Register here

Author Topic: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)  (Read 6483 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2017, 06:33:09 pm »
key defense programs?
Key defense program? This is not one of those.

This is a weapon who's only purpose is to shoot down NK warheads. There is a greater possibility that NK won't exist in 2030 than there is this system will work by then and remain funded through that period.

Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 01:07:16 pm »
Actually, it's purpose is to upgrade GBI and SM-3 against ANY target.  You should educate yourself on the program before deriding it.
And what might those "any" targets be, exactly? Can you name another country with the (at least potential) capability of attacking CONUS with such a small number of missiles that GBI could counter it?

North Korea, yes.
Russia, no.
China, no.
Everyone else on the planet, no.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 01:19:05 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7894
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 04:12:31 pm »
North Korea, yes.
Russia, yes. 

See, "escalate to de-escalate"

China, yes. 

While not called "escalate to de-escalate" I could easily see them being tempted to initiate a limited nuclear strike if they thought it would serve their purpose, and they're a lot more willing to go there than the U.S.  If they thought they could nuke Seattle and L.A., without the US launching a full scale nuclear strike in response, they might be tempted to do it. 

China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.  On the other hand, if we had the capability to deal with a limited strike, meaning China would be limited to large scale strikes - which WOULD elicit a full scale response -  they might be tempted to cool their jets.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
A recall a quote from the Chinese general in charge of their 3rd Artillery Force (nukes at the time) having stated "Want to trade a few hundred million citizens, we'd still have over a billion people left you'd be wiped out"
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 991
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 04:41:27 pm »
If North Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power, the nonproliferation treaty is reduced to a sham.  If the guy who runs the famine ridden dark patch above South Korea can have nukes, there is no argument for anyone else not having them.  In that case, the list of small nuclear powers will grow starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia (you won't have one without the other).

A nuclear North Korea popping ICBM's over Japan will eventually push that country to create a guaranteed, non-ambiguous deterrent of its' own.  Again, as a linked reaction, that means South Korea and maybe Taiwan join the club.  As more countries join, the less restraint remains for those thinking about it.

With regards to their territorial waters, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines would also be candidates using the same rationale as Mr Kim .  Interestingly, for most of these countries, the US would not be first on their targeting list.  That doesn't seem to register for some people.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 550
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 07:19:35 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:03:38 am by kcran567 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2017, 03:54:09 am »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1511
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2017, 08:40:55 am »
The cost of defending the mainland US against such an act would likely eat up a budget many times that of the MDA even if no new systems are developed  . Money likely better spent at making sure they never get that close and on offensive capability.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1835
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2017, 01:04:15 pm »
What if N Korea uses a lower trajectory simpler strike method i.e. nuclear armed scud launched from a freighter near coastland area. What system would counter that type of threat? Existing Thaad? Not likely to have those on mainland US?

We'd be SOL.  THAAD (preferably THAAD-ER) could do it but it would require a lot of units to cover the US.  (Though not nearly as many as the Nike Hercules batteries we had back in the 60s - 134.)

 :'(


« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 01:05:59 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2017, 01:14:37 pm »
China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.
Chinese military bases would be vaporizing even before their warhead made it halfway across the Pacific. In such an exchange, the entire Chinese military is beheaded and the civilian losses are less than what their warhead caused in the US.

Go ahead, suggest another scenario - the Snowcroft report already ran through them all so it's not like we haven't considered all of these.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
Neither of those countries is willing to commit suicide. If you don't agree with that, why have a deterrent at all?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2017, 02:01:14 pm »
China: Nukes Seattle and L.A. then tells the US, "we won't hit anymore targets if you completely pull out of East Asia. If you retaliate we will launch the rest of our strategic nuclear weapons and destroy the rest of your major cities".  What does the US do?  That's right - not a damn thing.
Chinese military bases would be vaporizing even before their warhead made it halfway across the Pacific. In such an exchange, the entire Chinese military is beheaded and the civilian losses are less than what their warhead caused in the US.

Go ahead, suggest another scenario - the Snowcroft report already ran through them all so it's not like we haven't considered all of these.

It's one thing to consider the bear in it's den from the classroom.  Quite another to confront it knife in hand.

And why NOT have MKV to reduce the chances of an NK or Iranian success?  Do you think their ICBM tests will fail forever?
Neither of those countries is willing to commit suicide. If you don't agree with that, why have a deterrent at all?

Uhm...what?  Deterrent is for rational actors.  Defense is for when that fails.  And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.  If the other guy thinks he might not be able to get them all, (because of defenses and other factors) that will increase the deterrent value.  In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.  I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing.  Presumably you have locks on your doors and wear seat belts when driving?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 02:05:47 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2018, 09:31:56 am »
Deterrent is for rational actors.
So who are these irrational actors? China's leadership? Kim? A boogie-man who doesn't actually exist?

And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.
Indeed, and as the Snowcroft report noted, it's precisely that uncertainty that makes the US deterrent so credible.

In that era, the question was what the Soviets would do if their SS-18's were able to hit the Minuteman silos. Snowcroft noted that there was simply no way they could know. The US might counterforce launch-on-warning, or they might ride it out and counterstrike, or they might might just do a full launch against everything. No matter what the scenario was, the US had so many counteroptions that there was absolutely no way the Soviets could predict, or survive, the outcome. And so they would never try it.

And here we are 30 years later and we're still debating these well-hashed points, but this time we've replaced the Soviet's actually existing, entirely credible and massive fleet with a guy who doesn't even have a single working ICBM. Sheesh!

In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.
Wait, wait, you're now proposing that MOKV is to protect the deterrent?

It's rather unbelievable scenario in which an irrational actor starts with a counterforce strike.

I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing. 
It's not a BAD thing, it's a USELESS thing. We should spend as much on it as we do on defending against aliens.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2018, 10:27:39 am »
Deterrent is for rational actors.
So who are these irrational actors? China's leadership? Kim? A boogie-man who doesn't actually exist?

So you agree then, deterrent is a GOOD thing. Glad we got that straight.

And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.
Indeed, and as the Snowcroft report noted, it's precisely that uncertainty that makes the US deterrent so credible.

In that era, the question was what the Soviets would do if their SS-18's were able to hit the Minuteman silos. Snowcroft noted that there was simply no way they could know. The US might counterforce launch-on-warning, or they might ride it out and counterstrike, or they might might just do a full launch against everything. No matter what the scenario was, the US had so many counteroptions that there was absolutely no way the Soviets could predict, or survive, the outcome. And so they would never try it.

And here we are 30 years later and we're still debating these well-hashed points, but this time we've replaced the Soviet's actually existing, entirely credible and massive fleet with a guy who doesn't even have a single working ICBM. Sheesh!

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, no?  Or is the several trillion dollar dent in the world economy, and hundreds of thousands dead, an acceptable sacrifice to you as long as you can sleep at night safe in the knowledge we don't have any evil defensive weapons?

In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.
Wait, wait, you're now proposing that MOKV is to protect the deterrent?

Is there a reason it has to be either/or?

I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing. 
It's not a BAD thing, it's a USELESS thing. We should spend as much on it as we do on defending against aliens.


Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, no? 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 10:54:41 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • From the Great White North!
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2018, 10:55:53 am »
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, no?
So you're all for the anti-alien-invasion laser then?

I'll get started, please send me the first $100 million installment. I take bitcoin.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10149
Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2018, 11:00:16 am »
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, no?
So you're all for the anti-alien-invasion laser then?

I'll get started, please send me the first $100 million installment. I take bitcoin.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.  I don't think leaving the country exposed to nuclear attack is desirable. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.