What is the possibility, with a POD of around 1980, to get a missile defense system up in the Cold War? Consider that with the right POD, the Cold War could have lasted into the 90's.
Pretty much nil. Its far too easy to circumvent with decoys, fast boost, and sheer numbers.
First, I doubt that's true while the warheads and decoys are outside the atmosphere. They will all fall along essentially the same path (allowing for differences in ejection etc.) since the acceleration by gravity of an object in near-Earth space is relatively unaffected by the object's mass (the Earth being many orders of magnitude larger), and of course there's no atmosphere to affect them with friction and drag. Once they hit the atmosphere, you have a rather short window of interception; a few seconds IIRC.FlyingDutchman said:For starters decoys don't work (anymore); they'll be too easily recognised as just that unless they are amongst others exactly the same weight as a true warhead.
You just as well might add more warheads then.
Which is why there was some talk about designing maneuverable warheads (the so-called MARV) in the '80s, IIRC. Much harder to track accurately. There's always FOBs and the like if you really want to get serious.FlyingDutchman said:the trajectory of ballistic missiles is predictable as long as you have enough calculating power AFAIK. That amount of calculating power was reached in the '50s/60s.
Silly political directives? Seriously, though, the current ABM systems being developed in the US have a far different mission from a nation-wide Cold War-era shield. For the larger scale systems, the idea is to defend the US against a few ICBMs launched by a rogue power. Defeating the entire Russian arsenal (say) is utterly beyond them. Similarly, the smaller-scale systems are designed to defeat a few tactical BMs and protect rather small areas. They're just incapable of beating an ICBM, but very useful if you're getting Scuds or the like lobbed at you.FlyingDutchman said:And finally; if your reply was correct, why are the US and Russia investing in just that, with about a dozen countries following?
Second, even if it is true, a decoy with the exact same mass will likely be rather cheaper than an actual warhead. Thus, you could quite possibly break the ABM cost profile and saturate them with relatively cheap decoys while your expensive warheads sail through unharmed.
Third, you can use active decoys (ECM etc.), too, and just screw up their targeting systems so they can't shoot anything anyways.
Pretty much nil. Its far too easy to circumvent with decoys, fast boost, and sheer numbers.
(They also cheated on the ABM Treaty--at the very least, they had more radars than they were allowed and at most, lots and LOTS of ABM-capable missiles.)
I couldn't disagree more.
For starters decoys don't work (anymore); they'll be too easily recognised as just that unless they are amongst others exactly the same weight as a true warhead.
You just as well might add more warheads then.
Your remark with regards to sheer numbers I don't understand;
- anti ballistic missiles are cheaper then ICBM's, so that's an arms race you don't lose. MIRVs however do complicate this but this can be solved by earlier interception.
- the trajectory of ballistic missiles is predictable as long as you have enough calculating power AFAIK. That amount of calculating power was reached in the '50s/60s.
Most of the reasons why all the major countries in the world don't have ABM systems are non-technical (iirc mostly political reasons and treaties which stopped ABM). If you are willing to use nuclear tipped missiles for ABM, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to do. In that case it's achievable in the '60s.
I wouldn't know the importance/existance of 'fast boost' so I hope somebody else responds to that.
As far as I know, apart from the American projects, there already is an existing ABM system, which has been around for decades; in Russia.
And finally; if your reply was correct, why are the US and Russia investing in just that, with about a dozen countries following?
MerryPrankster said:(They also cheated on the ABM Treaty--at the very least, they had more radars than they were allowed and at most, lots and LOTS of ABM-capable missiles.)
It's not so much that they cheated. It's just that when you build a SAM with the performance and range to deal with high altitude/high speed aircraft, you have almost by definition an ABM capable missile.
I've read that the US went to a lot of trouble to degrade the performance of the Patriot just so they wouldn't violate the treaty. The latest, PAC-3? 4?, version is really just putting back in what was taken out. The Russians just never worried about it.