What's new

Stopping ballistic missile

sudhir007

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
1
The Hindu : Opinion / Editorial : Stopping ballistic missile
The deployment of India's planned ballistic missile shield is to start in two years' time. The Defence Research and Development Organisation, which is developing and testing the complex system, intends to roll it out in two phases and have all of it up and running by 2016. The first phase will deal with missiles having a range of less than 2,000 km, and the second will tackle missiles with a longer range. The latter will be travelling much faster than the former and are therefore less easily targeted. There will be interceptors to destroy the incoming missiles at heights of over 50 km as well as much closer to the ground. Such a tiered defence is intended to boost the chances of knocking out an incoming missile before it hits the target. The problems encountered with a Prithvi missile simulating an enemy attack in a recent test is not likely to be a serious setback to these plans. India is not the only country that seeks to protect its citizens from enemy missiles carrying nuclear and other lethal warheads. The United States has been developing anti-ballistic missile systems for over 60 years. Its highly ambitious missile shield aims to destroy ballistic missiles during all stages of their flight. In February 2010, the U.S. successfully tested an airborne laser carried aloft on a modified Boeing 747, which was used to destroy a missile less than two minutes after it was fired. Israel, Japan, and the Taiwan regime too intend to establish missile defence capabilities. China, which demonstrated its anti-satellite capability in 2007, successfully conducted a mid-course missile interception test in January this year. Russia has a system of its own that was developed during the Cold War.

A big unanswered question is how effective any of these missile shields, including the Indian one, will be in an actual conflict situation, especially if it is between nuclear-armed nations. The technical evaluation of the U.S. system carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2000 is instructive. It found that there were a range of countermeasures an attacker could take to “confuse, overwhelm or otherwise defeat the defence.” Any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would be able to use them. Decoys could overload a defensive system and allow attacking missiles to slip past. Besides, even the U.S. system is intended to be effective against only a “limited ballistic missile attack.” The Indian defensive shield too will have similar limitations: if a single nuclear-tipped missile gets through, the consequences will be calamitous. This country would do better to rely on diplomacy, rather than a chancy missile shield, to increase its security.
 
.
A big unanswered question is how effective any of these missile shields, including the Indian one, will be in an actual conflict situation, especially if it is between nuclear-armed nations. The technical evaluation of the U.S. system carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2000 is instructive. It found that there were a range of countermeasures an attacker could take to “confuse, overwhelm or otherwise defeat the defence.” Any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would be able to use them. Decoys could overload a defensive system and allow attacking missiles to slip past. Besides, even the U.S. system is intended to be effective against only a “limited ballistic missile attack.” The Indian defensive shield too will have similar limitations: if a single nuclear-tipped missile gets through, the consequences will be calamitous. This country would do better to rely on diplomacy, rather than a chancy missile shield, to increase its security.
This part makes sense. Good post sir
 
. .
This part makes sense. Good post sir

But again - the consequences of a retaliatory missile attack will be even worse.

The shield reduces the probability of a HIT - It is still better than not having one. On the other hand the country that does not have one, does not have a measure to stop a counter strike which can be completely devastating for that country. Cause clearly that country does not have interceptors

Shield - This is the next logical step to counter a hostile country and deny any advantage to a first strike! and get the deterrence back in your favour!
 
.
Anti missile systems are in their infancy. Will require time to grow.True for all countries.
 
.
^^^^^^^^

Not denying that decoy systems cannot slip in a missile or so...but tell me one thing, what is the most important feature of a missile attack on enemy country???? I think it is surprise...In other words if India know that her adversary are going to launch a ballistic missile attack on our homeland may i ask why would we wait for any missile to hit us before we retaliate??? With that in mind don't you think if you want to overhaul a missile defence system you have to fire significant amount of missiles...and there goes your surprise for a toss....

In my mind MIRV is one thing that will be difficult to tackle which i am sure in future anti-defence machanism would be able to take on....But still as someone said having something is better than nothing...

