Pakistan's Ballistic Missle Defence Systems?

[Kedardel]

Its so strange that the topic is on BMD of Pakistan but a few members Start by proposing offense by annihilating India. Instead of talking about settling problems with India to avoid Nuke War.
Anyways, I don't understand this offensive strategy. Would Indian Nukes stored in Cities, Industries etc. and could be rendered useless by first strike. Don't militaries know how to work in an irradiated environments ? Doesn't Indian Military has forests caves tunnels and Oceans to save its missiles to survive first strike.
And btw what would be fate of remaining attacker country. Won't the world powers disband the attacker country and cut & distribute the remaining attacker country amongst them. Maybe Afghanistan takeover remaining Pakistan after war since they don't accept the Border and since Afghanistan will also suffer due to nuke war.
On the topic Pakistan should start their first step at least. That would be start of a long journey.

 

[CriticalThought]

To the anti-BMD camp, here is a fundamental question: What would you rely on more? Nukes that have been tested ONLY 6 times, or a BMD system that you can keep testing as much as you want?

NOTE: I am NOT trying to trivialize our nuclear accomplishments, but common sense tells us we haven't had the luxury of as much testing as the Americans, Russians, and French had who tested with total impunity in all kinds of environments and collected data. Common sense tells us we should have a backup plan.

On the other hand, I am all for developing thermo-nuclear weapons as well. The quest for BMD MUST NOT come in the way of acquiring a proven thermo-nuclear offensive capability.

 

[singlefighter]

Or we should do what Russia does.
They built underground bunkers which can host 40 million people.

We should build those in the main cities. Majority of our population lives in these cities and around the Indus river.
After a Nuclear war we can wait a few decades until the radiation is all gone and rebuild the country after that.

Make sure the bunkers have railways to balochistan so we can live there temporarily during that time because that place wont be nuked.

In India's case doing something like this is impossible.

So Pakistan's nuclear policy should be to leave no square metre of India Un-nuked.

Bro for your suggestions we need hundreds billions dollars to make it possible

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Par kitthon

I think we should not take this bait

 

[Fawadqasim1]

The fallacy of MIRVs and hyper-sonic gliders: we will have the opportunity to use them.

With 100% guarantee, India doesn't have the resources to monitor our nuclear facilities, warheads, missile launchers.

With 100% guarantee, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus has the ability to monitor us, and ARE monitoring us.

With 100% guarantee, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus feels the world is an unsafe place because Pakistan has nukes.

With 100% guarantee, India will strike with a solid backing of, and with intelligence from, the America+Israel+Britain+France nexus.

Now that we have changed the goal posts with MIRVs, we have changed the face of war. India would be foolish to give us the opportunity to use them. The 'Indian Cold Start' should not be viewed as a massive tank assault across our Eastern border. The Indian cold start will come in the form of a massive, acute, and completely surprise attack after months and years of careful intelligence gathering by the world's best intelligence agencies. India will simply be a front for the war. The full technological prowess of major powers will be utilized against us.

The first phase of the attack will disable our EW and radar capabilities. And with all of our AD infrastructure bought from foreign vendors, this will be literally a piece of cake. What the West sells, the West fears not.

The second phase attacks will be from B-2 Spirit Bombers, F-22 raptors, missile strikes. It will be a saturation attack to take out our nuclear facilities, our mobile launchers, and sites of warhead storage.

Once the claws are taken out, we would be left at Indian mercy.

Those who think MIRVs and hypersonic vehicles will save us, live in a fool's paradise. We need comprehensive Air Defence capabilities that we can actually rely upon.

with apologies sir if it was that easy they would have done it by now. Its not that simple and easy sir had iraq a few nuclear weapons back then the us would not have thought of attacking iraq.The presence of deliverable nuclear weapons not only increases the number of variables it also puts lots of unknowns into the equation

I am all for a robust air defence.But as far as abms are concerned the strain it will put on our economy will break its back especially if we choose rabbit pace

 

[Deltaviper]

So I wrote the reply below in the other thread where someone put forth the idea of a LASER based ABMD and how it could be countered. I believe that LASER based system will be very important in future since Kinetic kill vehicles are probably never going to guarantee successful interception (or even an acceptably high probability of it). LASER based systems could also level the playing field a little in favour of the little guys like us as well, since we have good "basic" resource pool for optics, given its dual use nature.

