Russian Intercontinental land and sea-based missiles.
According to the Russian side, the strategic missile defense system is not part of the defense, but strategic offensive potential, which works in conjunction with single offensive strike complexes.
This is clearly evidenced by the European missile defense system. Because at the moment there is no nuclear threat from Iran, but a missile defense system continues to build.
The situation with the deployment of a missile defense system in South Korea is similar now. The nuclear testing of North Korea is not a much-needed occasion for the deployment of a missile defense system, how any method of influence on Russia and China, which is important for the United States.
According to the Ministry of defense of South Korea and Pentagon anti-missile complex THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) will be used solely for protection from the growing nuclear and ballistic potential of the DPRK. Russia and China do not agree with Washington. So, according to Beijing, the complex will upset the balance of power in the region and will not help to discourage the DPRK's nuclear program.
Despite Washington and Seoul promised that the missile defense system on the Korean Peninsula "is not directed against third countries", Moscow is also concerned about these intentions. Such actions threaten regional tensions", said the Russian Foreign Ministry.
According to experts, the US European missile defense system is a direct threat to Russia. The analysts have repeatedly pointed out that the giant structure of the European missile defense may be necessary if the US only attack on the country with the largest arsenals of such weapons (Russia or China).
All this allows concluding that the U.S. and its closest allies in Europe and Asia Pacific deployment of missile defense system is a threat not only for Russia but for other countries. "It is clear that we must ensure not only own safety, but it is very important to ensure the strategic balance in the world", said Russian President Putin.
#14719470
Israeli Iron Dome, which protects against rockets and mortars is also financed by the US. It has a success rate of 80%.

The US can take out enemy, rockets, especially the Patriot system first used in the 1. Gulf War in the 90s, it took out Iraqi Squd Rockets, but the warhead was bigger then those of Scud, so if the rocket missed it caused bigger Demage.


The Missile Defens System against Intercontinental rockets should also like the Iron Dome been capable of taking any Intercontinental Rocket, but two systems could brake it.




and stealth intercontinental rocket.
#14723876
Although the US and the Soviet Union agreed to only limited ABM during the Cold War, the neoconservative Star Wars system (SDI) promoted by Reagan essentially violated the 1972 ABM treaty. The US continued to develop satellite defense systems and ground based and air based interception systems throughout the 1980s and 1990s until George W. Bush withdrew the US from the defacto defunct ABM treaty in December 2001.

Since that time, the US, NATO, Israel and US Pacific allies (South Korea, Japan) have significantly expanded their ground based, naval, and airspace based interception systems with multilayered detection and interception capability. That said, these systems are only useful on a small scale and against a relatively limited attack. There still exists no technologically credible system that could defeat a full scale SLBM or ICBM nuclear attack. So I do not think the systems the US and its allies have developed are designed to completely mitigate against a Russian or Chinese first strike, although they are gaining capability in that regard.

It is essential to the US and European neoliberal / neoconservative ideological movement that the US and its allies be able to utilize the full spectrum of their military capability on a global scale without fear of nuclear annihilation from former Cold War challengers, which in part explains the renewed focus on ABM technology. On the other hand, the existence of these systems seem a natural response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States (which NORAD failed to stop), and the potential missile threats from North Korea (against South Korea or Japan), Iran, and Palestine (against Israel) and so on.
#14723887
In theory the railgun technology being developed by the US Navy Weapons lab (soon to be deployed on USS Zumwalt DDG1000) will have this capability.

Also, traditional nuclear ABM defence would have the same capability, (NIKE-ZEUS for example).
#14723892
Looks like a propaganda film from the '80s. In order to intercept something like the DF-21D, our interceptor would have to launch as soon as they did, impossible. To further complicate matters the DF-21D can carry multiple independently maneuverable warheads that are capable of high g maneurers that our interceptors can't deal with.
#14723893
The problems you describe are significantly less relevant if, say, the interceptor is a laser or space based particle cannon. Now, as I observed in my initial post, I do not believe these systems were designed to specifically defeat a Russian / Chinese first strike. However, they would likely be very useful against less capable opponents. The Israeli Iron Dome system, and "Iron Beam" THEL lasers proved their utility in defeating Palestinian rocket attacks a few years ago, you'll recall.
#14725552
Suntzu wrote:Looks like a propaganda film from the '80s. In order to intercept something like the DF-21D, our interceptor would have to launch as soon as they did, impossible. To further complicate matters the DF-21D can carry multiple independently maneuverable warheads that are capable of high g maneuvers that our interceptors can't deal with.

Only if your interceptors are really slow, or are fired from a location far from the target and thus have to chase the incoming missile. Interceptors fired from points between target and launch site don't have to chase, they just have to get to altitude. High speed maneuvering is an issue, but that just means there will be interceptors using boxing tactics.

If an ICBM launch is preceded by a decoy with radar hunting missiles to deplete/destroy interceptors/detectors, that might be a way to overwhelm defences and do so in a way that is cheap enough for Iran/NKorea/etc to afford.
Antifa again demonstrates its undemocratic nature

A serious question, @SSDR: would you see an "[…]

EU-BREXIT

Very well, what about the other similar claims in[…]

It is hard to believe that the Yemeni rebel group […]

Election 2020

Of course, a good economy and cutting red tape ar[…]