Why is no one clamoring to build more ABMs?

[craig]

Yadda-yadda-yadda.

What in the hell does that have to do with the topic? Or are you trying to say that StarLink is some kind of ABM system?

Don't you think it is a little unusual to get permission to put 4000+ satellites into orbit without a dual use.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Thank you.

I didn’t know and then this makes this all make more sense.

You are very welcome.

One thing I try to do is stick with reality, and not to give in to fears. But this can even be seen decades ago in the Gulf War.

Where things like this were found all over Saudi Arabia. This was a SCUD, hit by a PATRIOT missile. Part of the damage was to the detonation system, so it simply impacted the ground and never "went off".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Don't you think it is a little unusual to get permission to put 4000+ satellites into orbit without a dual use.

What in the hell are you talking about?

I am done here. Please get back to me when you have something to discuss that is actually on topic. And can explain it logically, and not simply vomit out random nonsense.

 

[craig]

What in the hell are you talking about?

I am done here. Please get back to me when you have something to discuss that is actually on topic. And can explain it logically, and not simply vomit out random nonsense.

This is the topic. Don't you read? Skip to the military capabilities section which I excerpted previously.

containing space-based interceptors to track and neutralize perceived threats such as ballistic missiles.

Starlink - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oozlefinch]

containing space-based interceptors to track and neutralize perceived threats such as ballistic missiles.

A satellite in orbit is nothing like an ICBM. Most specifically, like most communication satellites, StarLink is geostationary.

So once again, bringing this up has not a damned thing to do with the topic. A satellite is nothing like an inbound missile.

 

[craig]

A satellite in orbit is nothing like an ICBM. Most specifically, like most communication satellites, StarLink is geostationary.

So once again, bringing this up has not a damned thing to do with the topic. A satellite is nothing like an inbound missile.

You didn't read it.

Previous National Research Council studies show space-based interceptors could kinetically impact a target within 2 minutes of initiating a de-orbit.[201][202] The Union of Concerned Scientists however warns that these weapon systems staged around the Earth would escalate tensions with Russia and China and called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[203]

Starlink's military satellite development is overseen internally at SpaceX by retired four-star general Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy.[204]

 

[Oozlefinch]

Previous National Research Council studies show space-based interceptors could kinetically impact a target within 2 minutes of initiating a de-orbit.

And? I still fail to see the point of that. There are no "space based interceptors", and nobody is talking about them.

StarLink is not a weapon system, so I see no reason to say anything else.

 

[craig]

And? I still fail to see the point of that. There are no "space based interceptors", and nobody is talking about them.

StarLink is not a weapon system, so I see no reason to say anything else.

It is part of a ABM system being developed. I posted the link. Do I have to excerpt all of it.

 

[Hamish Howl]

You are very welcome.

One thing I try to do is stick with reality, and not to give in to fears. But this can even be seen decades ago in the Gulf War.

Where things like this were found all over Saudi Arabia. This was a SCUD, hit by a PATRIOT missile. Part of the damage was to the detonation system, so it simply impacted the ground and never "went off".

There is a slight difference between shooting down a FROG and shooting down an inbound ICBM bus.

 

[WillyPete]

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?

It's a bit of a paradox, but an effective ABM system would be incredibly disruptive to the MAD doctrine, which is what has prevented a nuclear exchange for most of a century.

If we are in a situation where we need ABMs, then it's already gone too far.

Having them when we don't need them makes that situation more likely to develop. It's an escalation.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You assume Russian resources are unlimited. They aren't.

ABM systems won't do much against hypersonic glide vehicles, which would replace icbms if ABM were deployed in large enough numbers

 

[Oozlefinch]

ABM systems won't do much against hypersonic glide vehicles

What?

An inbound ICBM is already hypersonic, in excess of MACH 19.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

What?

An inbound ICBM is already hypersonic, in excess of MACH 19.

That makes absolutely no sense.

ABM target ballistic missiles with a relatively easy to calculate trajectory. The hypersonic glide vehicles do not follow a ballistic trajectory and as I understand it much harder to intercept as a result.

The Chinese tested one recently that did if I recall correctly a couple of orbits before hitting the ground approx 20 miles from the intended target

 

[Questerr]

It is part of a ABM system being developed. I posted the link. Do I have to excerpt all of it.

You realize that Geosynchronous orbit is hundreds of miles above the altitude that ICBM’s operate at, right?

 

[craig]

You realize that Geosynchronous orbit is hundreds of miles above the altitude that ICBM’s operate at, right?

You realize that Geosynchronous orbit is hundreds of miles above the altitude that ICBM’s operate at, right?

These are not. They are in low earth orbit. Many more in other low earth orbits are authorized and including ICBM apogees.

SpaceX's current Starlink constellation is authorized for 4,408 satellites, all in orbits at around 550 kilometers.

While most satellite internet services today come from single geostationary satellites that orbit the planet at about 35,000km, Starlink is a constellation of multiple satellites that orbit the planet much closer to Earth, at about 550km, and cover the entire globe.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The hypersonic glide vehicles do not follow a ballistic trajectory and as I understand it much harder to intercept as a result.

Irrelevant. It still has a trajectory, and can be tracked, the path predicted, and intercepted. In the PATRIOT system we use the exact same equipment and missiles for intercepting Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles, and airplanes.

 

[craig]

Irrelevant. It still has a trajectory, and can be tracked, the path predicted, and intercepted. In the PATRIOT system we use the exact same equipment and missiles for intercepting Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles, and airplanes.

You really don't really understand how spaced based interception of ICBMs happens do you,

 

[EnigmaO01]

Because they're pretty much futile except in a rogue missile situation. A full-scale attack would easily overwhelm any ABM system we could deploy.

Especially with multiple warheads for each missile.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You really don't really understand how spaced based interception of ICBMs happens do you,

What, I do not understand a fantasy that does not exist?

Talk to me about real world things. Or do you thin some tinfoil hat garbage that StarLink is some kind of super secret nonsense that StarLink is really some kind of weapon platform?

Trust me, I understand far more of this than you ever would. Including the fact you are spewing pure nonsense.

 

[fortune]

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?

In total truth I had no idea what the Russian Army was capable of or what the US Army was capable of. I am 100% USN and USAF trained via education and manufacturing. However some of this Russian ground pounding shit does not surprise me since I can say -- and have said with certainty -- that Russia's AF, SAM (including 400 and 500s) are just a joke. You who think the Russians have the technology or military discipline to hold off a networked NATO air attack are still dumb. Keep watching the ground forces and learn some more.

 

[fortune]

You really don't really understand how spaced based interception of ICBMs happens do you,

not many here do know or want to learn about kinetic targeting vs proximity targeting. Don't waste your time.

 

[craig]

not many here do know or want to learn about kinetic targeting vs proximity targeting. Don't waste your time.

And you point is?

 

[Dayton3]

What?

An inbound ICBM is already hypersonic, in excess of MACH 19.

That makes absolutely no sense.

While "hypersonic" is a term for speed, "hypersonic" missiles are actually very high speed CRUISE missiles.

 

[Dayton3]

You really don't really understand how spaced based interception of ICBMs happens do you,

No ICBM has ever been intercepted by a space-based system.

 

[craig]

While "hypersonic" is a term for speed, "hypersonic" missiles are actually very high speed CRUISE missiles.

And there advantage is that they are not countered by a brilliant pebbles defense.