Anti-Ballistic missile defence systems by countries
- Thread starter Scorpius
- Start date
Russia has had a strategic ABM system around Moscow since the 60s. The system, which has at various times deployed up to 100 nuclear armed intercept missiles, was agreed on "two sights,100 missiles each",with the SALT 1972 talks. And later amended to one sight and 100 missiles in 1974. As far as I know the thing is still operating tho its the most colossal waste of money in the Russian defense budget.
And unless they changed it the missiles themselves have warheads in the heavy mega tonnage and you have to wonder how much damage they will cause when they go off. Or if there's and accident or a theft. Its an antiquated system anyways. And one that is easily defeated.
America is developing a multi-tiered group of systems with a host of ABM systems, both theatre and strategic, either in development or limited deployment.
And unless they changed it the missiles themselves have warheads in the heavy mega tonnage and you have to wonder how much damage they will cause when they go off. Or if there's and accident or a theft. Its an antiquated system anyways. And one that is easily defeated.
America is developing a multi-tiered group of systems with a host of ABM systems, both theatre and strategic, either in development or limited deployment.
Well, the old ABM-systems were supposed to intercept incoming ICBM outside the atmosphere or at least at very high altitude. So considering the damage the enemy ICBM causes by detonating in your city I'd say worrying about this kind of damage is kind of...you know, more important, no? 
Until some time ago such conventional systems using KE and such things to intercept nukes were not feasible from a technical standpoint (and cynics might point out that they are not today either). So back in the old days the best way to take out a nuke was by using a nuke.
BTW what about the US system being granted by SALT? Is that one still operational?
Until some time ago such conventional systems using KE and such things to intercept nukes were not feasible from a technical standpoint (and cynics might point out that they are not today either). So back in the old days the best way to take out a nuke was by using a nuke.
BTW what about the US system being granted by SALT? Is that one still operational?
Last edited:
""""Well, the old ABM-systems were supposed to intercept incoming ICBM outside the atmosphere or at least at very high altitude. So considering the damage the enemy ICBM causes by detonating in your city I'd say worrying about this kind of damage is kind of...you know, more important, no? """"
Probably. But my point is it would be preferable to destroy a nuke without setting off a nuke. Thats what the Yank system does, or tries to.
Probably. But my point is it would be preferable to destroy a nuke without setting off a nuke. Thats what the Yank system does, or tries to.
I agree, but back then the KE approach now employed by the NMD-project simply was not possible from a technological point of view, otherwise it would have been the prefered solution for obvious reasons. Thats what I tried to point out.
Even today the testings showed that the KE approach is not 100% fool-proof. The detonation of a nuclear warhead WILL take out the enemy missile. Back then the political fallout (no pun intented) from detonating a nuclear warhead in space in times of war was irrelevant in comparison to the obvious damage an enemy nuke would cause on your own territory.
Even today the testings showed that the KE approach is not 100% fool-proof. The detonation of a nuclear warhead WILL take out the enemy missile. Back then the political fallout (no pun intented) from detonating a nuclear warhead in space in times of war was irrelevant in comparison to the obvious damage an enemy nuke would cause on your own territory.