American analyst: US missile defense can break even North Korea


The US missile defense system is actually very vulnerable. The reason for this is to save money on financing missile defense modernization.


His version of the US missile defense vulnerability was voiced by Lauren Thompson, senior columnist for the famous Forbes publication. According to Lauren Thompson, the United States spent about a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, but forgot about the need to develop its missile defense system, and this can lead to the most negative consequences.

The mid-flight missile defense system (GMD), designed to intercept missiles in the middle of a flight, is actually not that difficult to get around. Moreover, the United States possesses only 44 missiles of this type, which is extremely insufficient to withstand even North Korea.

It is ground-based missiles that are the main "Achilles heel" of the US missile defense system. If the American leadership is not puzzled by the modernization of missile defense, then the state’s security will be in jeopardy, not only from the Russian Federation or China, but also from countries such as the DPRK that could break through the US missile defense system.

The position of Lauren Thompson is fully consistent with the views of part of the American establishment, including Donald Trump himself, on US military policy. As you know, for a long time the United States spends colossal funds on warfare away from its land and sea borders.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya ... Overseas military campaigns take away very impressive amounts, but if it arrives somewhere, then it necessarily decreases somewhere. The US missile defense system turns out to be the very sphere of national defense and security, which suffers from a lack of funding against the background of generous investments in military operations in the Near and Middle East.

Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about the need for the withdrawal of American troops from the countries of the Middle East. But this position met with misunderstanding, and even resistance, from the military elite, for whom warfare overseas is very desirable both financially and from the point of view of strengthening its political influence.

Just Trump has always been a supporter of the development of US space projects, strengthening the missile defense system, explaining this by the fact that Washington should prepare for a confrontation with such opponents as China or Russia, and not disperse forces in Afghanistan or Syria.

Given that both China and Russia are constantly improving their missile weaponsaving on missile defense today can be very expensive for the United States. It’s not for nothing that American experts call the same Russian Zircon missiles deadly, “a nightmare for the United States” (these are the words The National Interest used in evaluating Russian anti-ship missiles).

However, financing the modernization of the American missile defense is a very painful issue, since the US Congress is inclined to be rather skeptical about increasing the allocation for defense needs. Apparently, more than once in the American press there will be articles critical of the US missile defense system - Trump and supporters of his position need to form public opinion and influence Congressional policies.

As part of its military build-up, the United States is developing a modern missile defense system. My administration will never apologize for promoting America’s interests,

- Trump said a year ago, in February 2019.

Let's see if he will manage to achieve the "restoration of the armed forces", which he spoke about repeatedly, criticizing the policies of his predecessor Barack Obama before the end of his presidential term.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fruit_cake 9 March 2020 12: 00 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Yes, yes, you need to urgently throw money into the military budget, otherwise you really want money
    1. Thrall 9 March 2020 12: 02 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      version of the US missile defense vulnerability voiced by Lauren Thompson - senior observer of the famous Forbes publication

      US forces are business. That is why Forbes reviewers evaluate their condition. smile
      1. Sky strike fighter 9 March 2020 12: 06 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        According to Lauren Thompson, the United States spent about a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, but forgot about the need to develop its missile defense system, and this can lead to the most negative consequences.

        All the officials and business leaders sawed off grandmothers as they were involved in contracts in wars. For this reason, all these wars began. war in catching large fish in troubled waters. In a profitable criminal business. And can not stop.
      2. rich 9 March 2020 12: 11 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        American analyst: US missile defense can break even North Korea

        If you urgently need to inject money into the military budget, then Forbes analysts had to write more with anguish and tears, such as - and not only North Korea, but even the artisanal Palestinian "Kassam" water pipes. belay So the senate will fork out faster yes
  2. Pardus 9 March 2020 12: 08 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The reason for this is to save money on financing the modernization of missile defense.

    In the states, again, someone begins to lobby the interests of the defense industry, in this case, the interests of manufacturers and suppliers of American missile defense systems, in particular companies such as General Electric and Raytheon, are lobbying.
  3. Pavel57 9 March 2020 12: 08 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    ABM is a very necessary factor for cutting money. No one can really check the effectiveness.
  4. Sky strike fighter 9 March 2020 12: 10 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya ... Overseas military campaigns take away very impressive amounts, but if it arrives somewhere, then it necessarily decreases somewhere. The US missile defense system turns out to be the very sphere of national defense and security, which suffers from a lack of funding against the background of generous investments in military operations in the Near and Middle East.

    The struggle for financial flows. What to cut. That's the question.
  5. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 12: 10 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    What's new here? In Alaska, 44 interceptors of ICBMs. Interception on the marching site. They are going to increase to 100 pieces and stop. This is only against single missiles in China and from Korea.
    There are several THAAD batteries in Caliboria that can shoot down ICBM warheads at the terminal site.
    This is all American strategic missile defense.
    -----
    In Russia, a strategic missile defense is deployed around the city of Moscow.
    1. Sky strike fighter 9 March 2020 12: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Trim the sturgeon. THAAD is a land-based mobile missile defense system for high-altitude atmospheric interception of medium-range missiles.
      For intercepting ICBMs there are 44 GMDs, which are analogues of Moscow's missile defense.
      At the same time, the ability of the United States to repulse missiles launched by submarines from its coast along the coast .THAAD and GMD operate only on the BMD and ICBMs, respectively, does the United States have sufficient deployed air defense systems for this?
      1. voyaka uh 9 March 2020 12: 38 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        THAAD has the same kinetic killer as GMB. He doesn’t care what to shoot down: ICBMs or infantry ballistic missiles. The main thing is that the rocket goes at him on the descent. Intercept towards.
        Suitable for protecting objects.
        And Alaska missiles protect against single ICBMs flying from the northwest to the United States.
  6. Sergey39 9 March 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Let's see if he manages to achieve" restoration of the armed forces "by the end of his presidential term."
    If only until the end of the second presidential term. Yes, and that is unlikely. His ideas are contrary to the ideas of the military elite.
  7. svp67 9 March 2020 12: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    My administration will never apologize for promoting America’s interests,
    - Trump said a year ago, in February 2019.

