Talk:Anti-ballistic missile

Current Counter-ICBM Systems
As some people who don't know a whole lot about the way the military works may look up ICMBs as soon as they hear about them, I think we should note that the best systems generally are classified, for example the SR-71 was in use for decades before the public ever heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.2.246 (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Article points in need of update

 * Existing Systems: "Three shorter range tactical ABM systems are operational currently: the U.S. Army Patriot, U.S. Navy Aegis combat system/Standard SM-3, and the Israeli Arrow missile. The longer-range U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is scheduled for deployment during 2009. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.168.78 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

japan Anti ballistic missile
US- japan jointly tested a misille shield missile on 18 September. So I reckon we add japan to current anti ballistic misilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthusiast10 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, what that 'joint operation' involved was US ships fitted with Patriot launchers trying to shoot down dummy missiles from one of their cruisers. I have heard they are working on a missile defense system of their own, but I don't think it's seen action yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.128 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile-Missile Question
I have dozens of sources for the Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile-Missile section (grammar issues) that was recently posted and recently deleted. If I cite them, which I was meaning to do when I had a moment, can the section stay. A google search for "anti anti missile missile missile" turns up over a thousand hits, WITH the entire phrase searched in quotes. I'd say that makes a pretty clear case for the cultural relevance of this arms race joke. It is the sort of gallows humor that one found in Dr. Strangelove during the coldwar, quite relevant, and a relevant highlight of the absurdity of such an arms race if you ask me.

"Anti Anti Missile Missile Missile"? Dear lord, that sound like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon. An ABM is still a missile- meaning a missile designed to shoot down an anti ballistic missile is also an anti ballistic missile. Keep it simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.128 (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Question
Often overlooked in the ABM debate in the United States is the resistance of many Pentagon leaders to the construction of a National Missile Defense. Admirals and generals of all services oppose spending huge sums (currently $8bn/yr in 2003) to research, develop, and procure NMD systems. They would prefer to have that money spent on new conventional weapons, training, equipment, or pay.

The above paragraph seems slightly irrelevant...

James Trainor 12:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. And this bit too...

''Bush has used the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks to justify the need for such a shield. This is despite the fact that a missile shield would not have protected the nation from that attack, which was not launched via missiles (and would not protect the U.S. from any future attacks which might choose to simply bypass the missile shield).''

...seems to be more a non-NPOV anti-Bush statement than a genuine criticism of the short-comings of anti-ballistic missiles. It and the other paragraph belongs (if anywhere) in the criticism section of National Missile Defense --kudz75 07:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. This two paragraph are relavant, but admittedly need careful rewording to get them NPOV. The first mentions an indeed very unusual fact: While usually the military is the first to be in favor of spending lots of money on developping new equipment, and the politics hesistating due to budget concerns, it is the opposite here. This gives significant cedibility to the fact, that really the vast majority of experts, military and civilian, agree that NMD is a bad idea.

Ok, the fact I consider this relevant is partly because I am a scientist and hence highly concerned by the Bush administrations refusal to ignore expert advice. I'm sure the top military would support the shield if they saw a chance of it protecting the US. (Evidence for this: They did support it in the Reagan time -- because then, it was an open question whether SDI/NMD could were, and today the question seems to be settled to the negative.) So, anybody who feels less cynical about the whole matter than I do feels capable of rephrasing this in an NPOV fashion?

Simon A. 10:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this article seems POV. The notes of opposition of Generals and a couple shots aimed at the Bush administration jump out at me. Admirals and Generals didn't think much of the aircraft carrier prior to WWII either. Additionally, the Clinton administration NMD efforts seem to be ignored even though the Bush administration is basically accelerating a plan that was around in the '90s. Seems like some basic ideas are forgotten, such as every weapon has a countermeasure, swords, armored suits, cruise missiles, tanks, battleships, submarines etc. Eventually a defense for ballistic missiles will be found, it seems like we shouldn't give up just because the problem is difficult. Ballistic missile defense has been and will be an expensive problem to solve, but a nuclear detonation from a ballistic missile might be even more expensive. I'm not sure how to make it NPOV, I guess someone is going to have to add something that is pro-ABM to balance things out. As for "the vast majority of experts, military and civilian" who "agree that NMD is a bad idea", who are they going to blame if a ballistic missile, launched from a rogue state, kills thousands? --Dual Freq 06:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

POV
Can I ask someone else to re-read this article and especially re-read the section on Bush. I think this is terribly POV. I actually know little about this so I'm reluctant to start taking things out.--Will2k 02:46, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Defense of Moscow
Does this section need to have it's own heading? I'd like to merge it into another part of this article, or possibly create a new article. There seems to be more than enough info to spin the A-35 (or ABM-1) missile off into it's own little home. Any ideas?

--BGyss 05:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional section on the 1990s
I have added a section on the 1990s. I think it is fairly well sourced and NPOV. Most of the sources were FAS, and they are fairly anti-ABM. I don't think they pull too many punches so the information should be trustworthy. I commented out a couple sections that seemed POV to me and preceeded the sections with my comments. Neither paragraph had sources and they seemed POV to me. It would be nice to have more info in the article about efforts in other countries. India and Pakistan for example seem to be working on ABM systems and the EU seems to be interested in ABM in light of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear capability in the middle east. --Dual Freq 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes made to article
I made a number of changes to improve accuracy, completeness and readability. Discuss here if any issues with those. Joema 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The bit you removed about Arrow missile being used by the US came from the Arrow article. I didn't double check the source there either, but it seemed reasonable at the time I read it. I don't have any particular knowledge of ABM systems, but I think I grouped it in the post-gulf war section because that's where it seemed to best fit. --Dual Freq 03:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement was that Arrow was "designed and constructed after the failure of the anti-aircraft Patriot missile system to properly intercept and destroy the Scud missiles fired by Iraq". That's physically impossible, since Arrow was first test fired August 9, 1990, and obviously had to be in development long before that. The Gulf War began on January 17, 1991. Joema 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article originally acted like ABM systems were only something that got researched when certain political administrations were in office. I think it's important to note that ABM's have been studied since the first ballistic missile was launched. Research is global and didn't stop during the 1990s. --Dual Freq 03:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. There was too much focus on politics and too little on the stated topic. Thanks for trying to give the article a better balance.Joema 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ground-Based Missile Defense article has some information, but I think it might be misnamed. Doesn't GMD mean Ground-Based Midcourse Defense? Isn't GMD the system in Alaska that is currently IOC, vs NMD? --Dual Freq 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. You're right; the GMD article is misnamed. I'll fix that tomorrow. NMD was renamed in 2003 to GMD (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense). It's still a NMD system, they just changed the name. In that sense the NMD article title is still correct. The name change was a good idea, as there are other assets (sea-based, space-based, etc) that will be integrated with the GMD. Despite GMD being national in scope, it caused problems to refer to it as the NMD. E.g, if there's already a NMD, why are sea-based assets needed? Also it was confusing: did NMD refer to the ground-based component or to the entire system?


 * Regarding GMD, yes the middle initial stands for "Midcourse", not "Missile". However "Missile" works, too, but we should use the correct term. Thanks for catching that. I'll revise a few things to try and clarify this. Joema 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the GMD article and all linked articles to reflect the correct name: Ground-Based Midcourse Defense. Joema 16:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I restructured the headings, as mostly everything was under a single "History" heading. Tried to make more logical and readable. Could use more work, but it looks much better than before. Joema 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's significant overlap between this article and the NMD article. That should be somehow reconciled, but it will take a lot of careful work to do it properly. It's better to do nothing than a hack job; redundancy is better than losing content or hurting readability, which often happens in hasty reorganizations. At least the two articles are in much better shape than previously. Joema 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dual Freq, I think you had an inline comment in the 1980s section stating: "See new 1990s section. The arrow system doesn't require hit-to-kill and is non-nuclear which contradicts this section." You were correct and I fixed it. Joema 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I commented a bunch of stuff out a while back. Most of it was pretty POV and unsourced. It probably could be removed from the article. You can remove those comments if you fixed the problem. I also wondered about the British sea wolf being included in the intro. There isn't an ABM capability for that is there? I moved it in with the other sams listed. --Dual Freq 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right I'm not sure it has ABM capability, so it should be moved as you did.

