A really bad ABM system that the attacker guesses will stops 50% of RVs means the attacker puts extra RVs assigned to the high priority targets... but that means low priority targets don't get *any* RVs. Because there's never truly enough RVs for the attacker to do everything. - ThreadSky

saphroneth.bsky.social • 35 days ago

A really bad ABM system that the attacker guesses will stops 50% of RVs means the attacker puts extra RVs assigned to the high priority targets... but that means low priority targets don't get *any* RVs. Because there's never truly enough RVs for the attacker to do everything.

Comments

dustinducane.bsky.social•27 days ago

Have you heard of MIRVs?

saphroneth.bsky.social•35 days ago

Also the intercepting rocket is smaller and has less fuel and is thus cheaper than the ICBM, all else being equal - it doesn't have to get to Russia or China, just to the upper atmosphere, and it needs much less delta-V to do it.

dustinducane.bsky.social•27 days ago

Let me tell you about cheap decoys in an ICBM…

dustinducane.bsky.social•27 days ago

Considering that each ICBM can carry 10 warheads and many more decoys, how many ABMs do you need? Considering you also need to be make sure each warhead and decoy is hit by ABMs, which despite what you may think is insanely difficult, how can you figure it’s cheaper to have ABMs?

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

The idea that you need one hundred percent coverage or the system is useless is one I reject - the goal of a defensive system is never to be impervious, it's to raise the cost of attacking.

Witness Chevaline - the Brits spent hugely on a multi-warhead multi-decoy system to overcome the Moscow ABMs.

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

They went from having 16 missiles able to hit 16 cities with 48 warheads to 16 missiles able to hit 1 city, because the assumption was a saturation attack was required to deal with the Moscow ABMs.
The Moscow system was never tested and the Russians reportedly thought it could intercept ...

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

...at most, *one* warhead. But it still caused a huge British reaction. The Moscow ABM system wouldn't have saved Moscow from the British deterrent - but it would have saved Leningrad, Kiev, Tula etc. All the other cities that those other 15 missiles aren't pointed at because they're aimed at Moscow

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

So what are the decoys made of, then? My understanding is that most decoys are mylar balloons - they'll get filtered out by the upper atmosphere because they're not as dense as a warhead.

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

Certainly if an ICBM is carrying 10 warheads AND many decoys, the decoys are going to be balloons...

If the ICBM is only carrying 3 warheads and the other 7 slots are solid decoys, then the ABM system is relying on chance - but if it stops five random warheads...

saphroneth.bsky.social•25 days ago

...the chance of three detonations is about 20%, two detonations 36%, one detonation 30%, no detonations 13%. And the attacker can't know which of the warheads will get stopped - will it be the one aimed at the rail station or the one aimed at Congress?

So DC gets even more missiles-elsewhere less.

saphroneth.bsky.social•35 days ago

Plus of course, you know... the RVs can be seen coming ahead of time! There are tricks to mess that up, decoys etc, but even if you use the upper atmosphere to declutter the RVs you still have time. I suspect it's an easier problem than modern anti missile naval point defence, except for range.

dustinducane.bsky.social•27 days ago

Oh then so why didn’t it work in the 1980s.

Because maths and physics.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply