The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

Creating a missile defense system (ABM) capable of fully protecting the United States from Russia is impossible. This statement was made by the head of the Strategic Command (STRATK) of the US Armed Forces, Admiral Charles Richard.

At a hearing in one of the subcommittees of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, the admiral said that creating a missile defense system that would fully protect America from Russia was technically impossible and poses a threat to strategic stability.

Answering the question whether the American missile defense can protect against Russian ballistic missiles, Richard explained that the US missile defense system can protect only from imperfect third-world missiles, but not from Russia or China.

Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China

- he said.

To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

This is not only technically unrealizable and costly, but also raises serious questions in terms of strategic stability.

- declared admiral.

Comments

[lucul]

The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

Not even a week had passed before Hawkeye noticed that there wasn’t one wall in the cell where the Indian cowboys were put .....

[Nikolay3]

It's not only not technically feasible and costly but also causes serious issues in terms of strategic stability

There are still adequate people in the Pentagon. Even with a probability of P = 0,9999 damage to ballistic and other types of missiles, at least 3 anti-missiles with a probability of destruction of each P = 0,95 for each target are needed, and this will not save in the global chaos of nuclear war ...
And in the global chaos of nuclear war: it will increase many times: the number of targets in the air at the same time, the number of affected missile defense and air defense systems, the number and type of interference from electronic warfare systems and the number of airborne nuclear explosions - sources of electromagnetic pulses and so on. I would like to note - this will use such types of weapons, about which a simple layman doesn't even know...
Therefore, God forbid this happen!

[Orel]

To be precise, they have never officially set such a goal since the time of the SDI, so such an interpretation is victorious that we defended ourselves from someone there, anyway, screaming about the enemy’s flight when his army just passed by to another place)))

[Orel]

Quote: Nikolay3

An example of this is SOI USA!

So SDI was not for the same reason, expensive and inefficient)))

[Nikolay3]

Quote: Orel

To be precise, they have never officially set such a goal since the days of SDI ... So, SDI wasn’t for the same reason, it’s expensive and inefficient)))

But they did the work according to SDI and spent their money. Contradiction, "the end justifies the means." I just deleted my comment, since since the days of SOI it has been an extensible concept, but no, it will be correct after closing the SOI program, according to your comment.

[Orel]

Quote: Nikolay3

But they did the work, according to the SDI and spent their money.

Well, there weren’t astronomical figures, in general I am inclined to think that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and to deplete our economy

[Nikolay3]

... that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and deplete our economy

You can think differently about SDI. However, as part of that program, they made kinetic interceptors for working in outer space, made an electromagnetic gun (railgun), worked on nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers and chemical lasers. It was not a bluff, they had concrete results ... However, technically and economically, they overstrained. They could not make trains running from ICBMs. It was an American idea with SDI.

[Orel]

I won’t argue, I’m just a subjective opinion, so that he believed in a bluff he should be like the truth, and as a result they didn’t spend astronomical money on reproducing all of the above, and I had to increase the warheads from 2000 to 16 (I can make mistakes in accuracy), and the fact that nuclear weapons are very expensive to contain is not for me to tell you

[Victor_B]

PRO - it's abruptly phallus Goethe!
And oooooochen much more expensive than the F-35 with an aircraft carrier!
So what would mug the wallet is not cracked, if stir up!
Well, a sufficient amount of brains to flow to yourself where you type?

[aszzz888]

The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

And why then jerk, world gendarmes)) ?!

[Talgarets]

How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...

[Wodan]

And to continue the admiral’s thought a step further? ABM - a system of the 2nd purpose, not only for defense. But if it is not suitable for defense, then they built it for? That is not in vain.

[maidan.izrailovich]

Well recognized. And what? Who benefits or harms this?

[Well done]

This is a subtle hint from the series - "Give me more money!"

[g1washntwn]

Nothing has changed. As they talked about "it's all against Iranian missiles," so blah-blah-blah. And money and plans for positional areas, missiles and developments, as they went as wide as the Potomac, are still flowing, from global Missile defense is not going to refuse. If they had global problems with rogue countries (and they all had the opportunity to carry a military threat to the United States), the Americans would long ago have sung "Nobody loves me, nobody caresses ...", But, no - they sing "Light and we bring joy to people. "

[Loess]

At a hearing in one of the subcommittees of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, the admiral said that creating a missile defense system that would fully protect America from Russia was technically impossible and poses a threat to strategic stability.