I'm posting the reply below since it is relevant:

"Hi,

I'd Like to clarify a couple of things

a) The lasing source does not have to be within the atmosphere. Especially true for high altitude/Exo-atmosphere interceptions, which of course is very likely for your ICBM scenario. what I mean to say is, the LASER can be put on a satellite...
However that probably may not be necessary owing to the following:

b) Adaptive Optics has come a long way and ground based lasers can be focused onto very high altitude object with a fairly high accuracy.
EDIT>Start:
http://www.navysbir.com/n13_1/N131-076.htm
EDIT>End

The following is just me thinking out loud:

However, the trick for LASER based interceptors is going to be useful power delivery, assuming tracking and adaptive optics are mature enough. Warheads which are designed to come down from space probably have very good heat-shields to deal with reentry temperatures. So, a LASER weapon will have to deliver very high power to overwhelm the heat shield of the warhead. Pulsed LASERs can, in general, deliver very high instantaneous power, so it is probably not going to be too hard. I'd assume the warhead would be most vulnerable during re-entry given that its taking a beating from the atmosphere which will be generating some serious heat, now if a pulsed laser with high enough power was also delivering energy to it, it would most likely lead to the warhead disintegrating."

 

[Fawadqasim1]

Its so strange that the topic is on BMD of Pakistan but a few members Start by proposing offense by annihilating India. Instead of talking about settling problems with India to avoid Nuke War.
Anyways, I don't understand this offensive strategy. Would Indian Nukes stored in Cities, Industries etc. and could be rendered useless by first strike. Don't militaries know how to work in an irradiated environments ? Doesn't Indian Military has forests caves tunnels and Oceans to save its missiles to survive first strike.
And btw what would be fate of remaining attacker country. Won't the world powers disband the attacker country and cut & distribute the remaining attacker country amongst them. Maybe Afghanistan takeover remaining Pakistan after war since they don't accept the Border and since Afghanistan will also suffer due to nuke war.
On the topic Pakistan should start their first step at least. That would be start of a long journey.

Its called MAD mutually assured destruction and the maddest thing about it is that it works isn't it ironic.

 

[CriticalThought]

with apologies sir if it was that easy they would have done it by now. Its not that simple and easy sir had iraq a few nuclear weapons back then the us would not have thought of attacking iraq.The presence of deliverable nuclear weapons not only increases the number of variables it also puts lots of unknowns into the equation

I am all for a robust air defence.But as far as abms are concerned the strain it will put on our economy will break its back especially if we choose rabbit pace

It is hard, but not impossible. We all know how they conquered Iraq. They bought out the generals.

With corrupt Western slaves like Nawaz Shareef and Zardari in place who can appoint the most useless army Chiefs when they want and as they want, the following scenarios are all possible:

1. SPD refuses to join the fight.

2. Someone or a group leaks the locations of our assets.

Remember, no one will simply bumble into an all out war with us. There will be a multi-year intelligence gathering operation behind it. There will be subversion and subterfuge involved. This is a high stakes game.

Having a reliable BMD system that is distributed through the Army and Navy not only makes the job of buying out people harder, it ensures those who want to fight CAN pose a credible threat to the enemy.

In general, look at the wider world situation. America is propping up Japan and South Korea against North Korea. And India is being armed to the teeth. At the same time, cooperation between Japan and India is growing. We have no idea what is going on inside American bases in Afghanistan. Finally, UAE is increasing its cooperation with India. And systems like Aegis can be mounted on ships. When and IF you fire the Ababeels, it won't be only Indian BMD that takes a shot at it. You will have BMD systems coming at you from multiple sides at once.

If I read this correctly, once all the pawns are in place, I envisage a simultaneous swift attack to take out the nuclear teeth of both North Korea and Pakistan. And they will do this with an appetite for risk. Just recently an American official released a statement saying there is a chance of a nuclear detonation in South Asia. They won't even care about a few nukes going off.

In this backdrop, take a look at the CPEC and inviting Chinese ships to the Arabian Sea.

The point is, are we going to rely on China forever?

In order to safeguard our interests, we need (not necessarily in any priority order)

a. A friendly Afghanistan WITHOUT any American intervention or Indian influence.

b. An effective air defence system.

c. Full spectrum deterrence.

So I wrote the reply below in the other thread where someone put forth the idea of a LASER based ABMD and how it could be countered. I believe that LASER based system will be very important in future since Kinetic kill vehicles are probably never going to guarantee successful interception (or even an acceptably high probability of it). LASER based systems could also level the playing field a little in favour of the little guys like us as well, since we have good "basic" resource pool for optics, given its dual use nature.