Russian system
Does the Russian system use nuclear warheads for the intercept? I was thinking it did, and it seems that it would be much more controversial than current US efforts. This article seems to have plenty of US criticism, but barely mentions international efforts critically or otherwise. I think it would be fair to mention nuclear capability of the Russian system, if that is the case. Possible source or maybe this? --Dual Freq 11:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Russian system (often described as "Galosh") apparently uses (or used) nuclear warheads. It was similar to the U.S. nuclear-tipped Safeguard Program. I vaguely recollect it was more recently converted to a non-nuclear kinetic warhead, but not sure how reliable that is. Re controversy about the warhead type, whether nuclear or kinetic you're only firing an ABM system when a nuclear-tipped ICBM is incoming, so either way there will likely be nuclear detonations real soon. Joema 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the "if you're going to get nuked anyway logic", but I do think that things are a bit lopsided when the majority of criticism is leveled at the US vs other countries with ABM systems. I can only imagine that if an ABM system had been deployed around Washington DC instead of Nekoma, ND there would have been Washington Post and other stories for the next decade about people getting cancer from the search radars, and the deadly secret nuclear ABMs in your backyard. The above Missile threat  articles seem to back the confusion over nuclear vs conventional for both the Gorgon and the Gazelle. Overall the system sounds similar to Safeguard, that is Safeguard with 30 years of experience and upgrades. I'd be interested to hear about the capabilities of the search/track radars involved, if they all face north or if there is defensive capabilities toward other threats like the middle east or China. --Dual Freq 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Galosh v Chevaline rationale.
The assertion that ... the defense would still require a rocket for every [incoming] warhead ... is not always true. British and American intel advised that a single well-placed Galosh warhead of 3 - 5 megatons could destroy all three MRVs of a Polaris A-3. This was not a big deal for the U.S. because their strategy was to drench the defences with RVs. For the small British force acting alone, without any U.S. involvement, and often with only one SSBN on station, the Moscow ABM defences were assessed as capable (with 64 launchers) of intercepting all 48 incoming RVs from one sub. From that intel assessment the Chevaline programme grew. One possible counter was to increase the tilt-out and RV spread, but to be effective against the ABM the warheads would then straddle a target rather than hit it. MIRVs are also vulnerable if closely grouped, although they can be separated by selecting several widely spread targets. The Chevaline concept that followed adopted tactics based on two RVs per missile, super-hardened against EMP effects, a swarm of approx 27 decoys in an inner and outer layer and matched to the radar signature of the RVs, with chaff and other devices. Whether it would work is anybody's guess. The U.S. tactics were based on overwhelming the ABMs by sheer weight of warhead numbers. Technology and weapons may change, but basic military tactics apparently do not. Brian.Burnell 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A word about sources for the above. Lots of U.K. Ministry of Defence documents have been declassified recently under the 30-year rule and are lodged in the Public Record Office, London. The text above drew exclusively on these sources. Whether the intel was accurate is another matter, as recent events in the Gulf illustrate. Brian.Burnell 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational?
"The system is a dual purpose test and interception facility in Alaska, and as of 2006 is operational with a few interceptor missiles."

"Operational" is a bit of an absurd stretch given that there is no way the current system could possibly successfully intercept an unexpected North Korean missile. The missile defense pages read extremely POV. Who claimed that it is operational? What is the probability of a successful intercept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying fish (talk • contribs) 23:06, October 29, 2006 (UTC)


 * Both Washington Times and Reuters news agency report the U.S. NMD system is operational: . The most recent NMD test was fully successful:.


 * However -- whether the system is successful or not has no bearing on whether it's operational. Operational doesn't mean successful; it simply means the system is activated. The main goal of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic, not pass judgment on it. Thus the articles on Abortion, Evolution, etc, don't judge those topics, they describe them. Doing so is not POV and does not constitute a PRO position on those topics. Likewise describing missile defense or any other topic doesn't constitute a PRO position, nor does it require equal counter-balancing negative criticism. This is an encyclopedia, not the editorial page of a newspaper. Joema 12:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Aegis BMD vs THAAD information in this article
I noticed that Aegis BMD is listed in the short range/terminal section of this article and that THAAD is actually listed as a longer range weapon. This information is incorrect. THAAD is a terminal weapon and is used for endo and low altitude exo intercepts while Aegis is a Mid-course weapon and used for exo intercepts.

