It's time to embrace Missile Defense?

[Fawadqasim1]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/it-time-embrace-missile-defense-43987
Please comment after reading the article.
@The Deterrent @BHarwana @Windjammer
@Horus @randomradio @LeGenD @Hakikat ve Hikmet @CriticalThought @PAKISTANFOREVER

 

[Hassan Guy]

Saudi Arabia has been intercepting ballistic missiles on a regular basis, but when I come on PDF the keyboard field marshals say they don't work and Pakistan doesn't need them.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

A country heavily relying on bmds is lurking in grimpen mire.

Saudi Arabia has been intercepting ballistic missiles on a regular basis, but when I come on PDF the keyboard field marshals say they don't work and Pakistan doesn't need them.

Hearing from you sir after a long time how are you sir. I mean two dozen interceptors against 1to 3 srbms
With confirmed misses.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Hearing from you sir after a long time how are you sir. I mean two dozen interceptors against 1to 3 srbms
With confirmed misses.

Thank you for that nice response, im still alive.
The thing is pretty much ever nuclear armed state has Anti-ballistic missiles, we've invested in air defence systems....because they work. And we definitely need ABM's.....because they work.

 

[Yaseen1]

Missile defense are cheaper than stealth 5 gen aircraft production that is why russia has invested heavily in it to counter u.s stealth jets due to less budget for defense as compared to u.s and bad economy

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Looking at how many missiles Saudia has been shooting down it seems alot of the missiles are now a bit obsolete. And I am sure the stuff Saudia has are a full generation behind

Simply depending on Missiles alone is enough

Similarly the SAM missiles have been defeated by Swarms of incoming Cruise missiles as US showed in Syria

So for every weapon there is a counter weapon and tactic

However having a layered SAM system is something we must continue to evolve

 

[BHarwana]

Saudi Arabia has been intercepting ballistic missiles on a regular basis, but when I come on PDF the keyboard field marshals say they don't work and Pakistan doesn't need them.

hi hope you are good.
yes Saudis have been intercepting them and yes they have been successful on some occasions and failed on others. So the issue here is any thing less than 100% is doom to fail because sadly for Pakistan the missiles which will land on us will not be first gen fired by Houthis but they will be Russian and Israeli tech labeled as Indian with nuclear war heads. if a single missile manages to get through missile defence it will take out millions with its nuclear pay load.

I am not an expert in this field but going with my common sense I think instead of wasting money on missile defence we (Pakistan) should do at what we already have control and that will be to have better delivery system of our nuclear payload so that deterrence is enough to make India think twice before going to war with us.

defence is defence but offense is also the best kind of defence. we should have some cover of missile defence over our assets which can safe guard our counter nuclear strike and apart from that we should focus on developing tech which can beat enemies missile defences and give successful strike. this is the logical approach in my view.

if you can further give argument on missile defence being more credible for our safety, I would appreciate it but keep your approach locked to our situation rather than Saudis. the both situations are different.

 

[ziaulislam]

Saudi Arabia has been intercepting ballistic missiles on a regular basis, but when I come on PDF the keyboard field marshals say they don't work and Pakistan doesn't need them.

scuds of 1980s..that too not consistently

air defence is good thing but not as flexible as airforce, if you have to choose between two it has to be a good airforce

 

[Hassan Guy]

hi hope you are good.
yes Saudis have been intercepting them and yes they have been successful on some occasions and failed on others. So the issue here is any thing less than 100% is doom to fail because sadly for Pakistan the missiles which will land on us will not be first gen fired by Houthis but they will be Russian and Israeli tech labeled as Indian with nuclear war heads. if a single missile manages to get through missile defence it will take out millions with its nuclear pay load.

I am not an expert in this field but going with my common sense I think instead of wasting money on missile defence we (Pakistan) should do at what we already have control and that will be to have better delivery system of our nuclear payload so that deterrence is enough to make India think twice before going to war with us.

defence is defence but offense is also the best kind of defence. we should have some cover of missile defence over our assets which can safe guard our counter nuclear strike and apart from that we should focus on developing tech which can beat enemies missile defences and give successful strike. this is the logical approach in my view.

if you can further give argument on missile defence being more credible for our safety, I would appreciate it but keep your approach locked to our situation rather than Saudis. the both situations are different.

