NationStates Jolt Archive

Italian newspaper "Il Manifesto" reports about a Russian general declaring that Russia is going to upgrade its S-400 "Triumf" area SAM system to a full-scale anti-ballistic missile system, and deploy it so to give russian territory full ABM protection. The general said that, if the new USA ABM doctrine is a defensive one, then the new russian ABM doctrine is a defensive one, too.

Thoughts, comments, rants and flames welcome.

They've had ABM's defending Moscow for a long time ("Galosh" missiles (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/abm1.htm)). The system was upgraded as recently as the 90s (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/abm3.htm)...So aside from the coverage being extended across the nation, this is nothing particularly new.

W00t! ABMs all round :D

ABM systems are great and every country who wants them should have them. Better ABM systems than more nuclear weapons, they can't be used to annihilate other countries after all and terrorists can't do anything with them either.

On the other hand, it's Russia. We've all seen that Russia is invincible and will never die. Does it need them? :p

'Galosh'? Why does all Russian hardware have stupid names?

'Galosh'? Why does all Russian hardware have stupid names?

It doesn't. They're NATO codenames. It begins with G because it's a ground to air missile.

The best example would have to be the MiG-15 "Fagot". I would bet the Russians have a more flattering name. :p

It doesn't. They're NATO codenames. It begins with G because it's a ground to air missile.

The best example would have to be the MiG-15 "Fagot". I would bet the Russians have a more flattering name. :p
Oh yeah, well NATO gives them stupid names. They probably intend to, I suppose.

Yay for the Fagot! Personally, I like the Tu-22 Backfire :D

Oh yeah, well NATO gives them stupid names. They probably intend to, I suppose.

Yay for the Fagot! Personally, I like the Tu-22 Backfire :D

I quite like 'Flogger' as well...:D

ABM systems... :rolleyes:
Did anyone ever think that even if pulverized a plutonium warhead is quite dangerous?
Instead of a big boom you just have a slow fallout od plutonium dust over the area. Oh yeah!

In a climate of growing nuclear tension, a defensive stance is a step in the right direction from mutually-assured-destruction

ABM systems... :rolleyes:
Did anyone ever think that even if pulverized a plutonium warhead is quite dangerous?
Instead of a big boom you just have a slow fallout od plutonium dust over the area. Oh yeah!

In that case I guess they should just let the nuke hit them :rolleyes:

ABM systems... :rolleyes:
Did anyone ever think that even if pulverized a plutonium warhead is quite dangerous?
Instead of a big boom you just have a slow fallout od plutonium dust over the area. Oh yeah!

It depends entirely on the type of kill vehicle and interception stage. If it's a kinetic kill vehicle, it may cause dispersal of radioactive isotopes true, but generally, interception takes place in low orbit, where radioactive dust burns up in the atmosphere.

It depends entirely on the type of kill vehicle and interception stage. If it's a kinetic kill vehicle, it may cause dispersal of radioactive isotopes true, but generally, interception takes place in low orbit, where radioactive dust burns up in the atmosphere.

When it burns up, you do realise that all of those radioactive isotopes don't just disintergrate, and still rain down to earth as fallout, don't you?

Italian newspaper "Il Manifesto" reports about a Russian general declaring that Russia is going to upgrade its S-400 "Triumf" area SAM system to a full-scale anti-ballistic missile system, and deploy it so to give russian territory full ABM protection. The general said that, if the new USA ABM doctrine is a defensive one, then the new russian ABM doctrine is a defensive one, too.

Thoughts, comments, rants and flames welcome.

If the US is building defensive shielding in Eastern Europe, and Russia is building this on their own fricking territory then I see nothing wrong with it.

Italian newspaper "Il Manifesto" reports about a Russian general declaring that Russia is going to upgrade its S-400 "Triumf" area SAM system to a full-scale anti-ballistic missile system, and deploy it so to give russian territory full ABM protection. The general said that, if the new USA ABM doctrine is a defensive one, then the new russian ABM doctrine is a defensive one, too.

Thoughts, comments, rants and flames welcome.

They built one before, in the 1970s. However, it wasn't a "hit-to-kill" system that used the kinetic energy of the moving missile to destroy the incoming ballistic missile. It used a large nuclear warhead.

This system was installed around Moscow, under the provisions of the ABM Treaty (a limited number of systems and missiles were allowed).

