Talk:Anti-ballistic missile

message: 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)
thread_title: Current Counter-ICBM Systems

message: *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)
thread_title: Article points in need of update

message: 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)
thread_title: japan Anti ballistic missile

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile-Missile Question

message: 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)
thread_title: POV Question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Defense of Moscow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional section on the 1990s 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Russian system

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Galosh v Chevaline rationale.

message: "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)
thread_title: Operational?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aegis BMD vs THAAD information in this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  European front and Steinmeiers Interview 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slight Propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added a section on Japan 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Rapid advance through Belgium and the Netherlands? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction on effectiveness of PAC-3 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only two? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  | contribs) 05:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes necessary for information in "American plans for Central European site" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Lockheed-Martin has announced that its MHTK (miniature hit-to-kill) interceptor missile has been awarded a development stage contract by the US Army.(13 June 2018) Lockheed Martin's MHTK interceptor matures to development stage 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.US Army’s Multi-Mission Launcher Defeats Cruise Missile, UAS Threat 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,Lockheed Martin, Elements of defense and would be located in or near the cities they are meant to defend.Youtube clip on MHTK (2016) --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MHTK reaches development stage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  | contribs) 07:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-ballistic missile does not mean a missile for ballistic missile defence, it means a system that destroys ballistic missiles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arrow 3 Anti-ICBM capability 

message: 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)
replies: text: See JADC2. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 08:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kestrel Eye 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet era concepts for terminal defense type silo defence