China has dropped a lot of cash to develop ABM's that could take out US Minuteman 3's and Trident 2's, these are the guys we need to work with.
The thing about ABM's thats objective is that they work, maybe not all the time but if there is a 50% chance an ABM can take out an enemy nuclear armed missile, i'll take that over nothing.

 

[Mrc]

Saudi Arabia has been intercepting ballistic missiles on a regular basis, but when I come on PDF the keyboard field marshals say they don't work and Pakistan doesn't need them.

Slow moving non separating scuds are huge target and cannot cahnge trajectories... Thats whats they have been intercepting...

Most yemeni missiles dont have any guidance as well

 

[BHarwana]

China has dropped a lot of cash to develop ABM's that could take out US Minuteman 3's and Trident 2's, these are the guys we need to work with.
The thing about ABM's thats objective is that they work, maybe not all the time but if there is a 50% chance an ABM can take out an enemy nuclear armed missile, i'll take that over nothing.

okay you got a point with 50% chance. But if the enemy knows that his miss adventure will reduce him to ashes for sure than you are getting a 100% chance of being protected from missile. MAD is a good strategy and it ensures our safety so why instead of a full missile shield we should opt for multi spectrum approach.

Yes china is doing the research but those babies are very expensive.

 

[Mrc]

Pak shud start initial steps but tech is simply not there yet

okay you got a point with 50% chance

50 % chance is worse than no chance ...
Enemy will just fire 2 missiles .. In all likelihood your theoratical 50% defense will fail in real world and u will get hit by 2 instead of 1 missiles (ababeel rings a bell?)


What we need to do is not to think of weapon in isolation .. And try to fit in the strategy as well

 

[randomradio]

BMD works extremely well against TBMs and SRBMs, quite well against MRBMs, not so much against IRBMs and ICBMs... yet.

 

[Mrc]

Here comes opinion from vedas

Nothing works if missile Maneuvers...

Forget about nukes and city targets... A comparatively small target like an air craft carier is bristling.with radars with several support vessels is impossible to defend against df 21d.....with conventional warhead... For a simple reason .. If kill chain completes... It will penetrate

Questions have been raised on carier killers kill chain... But no body ever questioned would it be able to penetrate defences

 

[The Deterrent]

From the article, on the effectiveness of BMD:

The case for ballistic-missile defense isn’t so concrete, however. “It emphasizes first strike capabilities, it emphasizes preemption, it kind of puts the adversary (and us) in a use or lose type situation . . . when it comes to missiles, offense is cheaper than defense. And so, missile defenses are extraordinarily expensive (they’ll be destabilizing on top of that) and the adversary has relatively low-cost ways of circumventing or surmounting our defensive efforts,” said Hunzeker. As the professor explained, it’d be very simple for an adversary to use decoy missiles that did not possess nuclear warheads to absorb the entirety of our defensive ballistic missiles, before hitting us with an actual payload. “It strikes me that at the end of the day, for all the money we put into this, assuming we could even develop it, it’s just going to be relatively simple and inexpensive for the adversary to overwhelm our defensive capability.”

On MAD, BMDs and destabilization:

Neither does Hunzeker believe that missile defense provides a stabilization effect. Quite the contrary, in fact. “When it comes to nuclear weapons, strategic stability rests on mutual vulnerability. As long as both sides think it is impossible to completely disarm the other via a ‘surprise’ or preemptive attack, neither has an incentive to strike first, because they know the other side will retaliate. Ballistic-missile defense eliminates vulnerability for one side. So now the other side has to worry that it will be the victim of a preemptive strike, which makes it more likely that it will engage in risky or provocative behavior,” he warned.

On Iranian SLV-ICBM angle:

Making it clear that Russia and China are “both of significant concern,” Rood spent a disproportionate amount of time counseling about the threat of an Iranian ICBM striking the continental United States. But in an interview with the National Interest , Michael Elleman, senior fellow for Missile Defense at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the “potential future threat” of an Iranian ICBM was overblown. The speculation comes from the fact that in recent years Iran has attempted an expansion of their satellite launch program. “People have claimed that that is an instrumental step in moving towards an ICBM. I think it is a step, but the technologies and operational requirements are so different from a satellite launcher to a ballistic missile, they would be hard-pressed to convert what they have into an operational military system. And that’s why you’ve never seen any country transform a liquid-fueled satellite launcher into an ICBM, it’s always the other way around. I’m not aware of any case in which the satellite launch program decisively helped a long-range missile development effort,” said Elleman.