A very interesting statement for American citizens against the backdrop of the threat of a military clash between one of the NATO countries and Russia ... Or are the states thus canceling their newly declared support for Turkey? ..

[rocket757]

To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

Interesting question .... although, most likely everything is natural. The topic has long been thoroughly covered, revealed, understood by all who are in their right mind! Then what is the state of those who are sitting in Congress and where are many more, declaring all sorts of ... stupid things?
However, this is their business.

[g1washntwn]

Quote: Talgarets

How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...

Not "..and everything is in vain", but "... and everything is Ize"

[unhappy]

Problems of democracy - people judging the world by Hollywood blockbusters are going to Congress or the Duma.
We miss missile defense - well, not a foolish person? Protection against a large-scale missile strike is after the creation of force field generators and other disintegrators.

[unhappy]

And can I write - an unwise person in the interpretation of Sergei Lavrov?

[askort154]

Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China (Admiral Richard)

The military is always more sober than politicians. Because, they professionally evaluate the possibilities and consequences of wars.

[lvov_aleksey]

naively, politicians understand, but the military question is the oath? !!!

[Dizel200]

begs for trite bucks)))) first nightmare, then make an unhappy look and say that there is no money, but you hold on))))

[Old26]

Quote: Nikolay3

... that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and deplete our economy

You can think differently about SDI. However, as part of that program, they made kinetic interceptors for working in outer space, made an electromagnetic gun (railgun), worked on nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers and chemical lasers. It was not a bluff, they had concrete results ... However, technically and economically, they overstrained. They could not make trains running from ICBMs. It was an American idea with SDI.

You are right, Nikolai. They received SDI developments, although not to the extent that they planned.
As for the rocket trains, to design, they designed them, but did not deploy. It turned out to be very expensive. Moreover, the roads in the United States are private, with their own fixed schedule. rocket trains would disrupt this schedule. And for them to operate "without a hitch without a hitch" would require the creation of a parallel railway. What was costly

Quote: Orel

I won’t argue, I’m just a subjective opinion, so that he believed in a bluff he should be like the truth, and as a result they didn’t spend astronomical money on reproducing all of the above, and I had to increase the warheads from 2000 to 16 (I can make mistakes in accuracy), and the fact that nuclear weapons are very expensive to contain is not for me to tell you

We did not have to build up the BG. For 1983, each of the parties had:
USA - 13 113 strategic warheads and 10 041 non-strategic warheads.
In 1983, the United States had 23 strategic and non-strategic BGs.
The USSR for 1983 had 9 strategic and 704 non-strategic BGs. In total - 26 100. We have increased the number of strategic BGs, but by about 35 units ...

Quote: Talgarets

How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...

Nothing is done in vain. Any missile defense system of any country is capable of preventing only a limited strike. And only nuclear countries that are not members of the "nuclear club" can deliver such a blow. In relation to Russia or China, the United States has no doubts.

Quote: rocket757

To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

Interesting question .... although, most likely everything is natural. The topic has long been thoroughly covered, revealed, understood by all who are in their right mind! Then what is the state of those who are sitting in Congress and where are many more, declaring all sorts of ... stupid things?
However, this is their business.

Of course, everything is natural, Victor! And the admiral, in fact, announced what half a century has been known to those who deal with this problem. The American Congress of 1970-1972 also knew this. Well, the current ones .... Current politicians in all countries put their personal PR at the forefront, rather than knowing the topic that they have to deal with. Ignorance of the topic has become a fashion trend for many politicians.
Congressmen of the sample of the 70s perfectly understood what and how, otherwise the 1972 ABM Treaty would not have been signed.
But years pass, both the political and the military-technical situation are changing, and the politicians in power continue to show for the most part their incompetence

Quote: askort154

Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China (Admiral Richard)

The military is always more sober than politicians. Because, they professionally evaluate the possibilities and consequences of wars.

That's right, Alexander! Sober up. They are well aware that they will be able to intercept 5-7 North Korean warheads without much stress. But alas, they cannot intercept 80 Chinese. Not to mention Russian. And in reality, such a missile defense system will protect exclusively from missiles of rogue states (which they basically say the last 20 years, after withdrawing from the treaty)

[lvov_aleksey]

If so, why are there no missiles to visit us from abroad?