America’s Missile Defense Needs to Chill Out



PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at https://PDSDebt.com/task23

What if an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile was launched at the continental United States homeland? Would the US defense system be about to shoot it down? How much warning would we have to choose how to respond?

The US homeland ballistic missile defense architecture centers on the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD for short. It is designed to protect all 50 states from a limited long-range ballistic missile attack. Remember when I was talking about how, broadly speaking, these defense systems work by tracking, then destroying before impact? Well, broadly speaking, the GMD works like that: after detecting a missile launch, GMD’s sensors feed the data into a central control system, which then launches one or more interceptor missiles, which in turn, fly into the path of the incoming missile, release a kill vehicle and destroy the attacker’s missile on impact. But as I said, this is broadly speaking, very broadly. In truth, the GMD is a global system with 11 elements that span 15 time zones, and each element has to be precisely coordinated. And if something fails, everything can go wrong. Mock up of missile defense annual performance review ‘Shows great potential, but tends to space out at critical moments.”

According to Annie Jacobsen’s book Nuclear War a scenario in which she interviewed the actual military and civilian experts who built these weapons; and developed all the response plans; she outlined how modern day satellite missile tracking can detect a ICBM launch in just seconds. Technology for detecting threats has vastly improved. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the technology has solved the age old problem of hitting a bullet with another bullet so to speak. Detecting and tracking is very different from shooting down. A new developments in submarine and air launched missiles means instead of 30 minute window it could be as little as 15 minutes to reach their targets. But first,

Let’s talk about the elements that make the GMD what it is, starting with how it tracks missiles, and then we’ll dive into how it destroys them. The GMD tracking depends on seven types of sensors: land, sea, and space.

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSq3p5NKEtyp5Rjd4ctiEbg/join

Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.

Email [email protected] for inquires.

#TECHNOLOGY #WAR #usa

source

36 thoughts on “America’s Missile Defense Needs to Chill Out”

  1. EMP Electromagnetic Pulse could be employed to disable incoming missiles over a wider area with fewer interceptors instead of destroying the incoming missile by disabling the detonator allowing recovery and study of the enemies weapon design for further understand what the enemies capabilities are.

    Reply
  2. Small "Atomic" sized blasts in space can and will not just intercept 1 incoming missile with ALL the decoys included, it may intercept groups of incoming missiles and decoys. A small Atomic warhead is also feasible because it is a low yield detonation with nearly all of the radioactive material being dispersed into outer space and a negligible amount returning to earth. Kappy totally overlooked this possibility and deterrence. Misinformation attempted to sway opinions? Atomic bombs are the old small ones vs modern nukes with much more destructive power. Nobody wants a nuclear war, well at least nobody in the USA but, if one is started I would much rather shoot down incoming missiles than have them impact and detonate. Other nations teach and believe that nuclear war is winnable so here in the USA we better start to learn what other people think and stop assuming they think like us. But just use 5 EMP's and it is game over for Russia or China and virtually NO radiation. I just touched on points because this is a HUGE topic. Has China or Russia deployed nukes in space? Safelights and ships with LAZAR's? What people (democrats) made fun of with Ronald Reagan and Star-Wars is now a reality and it works. Obama and Biden made certain Iran got billions of dollars and the ability to fund their nuclear program now we must face the threat Iran posses to the USA and Israel and deter it.

    Reply
  3. Considering an ICBM travels over 15,000 MPH as it reenters the atmosphere and it has a shroud and it fires off numerous dummy warheads, there’s no way conventional technology could take it out.

    Imho only high powered lasers that could instantly track and hit the target would be capable. But even then, there are probably anti-laser technologies already in development.

    Long story short: we’re f**ked. Let’s just hope no one actually fires off a nuke.

    Reply
  4. What about Navy's Aegis system being able to take of ICBMs from China or NK shortly after takeoff before they accelerate outside the atmosphere? I saw a report on that years ago.

    Reply
  5. That was mostly political act Iran sent weapons that knew Israel would intercept but at a great cost its actually financial war but a few missiles that was high tech hit the target
    If we used 300 drone and missiles for carpet bombing it was crazy first Israel and NATO would gain access to data
    Secondly no body would stand whit us if we killed people(target is military base but in that number there is thousands failure reasons)
    And final one we show high tech that best air defense failed (a few missile's) its advertising for Russia and china and simple one's are also advertise how you can totally engage defence systems so main target's hit and if air defense ran out of missile for even an hour that use everything they got even forgotten artillery get used😅.

    But there is a defense for that strategy in future and its high power laser in a few decades that limit to only small number of best that made not anything
    BTW as Iranian I know our style we avoid war at all cost but i same time it doesn't seem like weakness

    Reply
  6. finding out what we have about Russia and China's "capabilities" even a limited defense might be more than adequate. Chinese soldiers are using the fuel out of missiles to burn to heat up food and replacing it with water and Russia's crap seems to fail way more than is acceptable for any military equipment.

    Reply
  7. the claims by the Russians that they were pushing out icbms like hotcakes is understood to be historically an overstatement by the USSR. Reagan was taken for a ride with a country that was just as afraid of him.

    Also, Star Wars was a term to make fun of the Reagan project because of how unrealistic it was.

    Reply
  8. Maybe what we let slip about our capabilities is largely subterfuge? I mean why would we tell the world what we're /actually/ capable of? So they can find a way to circumvent it?

    Reply
  9. The problem you have is that Iran has missiles that NO ONE can stop, if you don't believe me watch Jimmy Dore's VOD on the missiles that hit Israel's base's, that's why America told Israel to take the win.

    Reply
  10. Reading Jacobsen's book now, and it's been immensely insightful. Keep putting money into it. Being able to stop an Iran or N. Korea is worth it. We waste a bunch of money on other shit programs, this one doesn't bother me.

    Reply

Leave a Comment