How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

[The Deterrent]

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.

Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions.
All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup.
You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.

 

[Contrarian]

Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions.
All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup.
You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.

You are missing the larger picture..and by a good margin.

ABM right now may not be as reliable or cheap as required. But it is an evolving technology.
This is exactly the criticisms that SAM's got during the initial stages of their development. That an entire missile used to stop another missile or ordinance coming your way is far more costly - multiple times - than the ordinance itself. And that SAM is not even reliable.

Today, you understand that any air war is already half lost if you dont have adequate SAM coverage. You know how expensive they are, and countries that dont manufacture them have to import them at excruciating costs - example - Pakistan still cannot afford to put up good SAM's in any decent numbers. SPADA et all are mid level(SR to MR) SAM's. The couple of Chinese SAM's(literally) that Pakistan possesses are in no numbers to make even an iota of difference.

Now, ABM is at that same stage. India is one of the select few countries capable of developing it. We are developing it right now.While right now it might be expensive and not as reliable as say SAM's are..

However in one decade or a maximum of two, the ABM technology would be cheap, the missiles even cheaper, their reliability as high as modern SAM's like Barak or S-400. The rules of war would have changed again, with ABM's becoming as requisite as SAM's are today.

And at that time, countries like Pakistan would again have to buy such (watered down)systems from abroad, while India would be exporting it to the world.

 

[Vinod2070]

The real impact of BMD is psychological.

It will increase the uncertainty in the mind of enemy and reduce the number of targets it can plan drastically.

Like UK pointed all its missiles only on Moscow after their BMD system was deployed.

 

[The Deterrent]

You are missing the larger picture..and by a good margin.

ABM right now may not be as reliable or cheap as required. But it is an evolving technology.
This is exactly the criticisms that SAM's got during the initial stages of their development. That an entire missile used to stop another missile or ordinance coming your way is far more costly - multiple times - than the ordinance itself. And that SAM is not even reliable.

Today, you understand that any air war is already half lost if you dont have adequate SAM coverage. You know how expensive they are, and countries that dont manufacture them have to import them at excruciating costs - example - Pakistan still cannot afford to put up good SAM's in any decent numbers. SPADA et all are mid level(SR to MR) SAM's. The couple of Chinese SAM's(literally) that Pakistan possesses are in no numbers to make even an iota of difference.

Now, ABM is at that same stage. India is one of the select few countries capable of developing it. We are developing it right now.While right now it might be expensive and not as reliable as say SAM's are..

However in one decade or a maximum of two, the ABM technology would be cheap, the missiles even cheaper, their reliability as high as modern SAM's like Barak or S-400. The rules of war would have changed again, with ABM's becoming as requisite as SAM's are today.

And at that time, countries like Pakistan would again have to buy such (watered down)systems from abroad, while India would be exporting it to the world.

I agree to the analogy you provided, but see the other side of the story too. What I'm saying is that developing countermeasures against ABMs are and will remain cheaper, simply because of the complexity of the problem involved. Just like tank armor vs. antitank warheads developments, this process too will never stop, and there will be always a counter developed for everything.

BMDs can best be used for protection against rogue states and unauthorized/accidental launches.

 

[Contrarian]

I agree to the analogy you provided, but see the other side of the story too. What I'm saying is that developing countermeasures against ABMs are and will remain cheaper, simply because of the complexity of the problem involved. Just like tank armor vs. antitank warheads developments, this process too will never stop, and there will be always a counter developed for everything.
BMDs can best be used for protection against rogue states and unauthorized/accidental launches.

Yes, they would remain cheaper. The question is - by how much. If there is a small difference between the costs of an evolved BM and an evolved ABM as opposed to the massive gulf in price right now, then those who field the ABM would have won a huge lead.

ABM in itself is not everything, just like SAM's are not everything. They have to be supplemented by having the ability to launch BM's of your own on short notice and the required range. One without the other is a major handicap and initself not a winning combination.

The enemy can always use sustained saturation strikes to overwhelm even the best of SAM's like S-400, Aegis/SS/Aster. But..

The point here is three fold:
1. You force your opponent to keep upgrading and adding to his missile set just to be able to achieve what he already could before one party fielded the SAM/ABM.

2. Economics. The weaker party gets the shaft as a SAM/ABM system forces the opponent to upgrade/add and spend and keep spending. How long do you think he can keep matching? If he diverts funding from some other sector, that sector gets weakened. Ultimately becoming a geometric progression in inability to match the spending.

3. It gives time for your own forces to react and attack the enemy source. How long do you think it would take a determined and technologically sophisticated opponent- with their own satellite systems- to track down the source of BM's being launched against it. Minutes!

Your BM's give you that window by holding off an attack for a duation, within which you can attack and destroy the opposing BM stocks.

You make two assumptions:
You presume that ABM's would always be as costly as they are now. You are wrong, they would be drastically cheaper by another decade.
You presume that newer generation BM's designed to challenge ABM systems would be marginally more expensive than current BM's. You are again wrong. Please check out how much Bulava is costing Russia.

For an accurate effect of installing a comprehensive ABM system, please read the analysis or account of the effect of Soviet/Russia installing SAM's and the consequences of that on UK/France and their nuclear deterrence capability/cost against the Soviet's. You would be very surprised. This is particularly with regard to UK and their role responsibility in case of war.

This was one of the reasons why US down the line also cancelled their treaty on not having Anti-Ballistic Missile systems with Russia. There were very cold clear calculations which led to that decision.

This is a promising field, failure to invest now in this technology would have consequences a decade down the line.

 

[rockstar08]

i would prefer more range CM and specially Naval versions ...

 

[The Deterrent]

@Contrarian there are a couple of assumptions on your end too. I guess we'll have to wait for a decade to see the situation then for ourselves.

 

[KRAIT]

Don't fire the missiles at the first place.

 

[hkdas]

Developing a reliable BMD=Spending $Billions upon Billions.
All additional costs of BMs are tiny relative to the ones used up in the development and production setup.
You should go through the earlier posts of this thread (if you haven't already) and see the criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs by their own countrymen.

those who criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs are fools. anti-ballistic missiles are the big brother of anit- aircraft missiles. it is always better to have a defense system against missiles than no missile defense systems.

 

[FaujHistorian]

1.Pakistan would develop , multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)& maneuverable warheads[/COLOR] through SHAHEEN3 BM & also future BM

Nah.

We ain't got no money for that.

Our best weapon against Indian weapons is to remain peaceful and remain focused on our own development. Be good global citizens just like Chinese industrial workers, S. Korean workers, Taiwanese workers.


etc.


etc.



etc.

 

[The Deterrent]

those who criticism on the Israeli and US BMDs are fools. anti-ballistic missiles are the big brother of anit- aircraft missiles. it is always better to have a defense system against missiles than no missile defense systems.

They have solid arguments for criticism.
Of course it is better, IF you can afford it and IF you are not planning to use it as a shield against an relatively mature nuclear and missile power. BMDs are extremely useful at stopping unauthorized/accidental/limited launches though, or ones by rogue states.

 

[hkdas]

Nah.

We ain't got no money for that.

Our best weapon against Indian weapons is to remain peaceful and remain focused on our own development. Be good global citizens just like Chinese industrial workers, S. Korean workers, Taiwanese workers.


etc.


etc.



etc.

if you are really like that then you don't have the enemy india... only an Allie india...

 

[indiatester]

@KRAIT @AhaseebA , A general question. What if the delivery mechanism is by hand? I mean there are enough points on the border that are easy enough for someone determined to slip across.
How are these scenarios taken into consideration? Just a MAD response?

 

[hkdas]

They have solid arguments for criticism.
Of course it is better, IF you can afford it and IF you are not planning to use it as a shield against an relatively mature nuclear and missile power. BMDs are extremely useful at stopping unauthorized/accidental/limited launches though, or ones by rogue states.

for a democratic country life of citizens are more valuable than any other thing

 

[FaujHistorian]

if you are really like that then you don't have the enemy india... only an Allie india...

For a moment I thought you have written

--- you don't have the enemy india... only an Alice india...

hahaha


Yeah. I agree with some caveats.