Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now Message-ID: <1990Dec8.221641.27118@cbnews.att.com> Date: 8 Dec 90 22:16:41 GMT References: <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "J. Taggart Gorman" >... I was wondering what currently >fielded weapons (defenses, take your pick) could shoot down an incoming >warhead. I am talking battlefield systems here. Some of the best of the heavy SAMs, like Patriot and possibly some of its Soviet counterparts, have some antimissile capability. That's it. The first real tactical ABM, the Israeli Arrow, is still under development. Only the Soviets have true ABMs operational, and they are very non-mobile systems deployed for strategic defense of Moscow. There are a number of systems meant to stop cruise missiles, but by and large they are unlikely to be useful against ballistic missiles, which come in much higher and faster. >If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? It doesn't. Nobody does. Everybody has very abruptly woken up to the fact that such a capability would be a good idea. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry