ABM Timelines?

I was wondering if anybody had seen any timelines on this board discussing the development and deployment of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) technology. Search function only turned up one or two fairly short threads from a few years back.
 

Archibald

Banned
An obvious POD would be Polyus reaching orbit safely. The American reaction to that would be pretty interesting...
 
But Polyus was an ASAT weapon, not ABM weapon. Even a successful one would only demonstrate that the Soviets continued their development of the ASAT weapons, a system that is not that hard to develop. After all, the US had a number of those deployed already.

The reason for a lack of ABM timelines is that the system itself is beyond the limits of technology and will be for decades. While a single or a few ballistic missiles are interceptable by existing systems, massive attack by MIRVed ICBM or SLBM is pretty final. A while ago I started a discussion based upon the opposite idea - the disarmament succeeds. Perhaps the world would be a better place. :confused:
 

NothingNow

Banned
But Polyus was an ASAT weapon, not ABM weapon. Even a successful one would only demonstrate that the Soviets continued their development of the ASAT weapons, a system that is not that hard to develop. After all, the US had a number of those deployed already.

Polyus was on a different level though. It's a functional and useful Laser.

American ASAT systems were all direct-assent systems, and most deployed systems relied on nuclear weapons (which is bad, because the EMP and radiation released could harm friendly satellites, which you probably won't be able to replace soon.) The Standard SM-3 is the exception there, as it uses a Kinetic Kill Vehicle.
 
Polyus was on a different level though. It's a functional and useful Laser.

American ASAT systems were all direct-assent systems, and most deployed systems relied on nuclear weapons (which is bad, because the EMP and radiation released could harm friendly satellites, which you probably won't be able to replace soon.) The Standard SM-3 is the exception there, as it uses a Kinetic Kill Vehicle.

IIRC Soviets also deployed a satellite with kinetic weapons, which succeeded in killing another satellite (I don't remember exactly the number Kosmos something and Kosmos something else). However, killing satellites is fundamentally different to killing nuclear missiles. I don't think Polyus could be useful in this role.
 

NothingNow

Banned
IIRC Soviets also deployed a satellite with kinetic weapons, which succeeded in killing another satellite (I don't remember exactly the number Kosmos something and Kosmos something else). However, killing satellites is fundamentally different to killing nuclear missiles. I don't think Polyus could be useful in this role.

Polyus didn't need to be an ABM system.
It was intended to decimate space-based ABM systems to allow existing ICBMs to remain a viable threat.
 
An obvious POD would be Polyus reaching orbit safely. The American reaction to that would be pretty interesting...

Well, to start, designing it so that it didn't have to be launched ass-first might have helped.

I'm well aware of the economic and technical issues behind deploying a comprehensive ABM system, but I think the area is fairly underexplored on this site. I'm considering doing a mini-TL which sees slightly more widespread ABM deployment through the Cold War (on the scale of possibly having one or two Safeguard sites operational through the 80s), and I was curious to see if anyone else had done something similar.
 
Can I suggest the easier task of TABM, perhaps the successful emplacement of IRBM in Cuba and scud use in Vietnam so the task isn't just the hardest anti-ICBM role. You could have a couple of Safegaurd sites plus smaller TABM systems to pad it out and give extra impetus to the development of ABM.
 
Can I suggest the easier task of TABM, perhaps the successful emplacement of IRBM in Cuba and scud use in Vietnam so the task isn't just the hardest anti-ICBM role. You could have a couple of Safegaurd sites plus smaller TABM systems to pad it out and give extra impetus to the development of ABM.

That's not a bad idea. Having better TABM capability would also be very useful if something like Desert Storm happened.

The development of anti-ICBM systems would probably be political as much as anything else. You'd need thousands of interceptor missiles to defend against even a partial Soviet or American strike.
 
Yes, thousands of ABMs would be needed to defend against every ICBM class warhead, but why would you invulnerably defend every target? 2 anti-ICBM sites allowed by the unmodified ABM treaty would defend the capital and an ICBM site. This alone builds in considerable redundancy to the national command sytems and the nuclear detterent and allows a 'launch under attack' strategy to be undertaken. An attack which puts more than 100 warheads on Washington can't possibly be mistaken for anything other than domesday and invite an "ejaculatory" (I've seriously seen this word used in reference to nuclear warfare) nuclear response.

Similarly SAC feared a low trajectory SLBM strike on bomber bases to wipe out a big chunk of the bomber fleet on the ground, but a few anti-IR/MRBM sites could make this a less profitable option, again raising the threshold of nuclear exchange because the option of a few lucky/strategic shots doesn't exist.

BTW in case you haven't noticed I think the real danger was the selective nuclear war, where it's OK to hit a few places and lose a few in return.
 
Top