I'm posting the reply below since it is relevant:

"Hi,

I'd Like to clarify a couple of things

a) The lasing source does not have to be within the atmosphere. Especially true for high altitude/Exo-atmosphere interceptions, which of course is very likely for your ICBM scenario. what I mean to say is, the LASER can be put on a satellite...
However that probably may not be necessary owing to the following:

b) Adaptive Optics has come a long way and ground based lasers can be focused onto very high altitude object with a fairly high accuracy.
EDIT>Start:
http://www.navysbir.com/n13_1/N131-076.htm
EDIT>End

The following is just me thinking out loud:

However, the trick for LASER based interceptors is going to be useful power delivery, assuming tracking and adaptive optics are mature enough. Warheads which are designed to come down from space probably have very good heat-shields to deal with reentry temperatures. So, a LASER weapon will have to deliver very high power to overwhelm the heat shield of the warhead. Pulsed LASERs can, in general, deliver very high instantaneous power, so it is probably not going to be too hard. I'd assume the warhead would be most vulnerable during re-entry given that its taking a beating from the atmosphere which will be generating some serious heat, now if a pulsed laser with high enough power was also delivering energy to it, it would most likely lead to the warhead disintegrating."

Some points

1. The atmosphere acts as a shield against lasers. Not just in terms of decreasing beam energy, but also beam direction. The laser can get reflected off the air molecules.

2. The lasing system will need to deliver multiple beams in quick succession to act as a credible missile defence against simultaneous launches.

3. The laser can simply be reflected off the warhead.

4. I am merely theorizing this point so i may be completely wrong. At high energies, the laser beam can deliver momentum that causes the direction to change rendering the beam ineffective and requiring a corresponding change in beam direction. Lookup solar sails. There is a danger of the war head landing in an unintended location.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

It is hard, but not impossible. We all know how they conquered Iraq. They bought out the generals.

With corrupt Western slaves like Nawaz Shareef and Zardari in place who can appoint the most useless army Chiefs when they want and as they want, the following scenarios are all possible:

1. SPD refuses to join the fight.

2. Someone or a group leaks the locations of our assets.

Remember, no one will simply bumble into an all out war with us. There will be a multi-year intelligence gathering operation behind it. There will be subversion and subterfuge involved. This is a high stakes game.

Having a reliable BMD system that is distributed through the Army and Navy not only makes the job of buying out people harder, it ensures those who want to fight CAN pose a credible threat to the enemy.

In general, look at the wider world situation. America is propping up Japan and South Korea against North Korea. And India is being armed to the teeth. At the same time, cooperation between Japan and India is growing. We have no idea what is going on inside American bases in Afghanistan. Finally, UAE is increasing its cooperation with India. And systems like Aegis can be mounted on ships. When and IF you fire the Ababeels, it won't be only Indian BMD that takes a shot at it. You will have BMD systems coming at you from multiple sides at once.

If I read this correctly, once all the pawns are in place, I envisage a simultaneous swift attack to take out the nuclear teeth of both North Korea and Pakistan. And they will do this with an appetite for risk. Just recently an American official released a statement saying there is a chance of a nuclear detonation in South Asia. They won't even care about a few nukes going off.

In this backdrop, take a look at the CPEC and inviting Chinese ships to the Arabian Sea.

The point is, are we going to rely on China forever?

In order to safeguard our interests, we need (not necessarily in any priority order)

a. A friendly Afghanistan WITHOUT any American intervention or Indian influence.

b. An effective air defence system.

c. Full spectrum deterrence.

with your permission sir can I add a point (d). Two dozen solid fuel based marved with pen aids road mobile icbms costing roughly same as two squadrons of su 35 will do the same trick? I mean quell the fears of such an attack.I am not saying pakistan should do this what I am contemplating is that you can achieve the same goal sans costly abm systems or bmd etc

and sir if you read my post carefully you will find me an ardent supporter of a strong air defence system the fact is abms are white elephants I will elaborate if you so wish

what I am saying in a nutshell is offense is a far more reliable and cost effective way of defence in this regard

and sir if most of our top brass and politician's ie those who matter are in on it then they dont need to attack us they can take away our nuclear cores in a transport plane

 

[CriticalThought]

with your permission sir can I add a point d two dozen solid fuel based marved with pen aids road mobile icbms costing roughly same as two squadrons of su 35 will do the same trick? I mean quell the fears of such an attack.I am not saying pakistan should do this what I am contemplating is that you can achieve the same goal sans costly abm systems or bmd etc

and sir if you read my post carefully you will find me an ardent supporter of a strong air defence system the fact is abms are white elephants I will elaborate if you so wish

what I am saying in a nutshell is offense is a far more reliable and cost effective way of defence in this regard

When it comes to national security, it is better to keep costs out of the discussion. The human psychology has the tendency to lessen the true nature of a threat if countering it seems too hard. Without thinking about costs, let us first reach consensus that we absolutely need BMD.

Once we reach that conclusion, we can decide a plan. If resource constraints lead to reprioritization, at least we can put it on the roadmap.

