could use some investigation of the ukranians techniques -- the number of interceptors the U.S. used within the first four days of the war eclipsed the total amount Ukranians have had for the war
Missile defense is NP-complete
31–40 of 446 posts
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#32Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability. Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker. [0] h…
That's a false comparison. You want to compare between the actual options you have, which are either (a) firing an interceptor (or several); or (b) repairing the damage caused by a non-intercepted missile.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#33Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability. Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker. [0] h…
Sobering how asymmetric Iran’s attacks on Israel are after Israel attacked Iran.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#34Add multiple decoys and the missile math tends to become an argument for the importance of preemption. Han shot first for a good reason.
Careful. Preemption takes many forms, some of them many would find unpalatable.
But it's also the basic l basis of deterrence and the destabilizing nature of ICBM defense: relying on interceptors presumes the war happens.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpalatable preemption is generally better than reentry vehicles coming down your chimney.
The problem there is you can't prove anything would have come down the chimney if the preemption is successful, so people will still be unhappy.
I agree, but some of them are more obvious.
Like not giving 100 billion dollars to someone who actively wants to kill you.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#36Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability. Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker. [0] h…
Calling a Fattah hypersonic is a misleading claim. It is simply a ballistic missile that reaches hypersonic speeds, which is different from a true hypersonic weapon in its flight path and ability to maneuver. This distinction is important because it makes it significantly easier to shoot down than something like a hypersonic glide vehicle or hypersonic cruise missile.
But I agree with your point that it does remain difficult to intercept and poses the shot-exchange problem.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#37Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability. Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker. [0] h…
There are too many potential attackers though, and not everyone is sane. So you don't really get a choice about it. The cost of the interceptors needs to be considered in relation to the cost of what it protects. If the interceptor means an attacker doesn't kill my kids then it was worth the cost. If the interceptor keeps a multi-million dollar building around then interceptor at a million dollars is still cheap, eve…
> If the interceptor keeps a multi-million dollar building around then interceptor at a million dollars is still cheap, even if the missile it takes out was only $100.
Not if it means you can't intercept the next one hitting much a more valuable/critical building.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#38Two more sobering axes to introduce: cost and manufacturing capability. Numbers are hard to find for obvious security reasons, but using the numbers most optimistic to the defender[0] suggests an adversary using a Fatah type hypersonic is spending 1/3rd the cost of an Arrow interceptor, and is launching missiles that are produced at a much faster rate. Interception is deeply asymmetric in favor of the attacker. [0] h…
Ah yes, but then you also have to add GDP + targetting/defense radii. Great Britian alone has 10x the GDP of Iran. So an interceptor costing 10:1 is (at first approx) breakeven just for GB, who would have to intercept much less than the total manufacturing capability of Iran anyway. Then you have every rich nation surrounding Iran as well. Let alone the USA who cannot be reached but throws their weight behind interce…
This is wrong, for example Iran have thousands of Shahed drones, they cost almost nothing to build, to intercept just one the ratio is way way higher that 1:10. A single patriot missile is in the multi millions $ range.
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#39It's been known since the 1960s that effective anti ballistic missile defense is impossible.
A lot of things involving rockets and putting things in space have changed since the 1960s.
That's true. And while I disagree with the parent comment, ICBM interception remains enormously problematic and likely will remain so until directed energy weapons get really cheap.
Fundamentally the rocket equation and orbital dynamics really fight you on this.
It's a lot less "can't be done" versus "would be financially untenable to build and maintain even when the objective is nuclear defense".
Re: Missile defense is NP-complete
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps they will learn they are outmatched, lack the resources and technological capabilities to compete, and deterrence will have been established.
History would suggest otherwise; rarely is this ever the case.
You seem to be implying that there is a long history of countries starting wars against the USA?