The only problem with the system was that if it were to be fired, some of the cities just north of Moscow would get wasted by the 1 megaton detonations that might be occurring overhead.

Yay! Every country should have ABM systems!

I quite like 'Flogger' as well...:D

Yay for Su-34 "Fullback" (the Flanker variant that's meant to replace the Fencer).

This system was installed around Moscow, under the provisions of the ABM Treaty (a limited number of systems and missiles were allowed).


Iirc, they were placed around Leningrad, too.

When it burns up, you do realise that all of those radioactive isotopes don't just disintergrate, and still rain down to earth as fallout, don't you?

??

You'd still need irradiated something to emit the radiation. If the isotopes completely burn up, there's no fallout to speak of. Fallout is generally dust stirred up by a nuclear detonation and highly irradiated.

??

You'd still need irradiated something to emit the radiation. If the isotopes completely burn up, there's no fallout to speak of. Fallout is generally dust stirred up by a nuclear detonation and highly irradiated.

The GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) that is in Alaska (and soon to be in the Czech Republic) does its intercepts mid-course - that is, well away from the intended destination of the incoming ICBM.

The incoming warhead is destroyed halfway between where it was fired, and where it was supposed to land.

It isn't a "last ditch" system that intercepts over the defended area, like the Russian system currently in use.

??

You'd still need irradiated something to emit the radiation. If the isotopes completely burn up, there's no fallout to speak of. Fallout is generally dust stirred up by a nuclear detonation and highly irradiated.

An atom CANNOT "burn up". Short of a nuclear reaction, that is, but I don't think we wish for that to happen, do we?

A single warhead has U-235 in the orders of the tens of kg. That's not very nice if it comes down from the sky. Of course, we should compare that to the "normal" radioactive fallout we get from coal-fired power stations (for example, coal from the czech mines has about 1 part in a million of uranium).

An atom CANNOT "burn up". Short of a nuclear reaction, that is, but I don't think we wish for that to happen, do we?

A single warhead has U-235 in the orders of the tens of kg. That's not very nice if it comes down from the sky. Of course, we should compare that to the "normal" radioactive fallout we get from coal-fired power stations (for example, coal from the czech mines has about 1 part in a million of uranium).

The US emits about 4 tons of uranium a year into the air from Phase One coal-fired electric plants.

Well, actually I’m thinking that’s Russian military just take some money for ABM, steal them and then lie something. That’s how things work in modern Russia.

Nothing wrong with this. We aren't in a MAD scenario right now; no one neds to launch before the other completes.

My only problem is that the Russians probably can't do "Kinetic-Kill" technology (hell, we're just starting to work out how to do it). So, they'll probably drop back on high-speed missiles with small nuke warheads to destroy incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. Could be really messy.

Nothing wrong with this. We aren't in a MAD scenario right now; no one neds to launch before the other completes.

My only problem is that the Russians probably can't do "Kinetic-Kill" technology (hell, we're just starting to work out how to do it). So, they'll probably drop back on high-speed missiles with small nuke warheads to destroy incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. Could be really messy.

Kinetic kill has been operational in the PAC-3 since 2002. In March 2003, the PAC-3 was used in combat for the first time when it intercepted Iraqi short-range SSMs during the war in the Gulf.

Kinetic kill is also working in the SM-3.

Raytheon's next hit-to-kill success with the sea-based STANDARD Missile-3 occurred on 11 December 2003. Between January 2002 and late 2004, the Aegis BMD system had successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a US Navy cruiser under increasingly realistic, operational conditions.

On 24 February 2005 the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace. The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.

On 17 November 2005 a test involved for the first time a "separating" target, meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket requiring the interceptor to distinguish between the body of the missile and the actual warhead. The interceptor missile was launched from the Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70). The target was intercepted more than 100 miles in space above the Pacific Ocean and 375 miles northwest of Kauai.

A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) was launched on March 8, 2006 from the USS Lake Erie (CG 70) in a Missile Defense Agency and Japan Defense Agency joint test in the Pacific. The cooperative test demonstrated the SM-3 with a Japan-designed advanced nosecone. The flight test, a milestone in a joint cooperative research project, is an example of the ongoing coordination between the U.S. and Japan on missile defense efforts.

Notice the time frames for the success of hit to kill - 2002 to 2003.

The Ground Based Interceptor uses the same technology, except on a longer range booster.

The Russians are sure to figure it out, because most of engineering is trying to find out if it's possible. Now that they know it is possible, they will do it.

Oh, and I remember so many people in the 1980s saying that "this is impossible to design according to the laws of physics" and "it will never work".

PAC-3 worked extremely well against incoming ballistic threats in 2003.

The current ABM systems will only work against small numbers of missiles. If the USA wanted to blow Russia up, it would have no problem doing it.

??

You'd still need irradiated something to emit the radiation. If the isotopes completely burn up, there's no fallout to speak of. Fallout is generally dust stirred up by a nuclear detonation and highly irradiated.

I...ok.

A couple of things, and i'll try to keep it simple.

Firstly, Radioactive isotopes are unstable atoms. The radiation they release is in the form of subatomic particles. The process of these atoms emitting radiation is termed radioactive decay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) You will undoubtedly be able to find an explanation in laymans terms elsewhere, but i'm not going to attempt it - if you are interested, you should look for one. Anyway. Atoms of Uranium and Plutonium are naturally unstable, and will undergo a process of decay whereby they emit radiation. Nuclear weapons contain one (or more likely both) of these elements, and are radioactive even if the device does not undergo nuclear fission.

Furthermore, nothing can completely "burn up" and disappear because of temperature. When objects melt or boil, the atoms are still intact. The sun could not exist if this were not the case. When something burns up in the atmosphere, it is indeed turned into dust and ends up raining back to the ground. Burn a lump of coal and it emits smoke. Burn a whole lot of coal next to a wall and that wall will be covered in soot...dust. Guess what happens if a chunk of plutonium burns up in the atmosphere?

That said, some radioactive fallout in the upper atmosphere is somewhat better than a nuclear blast aimed at a city.

First of all, the scenario these missiles are intended for is one of total war, not just one stray missile. This means that tons of payload (uranium, plutonium, etc.) are involved and most of the resulting dust will fall down toward earth (gravity will do the job with some ionized isotopes being trapped in the Van Hallen bands).
The result?
Years of impredictable fallout all over the planet. By the way let me point out that plutonium is not only dangerous because of radioactivity but it is also extremely poisonous.

I'm not sure if this scenario is better than the one that is meant to be prevented.

As for the burning up let me quote Lavoisier: "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed" so instead of a rain of uranium you'll likely just get a rain of uranium oxide (or whatever, i can't be bothered to check the uranium bondings table rn). This would happen also if you could detonate the warhead in space instead of just shredding it since no fission/fusion bomb has a perfect yeld (meaning total conversion of matter into energy) and the resulting fallout would be also radioactive.

P.S. The US want to build only the targeting radar in Czech Republic and it may well be that they will not be able to do this due to the actual political situation of the country (KSCM, CSSD and the Green are against and they hold the majority of the Parlament). The ABM base should be in Poland, but Poland required the US to hold responsibility for any damage done by the operation of said system else no base.

Obviously we should strip the rest of the missle from the warhead, and just pick up the giant ball of uranium left behind.

Its all well and good for you Americans. Russia wants to be your friend now. But as I European I worry about Russia's intentions. They have proved themselves unwilling to practice any rational, democratic governance and have proved incredibly willing to use any means necessary to exert influence in our continent.

I don't support anything that may interfere with our ability to destroy Russia. We need to be certain of our security, and the only way that can happen is if Russia is just as vulnerable to us and we are to them, (they have a head start at the moment, and, as it seems the USA is now less willing to assist Europe, we will have to invest significantly).

ABM's for all...then that means we best get a trident replacement which can defeat it, and those damn MPs had best get their skates on, we want them nukes, and we want 'em NOW!

The only problem we now face is thinking no-one can nuke us and so the usage of nuclear weapons could become a real tactical decision made by generals in the field...that said, i don't see any nuclear capable nations particularly going to war and needing/having the right nuclear weapons to use them tactically.

I add a couple of references on the PAC systems.
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.40/system_detail.asp
Just let me just point out this:
By February 1991, the U.S. had launched 159 PAC-2 missiles. Estimates of the number of successful interceptions ranged from 40 to 70 percent, mainly due to reporting deficiencies and varying definitions as to what constituted a "kill." PAC-2 interceptors would often divert or disable the Scuds yet fail to completely destroy them, thus complicating the "kill" tally
(my emphasis)
It shows how hard it can be to evaluate the real efficency of the hole system.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/pac03213.xml