So unless and until Pak possess MIRV technology or have a unique way of Launching good number of missile without getting detected there is a little chance they would succesfully be able to evade India's Anti-Ballistic missile defence when it becomes fully operational by 2016...


Edited : One more thought, if there is a conflict between nuclear powered neighbours, using ballistic missile is a very risky phenomenon as the other party can confuse it with nuclear attack....Now complementing this risk with Anti-Ballistic missile system it is going to be one heck of a nightmare for the launching party to go for Ballistic Missile attack considering they don't have a shield of their own....
 
.
^^^^^^^^

Not denying that decoy systems cannot slip in a missile or so...but tell me one thing, what is the most important feature of a missile attack on enemy country???? I think it is surprise...In other words if India know that her adversary are going to launch a ballistic missile attack on our homeland may i ask why would we wait for any missile to hit us before we retaliate??? With that in mind don't you think if you want to overhaul a missile defence system you have to fire significant amount of missiles...and there goes your surprise for a toss....

In my mind MIRV is one thing that will be difficult to tackle which i am sure in future anti-defence machanism would be able to take on....But still as someone said having something is better than nothing...

So unless and until Pak possess MIRV technology or have a unique way of Launching good number of missile without getting detected there is a little chance they would succesfully be able to evade India's Anti-Ballistic missile defence when it becomes fully operational by 2016...


Edited : One more thought, if there is a conflict between nuclear powered neighbours, using ballistic missile is a very risky phenomenon as the other party can confuse it with nuclear attack....Now complementing this risk with Anti-Ballistic missile system it is going to be one heck of a nightmare for the launching party to go for Ballistic Missile attack considering they don't have a shield of their own....

This is a nice way of starting a huge arms race where there the first striker has to increase his missiles by multiple times and keep coming up with better versions to insure that strike option remains valid.Good way to bankrupt a smaller economy.
 
.
One rule of thumb is that if US regard anti-missile defence is reliable at best against overwhelming nuclear attack, than other country shouldn't even try to counter that thesis. In this day and age, missile defence is much further behind the offensive weapons.
 
.
This is a nice way of starting a huge arms race where there the first striker has to increase his missiles by multiple times and keep coming up with better versions to insure that strike option remains valid.Good way to bankrupt a smaller economy.

Yup it do increase headache of enemy manifolds....They have to increase the number of missiles many folds as well they need to ensure they do not loose the element of surprise or else they will end up risking effectiveness of their mission...


One rule of thumb is that if US regard anti-missile defence is reliable at best against overwhelming nuclear attack, than other country shouldn't even try to counter that thesis. In this day and age, missile defence is much further behind the offensive weapons.

Well if we go by that logic than there is no need of SAMS as well...Just leave things unprotected because nothing is invincible...BMD systems are new but are very much effective against ordinary attacks...One cannot just follow US model everywhere...Every country has different needs and threats perception..... Just to give you an example During cold war US main rival was USSR so their defences are mostly in line with ICBM's ....When it comes to India our defences are mostly inline with SRBM ,MRBM .... As per threat perception investing in Defences against ICBM's would not make sense for India...however same cannot be true for China....

They(BMD's) will mature and counter systems like MIRV as well....Now the race is how much new strategies missiles can come up with vs how much counter BMD can come up with..

But saying BMD is a total waste would be too much of an overstatement
 
.
Yup it do increase headache of enemy manifolds....They have to increase the number of missiles many folds as well they need to ensure they do not loose the element of surprise or else they will end up risking effectiveness of their mission...




Well if we go by that logic than there is no need of SAMS as well...Just leave things unprotected because nothing is invincible...BMD systems are new but are very much effective against ordinary attacks...One cannot just follow US model everywhere...Every country has different needs and threats perception..... Just to give you an example During cold war US main rival was USSR so their defences are mostly in line with ICBM's ....When it comes to India our defences are mostly inline with SRBM ,MRBM .... As per threat perception investing in Defences against ICBM's would not make sense for India...however same cannot be true for China....

