How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

[EMERCOM]

Effective against whom, if i may ask? In my opinion, that'll only save your foes their nukes :/

The fact is, as most military guys know, that nukes are triggered in the air (and not on ground) for maximum effect. I doubt any country would use a 'nuke SAM' simply because it kills the purpose of the SAM. Even if the SAM doesn't do much material damage on the ground, at least it'll spread radioactive particles over own country. So neither India, nor Pakistan would go for that option.

A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.

1.MIRVs
2. Stealthy terrain hugging cruise missles thats what we need!

babur is already there.

 

[Alpha1]

A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.

yes, but A Nuclear EMP generated by high altitude blasts can send a large area back to the stone age

babur is already there.

Yes, so is Ra'ad

 

[Ra'ad]

A low yield nuke at med and high altitude is not a problem.You should refer to Soviet nuclear X-ray high altitude blast tests of 60's. The soviets found it to be extremely effective for potential ABM uses.

But wouldn't that be spilling nuclear dust over ones own country? Checked wiki only (high-altitude nuclear explosion)

The article mentions that nuclear radiation spreads much faster in the upper atmosphere actually. Although i agree that its better than getting completely nuked out, but then it only becomes feasible if the incoming missiles are nuclear icbms. Not conventional missiles, not planes.

 

[Pakistanisage]

The cheapest way is to build low cost decoys and overwhelm the Indian ABM system.

 

[EMERCOM]

yes, but A Nuclear EMP generated by high altitude blasts can send a large area back to the stone age

Yes, so is Ra'ad

That is when the ABM nukes are in 5 mt megaton range like the SPARTAN enhanced radiation type. If in low kiloton or sub kiloton range you will not face this problem.

But wouldn't that be spilling nuclear dust over ones own country? Checked wiki only (high-altitude nuclear explosion)

The article mentions that nuclear radiation spreads much faster in the upper atmosphere actually. Although i agree that its better than getting completely nuked out, but then it only becomes feasible if the incoming missiles are nuclear icbms. Not conventional missiles, not planes.

Nuclear fallout is much cleaner and has less half life compared to radiological particles of fukushima type disaster. According to nuclear scientists ,fukushima's plutonium is in the jetstream and can potentially kill humanity. But humanity still lives. Nuclear fallout is overrated.

Not a wonder that Edward Teller and Samuel Cohen was huge advocate of nuclear ABM.Very cheap and very effective compared to conventional methods.

 

[Alpha1]

That is when the ABM nukes are in 5 mt megaton range like the SPARTAN enhanced radiation type. If in low kiloton or sub kiloton range you will not face this problem.



Nuclear fallout is much cleaner and has less half life compared to radiological particles of fukushima type disaster. According to nuclear scientists ,fukushima's plutonium is in the jetstream and can potentially kill humanity. But humanity still lives. Nuclear fallout is overrated.

Not a wonder that Edward Teller and Samuel Cohen was huge advocate of nuclear ABM.Very cheap and very effective compared to conventional methods.

So the Idea here is to Explode a sub-kiloton Nuclear device in close proximity to the BM in the upper atmosphere to destroy it or disable it by the EMP generated by the Nuclear explosion????

 

[The Deterrent]

So the Idea here is to Explode a sub-kiloton Nuclear device in close proximity to the BM in the upper atmosphere to destroy it or disable it by the EMP generated by the Nuclear explosion????

The idea here is to use just the explosive power of the tactical nuclear warhead, which would be many many times more than that of a conventional ABM warhead (explosive fragmentation). The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.

 

[Alpha1]

The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.

That's odd because what I have heard is that Hardly anything that can be shielded against a Nuclear-EMP

 

[sovcomflot]

The idea here is to use just the explosive power of the tactical nuclear warhead, which would be many many times more than that of a conventional ABM warhead (explosive fragmentation). The EMP generated would be lesser, plus the warheads are shielded against EMPs.

Explosive power,X-ray Flux output,neutron Flux output,Heat.

That's odd because what I have heard is that Hardly anything that can be shielded against a Nuclear-EMP

It is easy to harden against EMP, though much harder to shield against NarrowBand HPM weapons.

 

[TheNoob]

counter measures over counter measures.
this thing will never end xD

 

[trident2010]

The problem in overwhelming enemy's ABM is the increase of missile launches with decoys to overrun the ABM systems. Ballistic missiles are very expensive and if one has to say double the number of launches at enemy with ABM, it put tremendous strain on the economy and they have to do it for each and every target. If by luck ABM manages to neutralise 100% of non-decoy warheads, all the missiles are wasted. Therefore, having reliable ABM is a big asset in one's arsenal since it brings the permutations and combinations in the mind of the aggressor.

 

[rockstarIN]

Everybody is talking only about Pak Missiles Vs Indian ABM. What about a PAF strategy to tackle Indian ABM, say in an IAF air base strike?

 

[MarkusS]

how about avoiding all that shit and start peaceful co existance?

 

[The Deterrent]

The problem in overwhelming enemy's ABM is the increase of missile launches with decoys to overrun the ABM systems. Ballistic missiles are very expensive and if one has to say double the number of launches at enemy with ABM, it put tremendous strain on the economy and they have to do it for each and every target. If by luck ABM manages to neutralise 100% of non-decoy warheads, all the missiles are wasted. Therefore, having reliable ABM is a big asset in one's arsenal since it brings the permutations and combinations in the mind of the aggressor.

That is a very lame attempt (no personal offence intended) to declare ABMs as a reliable and feasible means of countering ballistic missiles.

BMs are not as costly as you seem to imply. A country capable of maintaining the 12th-strongest military with spending 2.5% of GDP on its armed forces can certainly increase the number of ballistic missiles in its inventory, or develop ones with countermeasures and multiple warheads with relative ease. On the other hand, a SM-3 Block-IIA interceptor of the AEGIS BMD (a mature system) costs around $20 million.
And since ABMs can't and won't be deployed in all target areas, the attack has to be saturated in the defended regions only. Moreover, an initial saturated attack against the stationary radars (LRTR) can disable the BMD for the period of the war.

 

[trident2010]

That is a very lame attempt (no personal offence intended) to declare ABMs as a reliable and feasible means of countering ballistic missiles.

BMs are not as costly as you seem to imply. A country capable of maintaining the 12th-strongest military with spending 2.5% of GDP on its armed forces can certainly increase the number of ballistic missiles in its inventory, or develop ones with countermeasures and multiple warheads with relative ease. On the other hand, a SM-3 Block-IIA interceptor of the AEGIS BMD (a mature system) costs around $20 million.
And since ABMs can't and won't be deployed in all target areas, the attack has to be saturated in the defended regions only. Moreover, an initial saturated attack against the stationary radars (LRTR) can disable the BMD for the period of the war.

Yes it is true that BMD is not cheap itself however, having a reliable ABM means more investment has to be done by aggressor in the long term. Increasing BMs does not stops there. There are maintenance, storage and other costs such as MRVs are involved in it. May be in our lifetime we won't see the active use of ABM, however aggressor always have to maintain the no. to reach the saturation point. This would not be the case if there was no ABM present.
And there is no way one can tell how many BMs are needed to saturate ABM at one target as there is always a possibility that ABM will neutralise all the non-decoy missiles. And as the ABM has layered configuration, it increases its chance to nullify the BMs. In nutshell ABM will have very adverse effect on aggressor in term of planning a first attack and in the mean time it gives more time to the country with ABM to bear the brunt of first attack and retaliate with the aim of taking out most of the offensive capability of the aggressor.