Lasre 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

European front and Steinmeiers Interview
Here is a link to an article citing the interview with Steinmeier: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,480100,00.html (in german). --Bernd-vdb 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it "Theater High Altitude" instead of Terminal High Altitude?
Doesn't THAADS stand for "Theater High Altitude..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.148.36.138 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Slight Propaganda
Near the end of the main article, it states that the project in Alaska could work to combat a missile from N. Korea, China, or Russia, but would have trouble with a missile from Iran. This assumes, in the eyes of a reader, that Iran has a ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. This is not the case. The article might as well throw in other country's that don't have long range missile's. Or why not mention countries that do have missile that can reach the U.S., or countries that have Nukes. How about Israel, or India. Our friends you say. Then how about Pakistan? Just by mentioning Iran, you are implying that they at least have Nukes or have missile that can reach the U.S. In both cases this is wrong. You say, they might soon though. Well a might soon shouldn't be a part of FACT. Wait until it becomes reality to put it in. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.26.231 (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not propaganda. We are encyclopedia writers and simply convey mainstream statements from official, credible sources. According the this U.N. report, a key U.S. concern was future missile attacks from Iran: . Apparently similar factors have caused Russia to upgrade their missile defense against attacks from that region: . If the stated purpose of a certain nation's missile defense system is against a perceived threat, as part of documenting the topic we convey that if appropriate. How we personally feel about it -- pro or con -- should make no difference. Nonetheless I changed it to the more general region name "Middle East", as this includes Iran, Pakistan, and other nations in that area. Joema (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a section on Japan
I added a section on Japan under the countries developing Anti-ballistic missile's, since they have been developing jointly with the US a system since North Korea fired a missile over northen Japan in 1998. Silica-gel (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rapid advance through Belgium and the Netherlands?
"The V2s were eventually dealt with by the launch sites being over-run by the rapid advance of the Allied armies through Belgium and the Netherlands" I should remind that d-day was 6th June 1944, ariving September 5 in the Netherlands, they finally freed the Netherlands May 5, 1945. The Netherlands was liberated _slowly_ relative to France. (Must have been the river.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.240.67 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction on effectiveness of PAC-3
Two cited statements in different parts of the article are conflicting- one of them states authoritatively that PAC-3 had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, while the one before it says that it was reported to have "almost" a 100% success rate and seems to allege this was based on cherrypicked data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.79 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

100% succes rate is lie from US government, at least once Patriot has failed to intercept scud missile. Some claims that because of programmers error (buffer overflow) the system failed to fire at incoming missile because it thought its too close to be intercepted. But there are other claims that patriot system is very far from effective. Failure succes rate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.208.84 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Only two?
Maybe I'm misreading, but the article seems to claim that there are only two anti-BM programs in the world, and then goes on to list how everyone and their mother has an anti-BM system. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anti-ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070812145613/http://www.fas.org:80/spp/starwars/program/sm2.htm to http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sm2.htm

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209161638/http://www.wonderland.org.nz:80/rusabgm.htm to http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rusabgm.htm#ABM-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Anti-ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720065356/http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.537/detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.537/detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904130239/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904130239/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505035238/http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.29/system_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.29/system_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518132501/http://sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/fortress-china4.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/fortress-china4.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129040354/http://defense-update.com/wp/20101126_samp_t.html to http://defense-update.com/wp/20101126_samp_t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426071256/http://ead-minerve.fr/WordPress3/?p=683 to http://ead-minerve.fr/WordPress3/?p=683
 * Added tag to http://www.marianne2.fr/blogsecretdefense/m/Une-premiere-en-France-un-missile-intercepte-par-un-antimissile-Aster_a442.html?com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428163936/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=838755 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=838755
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713192027/http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20030000-Heritage-canavan.pdf to http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20030000-Heritage-canavan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226111836/http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf to http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219195340/http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/27568/india-unveils-missile-interceptors.html to http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/27568/india-unveils-missile-interceptors.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720083017/http://missilethreat.com/systems/ to http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229203013/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/content-ABM/Natolin_Analiza_7_2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208161324/http://mod.nic.in/samachar/dec15-06/h1.htm to http://mod.nic.in/samachar/dec15-06/h1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rusabgm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206200507/http://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html to http://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes necessary for information in "American plans for Central European site"
The author of this Wikipedia articles states (under the header "American plans for Central European site" that

"During spring 2006 reports about negotiations between the United States and Poland as well as the Czech Republic were published. The plans propose the installation of a latest generation ABM system with a radar site in the Czech Republic and the launch site in Poland. The system was announced to be aimed against ICBMs from Iran and North Korea."

I believe that this section might be more reliable if the name of the reports were named and cited in the aforementioned sentences. Additionally, it is not clear who these reports were published by-- perhaps the author of said reports should be included in this section. RosamondColton (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added more up-to-date citations and sourced more details on the Missile Defense Agency "Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) Phases II and III". --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 05:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213232047/http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/project640.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/project640.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209161638/http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rusabgm.htm to http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rusabgm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Arms race heating up
Does any editor know of a heading or topic under which to record the new developments. We are seeing claims which are easily controverted. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw this same thing on the Cruise missile and I redirected this to the talk page with this commment. Now we have 2 references stating different weapon systems . There is little information about any of these weapon systems (nuclear powered ballistic missile, nuclear powered cruise missile, nuclear powered underwater drone and avangrad). IMO, we should hold off adding them until more details are released. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Leonid Bershidsky lists an inventory:
 * RS-28 Sarmat ICBM
 * Avangard hypersonic boost glide vehicle (Object 4202), a payload on a launch vehicle, but maneuverable, not just following a ballistic trajectory
 * Status 6 strategic nuclear torpedo, mentioned in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review
 * Kinzhal (Dagger) missile
 * a ground-based laser weapon
 * a nuclear-powered cruise missile, also reported by William Broad, New York Times
 * --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 10:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a page for RS-28 Sarmat and it is also mentioned in the Intercontinental ballistic missile where it belongs. The Avangard sounds similar to WU-14 and might be relevant on Boost-glide where Hypersonic glide vehicle gets redirected. The Status 6 has already been mentioned on Nuclear torpedo where it belongs. The Kinzhal missile belongs on Air-to-surface missile and the nuclear powered cruise missile on Cruise missile. I hope this helps. This artcile is not the right place for any of these since none of them have any anti-ballistic capability. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sean Gallagher reports that "Putin boasts new strategic weapons will make US missile defense 'useless'" --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 05:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So? Again this page is about anti-ballistic missiles not about Missile defense. Even this content really does not belong there because there are very little details available on the missile systems. This information really belongs on the individual weapon pages if they exist. For example, this has already been recently mentioned on RS-28 Sarmat. IMO, there is no context for this content here because now we will have to enter every country which claims to be able to evade every other country's defense system and the page will become about that when it should just be about anti-ballistic missiles. I am not sure where are you going with this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are clarifying is that a better single heading or single topic to collect (not distribute) citations on this theme might be Missile defense. That article touches on the physical considerations needed for any countermeasure to a weapon system. Thus for any measure, there are countermeasures. That approach would unify the disparate developments by the various polities by comparing and contrasting capabilities (for example, the MHTK). I'm pretty sure you would not disagree that we could use more information. (That was my reasoning for the Integrated Air and Missile Battle Command System (IBCS), by the way.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs)  11:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes if you do wish to mention this then Missile defense might be a better location for this content. We can initiate a discussion on the talk page there and see if other editors have something to say. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

MHTK reaches development stage
Lockheed-Martin has announced that its MHTK (miniature hit-to-kill) interceptor missile has been awarded a development stage contract by the US Army. The MHTK interceptor is small and inexpensive enough to counter saturation attacks. It has been tested in the Army's Multi Mission Launcher (MML), where multiple MHTKs per tube could be simultaneously launched from a 15-tube MML. MHTKs use RF seekers to track their target. Swarms of MHTKs would counter an incoming ICBM, even a saturation attack meant to overwhelm GMDs, which are designed to counter crossing ICBMs on their trajectories toward the homeland. MHTKs are designed to be the last layer of defense from missile attack, and would be located in or near the cities they are meant to defend. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-ballistic missile does not mean a missile for ballistic missile defence, it means a system that destroys ballistic missiles
This distinction is important because as the article is current written it only encapsulates missile based ABM systems, ignoring others such as nuclear pumped lasers or dust defence or pebbles.

And this isn't me talking out of my ask, dust defence is included in ABM systems in Ballistic Missile Defense (Carter and Schwartz). The article needs rework to reflect that. Kylesenior (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lasers, pebbles, and Anti-ballistic missiles are countermeasures against ICBMs. They are not all missiles. They all belong in another article on countermeasures for ICBMs. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 07:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand what I am saying. ABM is not a missile that destroys ballistic missiles, it is a system that destroys ballistic missiles. It is anti "ballistic missiles", all of those things you list are ABM systems. This is supported in the literature, like the book I mentioned. A book that is not by some fringe loon, but by the man who became Obama's SecDef.Kylesenior (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ABM is a missile that is anti-ballistic, not a system that is anti ballistic missile. What you are looking for is Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), which is a more broad category that includes anything that defends against ballistic missiles. Hydra70 (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain use of U.S. missiles (Gorgons) in Moscow defenses
This was in the article as of the timestamp of this comment:
 * QUOTE:
 * The Russian A-135 anti-ballistic missile system is used for the defense of Moscow. It became operational in 1995 and was preceded by the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system. The system uses Gorgon and Gazelle missiles with nuclear warheads to intercept incoming ICBMs.
 * UNQUOTE
 * The Gorgon is a U.S. missile or missile family. (At least, that's what you get to when you click the word "Gorgon".) Either the text is an error, in which case it should be reworked to remove the error, or it's not an error, in which case some explanation should be supplied as to how U.S. missiles came to be used in Moscow's defenses. I mean, it could happen (espionage, smuggling, capture) but if it did happen please explain it so that readers KNOW it's not just an error. Maybe you could say "captured Gorgon" or "copies made from the stolen U.S. Gorgon blueprints" or something like that.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * It's NATO nomenclature for 53T6, as best I can make out; it is stale information, dating back four decades. If you have time, you might improve the article. Simply striking stale information would be a service for geopolitical peace and stability.
 * Since you have an interest in this topic, you might consider creating an account, which is safer for you, besides. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 23:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have an interest in this topic, you might consider creating an account, which is safer for you, besides. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 23:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AD-1 long-range interceptor missile (cropped).jpg

Arrow 3 Anti-ICBM capability
The article claims that Arrow 3 "is capable of exo-atmosphere interception of ballistic missiles, including of ICBMs." The cited source does not say that it can intercept ICBMs, only "the country’s Arrow and eventually Arrow 3 seek to intercept long-range missiles and ICBMs."

The manufacturer does not claim that Arrow 3 can intercept ICBMs, only that it can destroy "longer-range threats." They even say that it is part of an "ATBM (Anti Tactical Ballistic Missiles) defense system." If it had ICBM defense capability, wouldn't the manufacturer be advertising that?

Info from manufacturer: https://www.iai.co.il/p/arrow-3

I find the claim that Arrow 3 can intercept ICBMs to be extremely dubious. Hydra70 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Kestrel Eye
The addition of Kestrel Eye to the US section seems just tacked on, with no explanation of why it is there. Does anybody have a clearer understanding of how a cubesat swarm giving intel to warfighters on the ground is relevant to ABM systems? Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See JADC2. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 08:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Soviet era concepts for terminal defense type silo defence
Came across this recently. Is it worth a mention as one of the mildly absurd cold war concepts for missile defense?

It appears to be a system where silos are protected from incoming munitions via either missile launcher or essentially large scatterguns. Apparently project named Mozyr?

--RADONVALKYRIE (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)