    Then is it worth it to require others to apologize for this?
  8. HAM
    HAM 9 March 2020 12: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But when the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were the best "missile defense" system .....
    It seems that for some it all remained ...
  9. rocket757 9 March 2020 12: 33 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In general, minke whales are always in priority doctrine of the first strike. With whom such a trick doesn’t work, they don’t try in the first place, and they don’t try to defend themselves, because it is extremely expensive and the positive result is not obvious (no, shorter).
    Secondly, they seek to carry out the impact by other, non-military, methods ... it is safer, and they have plenty of opportunities.
    It is clear from everything that they are NOT INTENDING to backtrack from their usual doctrine.
    1. orionvitt 9 March 2020 15: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The fact that the United States at one time did not even try to create a normal missile defense system (as well as mobile missile systems, which are essentially weapons of retaliation), speaks only about one thing. They always knew that the USSR was the first to never attack. And how much talk there was about the Soviet (now Russian) threat, in a word, Western two-faced creatures. And now China has pulled itself up with North Korea, Iran is advancing on the heels of the overseas military, there is a distinct burning sensation below the back.
      1. rocket757 9 March 2020 15: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Those who really can embed will be more, no matter how minke whales are dressed up. They will have to go to some costs, this is obvious, but not to them .... which, by the way, is strange.
        Let's see if Congress, the administration of the minke whales responds to the "moaning" warrior ... we'll see.
  10. Operator 9 March 2020 12: 39 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    So Forbs confirmed that the American printing press is not rubber.

    The new US strategy is to stop wasting money on local wars abroad, and to release the released trillions of bucks into the toilet called ABM.
    1. Aag
      Aag 9 March 2020 13: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Controversial statement. Either lobby the military-industrial complex, or have direct, or indirect "nishtyaki" from the "locales".
      1. Operator 9 March 2020 16: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So I’m talking about that - to send the next trillions of bucks to the American military-industrial complex (under its joyful cries) without exhaust in the form of a workable missile defense.
  11. Finn 9 March 2020 12: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    [quote = Pavel57] PRO is a very necessary factor for cutting money. No one can really check the effectiveness. [/

    But we can)
  12. Whalebone 9 March 2020 12: 52 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Kim won. Polonsky will not let you lie.
    1. Paranoid50 9 March 2020 13: 41 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Whalebone
      Kim won

      And what about Kim ... Kim made the next launch of the BR today - and he is deeply purple about who and what he thinks about it. yes
  13. Butchcassidy 9 March 2020 13: 00 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The usual story. Pentagon wants more money
  14. KCA
    KCA 9 March 2020 13: 24 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The real missile defense is the S-135 with the JUNCTION, the rest pampering, and the S-135 will close only the Central region, and not 100%
  15. Old26 9 March 2020 14: 02 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Balbes
    Well, the Saudis checked it by the Hussites ..

    At the same time, the Saudis worked pretty well for such goals

    Quote: Balbes
    The United States seems to have gathered to buy the Israeli "dome" system, but so far they are thinking .. They are hoping to destroy Russia from the inside, but ..

    Aha "In the garden of elderberry, and in Kiev, uncle." How do the Kupol procurement projects to protect their bases abroad compare with the “collapse from within Russia”? Or Vitalik, after yesterday did not depart yet? So take care of yourself, how could a forum be without you ...

    Quote: voyaka uh
    What's new here? In Alaska, 44 interceptors of ICBMs. Interception on the marching site. They are going to increase to 100 pieces and stop. This is only against single missiles in China and from Korea.
    There are several THAAD batteries in Caliboria that can shoot down ICBM warheads at the terminal site.
    This is all American strategic missile defense.
    -----
    In Russia, a strategic missile defense is deployed around the city of Moscow.

    If the North Korean intercept, then about the Chinese - big doubts. It is unlikely that the Chinese will carry out single launches. And Americans are unlikely to be able to intercept all the Chinese ICBMs. Therefore, the American side is considering a pre-emptive strike on China’s strategic nuclear forces so that Chinese missile forces can be "thinned out"

    About Moscow. Only the second, atmospheric echelon functions from the old one. And I didn’t hear something about setting up the next A-235 missile defense system on the database
  16. orionvitt 9 March 2020 15: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    US Spends About Trillion Dollars on Afghanistan War
    And what did they achieve there? However, if you evaluate these costs not as military expenses, but as "investments in agriculture", then yes, it was not for nothing that they invested. That's just, no one has invested a trillion in poppy plantations.
  17. Kostadinov 9 March 2020 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ABM is a very effective weapon for maximizing the manufacturer’s profit and close to zero efficiency for intercepting missiles. In other words, this is the best weapon for capitalism.
  18. lvov_aleksey 9 March 2020 16: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    as always, give the attendants, and we will make a type of protection - it is funny to me !!!
  19. gcn
    gcn 9 March 2020 19: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not going to defend themselves, they usually attack. In which case half the world will attack on their side.
  20. sanik2020 10 March 2020 13: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    About this is not bad, only terrorists cause more harm than any warhead.