There are smart strategies on how we can make a start with minimal expenditure of resources. As step 1 you can utilize a ready made tracking system and work on the missile part where we have at least some expertise. Also, look at the benefits. Such a technology can be adapted for active protection of tanks, protection from mortar fire, protection from drones, helis, aircraft, in both the land and sea theatres. Today, our surface warships glaringly lack credible missile defence. The cost savings from reduced imports in so many different areas totally justify the expenditure. You could argue about the efficacy of BMD. But can you deny that active protection of tanks is here and now? Will you deny that our warships today are sitting ducks for enemy aircraft?

If enough high level people become turncoats, then yes, they can simply transport them out of the country. If a few people become turncoats, they can come in and destroy them within the country.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

I am not averse to r&d on active protection systems which in turn can be defeated. Few million dollars per annum on r&d wont harm us it has its own dividends but waste of large amount of funds on a white elephant like abms will kill us just like ussr why I am so against abms 1 it wastes lots of funds 2 it gives a country a false sense of protection and this is very dangerous the only thing which can spark a real nuclear war is this false sense of protection

 

[Kedardel]

Its called MAD mutually assured destruction and the maddest thing about it is that it works isn't it ironic.

MAD I believe is that u attack me and I finish you, it is to avoid first Nuke strike. But it is strange that a few PDF members talking about actually attacking first and completely. Well India has Second Strike capability and Pakistan has small depth. Lesser no. of bombs would cover majority of Pakistan.

But what intrigues me is that its like hating your enemy more than your own life.

I am wondering what will happen if in future BMD becomes more and better cost effective by deploying overwhelming defenders akin to land mines, than to BMissiles with MIRV MiRV. Then won't Pakistani establishment go back to procuring BMD ?? It will be better if they start today.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

MAD I believe is that u attack me and I finish you, it is to avoid first Nuke strike. But it is strange that a few PDF members talking about actually attacking first and completely. Well India has Second Strike capability and Pakistan has small depth. Lesser no. of bombs would cover majority of Pakistan.

But what intrigues me is that its like hating your enemy more than your own life.

I am wondering what will happen if in future BMD becomes more and better cost effective by deploying overwhelming defenders akin to land mines, than to BMissiles with MIRV MiRV. Then won't Pakistani establishment go back to procuring BMD ?? It will be better if they start today.

I have answered this question in this thread I won't repeat myself read the thread carefully

 

[CriticalThought]

I am not averse to r&d on active protection systems which in turn can be defeated. Few million dollars per annum on r&d wont harm us it has its own dividends but waste of large amount of funds on a white elephant like abms will kill us just like ussr why I am so against abms 1 it wastes lots of funds 2 it gives a country a false sense of protection and this is very dangerous the only thing which can spark a real nuclear war is this false sense of protection

You are confusing Raegan's Star Wars style SDI bluff with the now prevalent missile based BMD paradigm. Considering missile defence a cost black hole is cold war era mentality and the world has now moved on from it. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been abolished and credible advances have been made in defence against tactical ballistic missile.

If, and when, we decide to enter this area, I do not expect us to start researching all the various components at once. But what is dangerous is the ignoramus mentality which finds comfort in the MAD philosophy. I find issue with your statement that BMD 'gives a country a false sense of protection'. You should go tell this to India which has an indigenous BMD and is in the process of acquiring foreign ones as well. For us, BMD is increased security, because we are not the aggressor, but the defender.

Think from the Indian point of view. You are threatened with MAD but you still want to destroy your enemy. You will do everything to ensure MAD does not come into play. So you direct your efforts at the enemy's systems that guarantee MAD. You locate them, and you destroy them, with help from partners. How do you think Pakistan should defend itself from this threat?

 

[Fawadqasim1]

You are confusing Raegan's Star Wars style SDI bluff with the now prevalent missile based BMD paradigm. Considering missile defence a cost black hole is cold war era mentality and the world has now moved on from it. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been abolished and credible advances have been made in defence against tactical ballistic missile.

If, and when, we decide to enter this area, I do not expect us to start researching all the various components at once. But what is dangerous is the ignoramus mentality which finds comfort in the MAD philosophy. I find issue with your statement that BMD 'gives a country a false sense of protection'. You should go tell this to India which has an indigenous BMD and is in the process of acquiring foreign ones as well. For us, BMD is increased security, because we are not the aggressor, but the defender.

Think from the Indian point of view. You are threatened with MAD but you still want to destroy your enemy. You will do everything to ensure MAD does not come into play. So you direct your efforts at the enemy's systems that guarantee MAD. You locate them, and you destroy them, with help from partners. How do you think Pakistan should defend itself from this threat?

iskander type missiles with smart munitions/longe range mbrls/j16s with vlraam type arms etc is not beyond our reach.

and yes we can bluff our selves like india hit a short range ballistic missile with absolutely known trajectory and say hurra we have bmd in place . The best bmd is hitting the missile on its launcher period