They(BMD's) will mature and counter systems like MIRV as well....Now the race is how much new strategies missiles can come up with vs how much counter BMD can come up with..

But saying BMD is a total waste would be too much of an overstatement

BMD in the US is mainly against rogue states like North Korea and Iran. Its not for countries like Russia and China. North Korea and Iran can produced only unsophisticated missile with predefined tragectory. For countries like Russia and China, we have trident and minuteman missles to counter them.

If India is building ABM against Pakistan, I'm not sure if this is feasible as Pakistan can easily overwhelm India wiith quantity. As for China, it can certainly overwhelm anything India can build. So India should build ABM against terrorist missle, not missles of legitimate nuclear powers.
 
.
BMD in the US is mainly against rogue states like North Korea and Iran. Its not for countries like Russia and China. North Korea and Iran can produced only unsophisticated missile with predefined tragectory. For countries like Russia and China, we have trident and minuteman missles to counter them.

If India is building ABM against Pakistan, I'm not sure if this is feasible as Pakistan can easily overwhelm India wiith quantity. As for China, it can certainly overwhelm anything India can build. So India should build ABM against terrorist missle, not missles of legitimate nuclear powers.
U are trying too hard to sell america ,alas no one is buying here.
 
.
BMD in the US is mainly against rogue states like North Korea and Iran. Its not for countries like Russia and China. North Korea and Iran can produced only unsophisticated missile with predefined tragectory. For countries like Russia and China, we have trident and minuteman missles to counter them.

If India is building ABM against Pakistan, I'm not sure if this is feasible as Pakistan can easily overwhelm India wiith quantity. As for China, it can certainly overwhelm anything India can build. So India should build ABM against terrorist missle, not missles of legitimate nuclear powers.

And there you missed the whole point...For some reason it is always difficult to share information with you because you just ignore them and keep ....


if BMD is no threat and is a piece od cake to overwhelm may i ask why you think Russia is creating noice over US proposed missile defence in Poland???

Anyways this time i am not going to share information but want you to do some work and counter my point with Facts....Please google and find out how many missiles are needed to overwhelm any sensitive target(Lets say Airforce Base in Agra) once India put AAD and PAD in place... Once you get that information i will explain you how useful this thing is... Also for time being read this...

Political Implications of India-US Cooperation on Missile Defence - Mainstream Weekly
 
.
And there you missed the whole point...For some reason it is always difficult to share information with you because you just ignore them and keep ....


if BMD is no threat and is a piece od cake to overwhelm may i ask why you think Russia is creating noice over US proposed missile defence in Poland???

Anyways this time i am not going to share information but want you to do some work and counter my point with Facts....Please google and find out how many missiles are needed to overwhelm any sensitive target(Lets say Airforce Base in Agra) once India put AAD and PAD in place... Once you get that information i will explain you how useful this thing is... Also for time being read this...

Political Implications of India-US Cooperation on Missile Defence - Mainstream Weekly

Good point. But until India put AAD and PAD in place in airforce base in Agra, any research is futile because you cannot research something that doesn't exist.

ABM is just not practical with today's technology as it is.
 
.
Good point. But until India put AAD and PAD in place in airforce base in Agra, any research is futile because you cannot research something that doesn't exist.

ABM is just not practical with today's technology as it is.

Then say that...what you are/were saying that AAD and PAD are waste of money because any missile defence can be overwhelmed by enemy missiles....So hopefully now you might wanna change your stand....If not then please do what i requested and you will get your answer...You can do your research based on the specs available because here we are talking about a future system....
 
Last edited:
.
Then say that...what you are/were saying that AAD and PAD are waste of money because any missile defence can be overwhelmed by enemy missiles....So hopefully now you might wanna change your stand....If not then please do what i requested and you will get your answer...You can do your research based on the specs available because here we are talking about a future system....

Any existing missile defence can be overwhelm by the missile force of major powers. I do not know how many missile India plan to deploy. As no one knows the answer. However, base on the fact that US would not deploy a lot of ABM, it shows that the cost of ABM is greater then that of missiles with MIRV.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom