America's Missile Defense Problem
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 09. 2022
- Go to brilliant.org/Polymatter and the first 200 people get 20% off a year of Brilliant Premium
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/polymatter-a...
Sources: pastebin.com/pUQPSXLQ
Twitter: / polymatters
Reddit: / polymatter
Email: polymatter@standard.tv
How I Make These Videos: skl.sh/2OW1YQR
Music by Graham Haerther (www.Haerther.net)
Audio editing by Eric Schneider
Motion graphics by Vincent de Langen
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster
Writing & Direction by Evan
This includes a paid sponsorship which had no part in the writing, editing, or production of the rest of the video.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Video supplied by Getty Images
Maps provided by MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors and GEOlayers 3
Select footage from the AP Archive
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
There's a whole other side to this story that needs a Part 2 video. In the meantime, you can learn some of the science, engineering, and computer science behind this stuff with today's sponsor, Brilliant: brilliant.org/Polymatter -Evan
If I understand it correctly, there will be a second video on the matter coming on CZcams?
@@gniludio hopefully
@@gniludio yeah, it's a bit confusing. In the video it sounds like you have to subscribe to brilliant to find out the most important part of the whole thing. based on this comment though it seems that video will come to youtube.
@@tolvajakos maybe a Nebula early access?
@@InvictvsNox I think it is nothing special, probably the usual stuff, it was just could have been worded a little more carefully or clearly. Probably we will see it here on youtube, mayve it will air somewhere else earlier, and he is saying about the other stuff that we don't know yet that it is very important to understand these concepts so you should go to brilliant to get a good understanding in general. This is what I got from video ending + comment.
The thing is though, it's impossible to know for certain exactly how robust the US missile defense program really is. Something like this is the epitome of the highest level of top secret classification. The US Defense Budget chaos makes it very difficult to follow the money. Realistically, it doesn't mean we are testing and developing a more advanced missile defense system, but it is impossible to know for certain. Also, it is impossible to know exactly how many GMD missiles the US has. There have been a little over 40 SILOS observed in Alaska, but that has no indication of how many missiles each silo carries or if there are any other silos in locations nobody knows about. Lastly, in 2020, the US demonstrated that a SM-3 Block-IIA can indeed shoot down an ICBM, this includes all the SM-3s on Destroyers, guided missile cruises, all the Japanese Aegis equipped vessels, and countries with Aegis ashore. However, how successfully they can is not publicly available, just that it is possible. Nonetheless, the US Missile Defense network is far more robust than just GMD systems, and impossible to know how extensive our GMD coverage is. Will it be able to stop a full scale launch, unlikely, but how many can it stop, literally nobody knows and I hope we never have to find out.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz "Nonetheless, the US Missile Defense network is far more robust than just GMD systems, and impossible to know how extensive our GMD coverage is. Will it be able to stop a full-scale launch, unlikely, but how many can it stop, literally nobody knows and I hope we never have to find out."
That is literally what I said, nobody knows how effective our capabilities are CURRENTLY, and nobody knows how much we have advanced in development.
Good old strategic ambiguity,
@squiggles congratulations u reached the same damn conclusion the video came to. Thanks captain obvious
It's basically impossible that each silo holds more than one missile, you can see pictures of them being loaded. Also, expansion of the missile fields has been publicly discussed and considered. Your overall point still stands, though.
Yeah exactly, literally no reason for anyone who knows to tell the truth about this, keeping capabilities nebulous is the best possible strategy. When the world's nuclear equilibrium is MAD, advertising that you're not subject to MAD gains you nothing.
If I were the US, I'd want everyone to think my missile defense was terrible regardless of reality so as to not trigger an arms race and destabilize MAD.
That's just an excuse to not admit that we have no technology that could intercept a 15,000 mph projectile in space.
@@singular9 I'm not implying that the US has the technology, just that it's impossible for any of us to know whether they do or not.
Wouldn’t you want everyone to think it works so nobody dares even launching anything? If they think they can’t hit you and you’ll hit back just as hard or harder they are less likely to attack
No because it gives more reason to make Hypersonic cruise missiles
Well that is the actual doctrine both the us and ussr followed. Competent and capable icbm defenses would necessitate another arms race, which would have completely undermined the SALT treaties. It’s because of those treaties, as well as realistic understandings of how devestating and unwinnable a nuclear war would be, that both sides cooled their growing hostilities. In fact, the film “the day after” was perhaps one of the few western films shown in the Soviet Union, and helped to humanize the devastation nuclear weapons would have. Just imagine how a capable missile defense system would completely undermine these rare overtures towards peace and cooperation, regardless of who develops it first
Iron Dome "chooses" not to engage missiles fired into open, not urban areas. It doesn't choose/decide on it's own, it has maps of engagement.
Correct. Why waste an interceptor on a missile that is going to miss? That could actually increase the potential for hazard as the debris could potentially fall on populated areas. This system has been designed to minimize the risks to the public, and that means not shooting down every missile, just the ones that pose a threat.
It identifies where they should land.
@@stupidburp Ans it fails multiple times too
Iron " shit "not dome ,hundreds of traditional hand made missiles of hamas managed to hit their target in the sionist state , iron shit is a big propaganda that it
Ordinarily I find your content extremely compelling, well-researched, and convincingly presented. However, as a defense professional I find this video does not meet your usual standards.
You justly point to many flaws with GMD but never explicitly state that the program has been defunct for more than a decade, superseded by new initiatives. You compare the cost of a research and development program spanning fifteen years to the one-time construction cost of two aircraft carriers; this is a textbook apples-and-oranges situation. You omit the development and deployment of SM-3 Block IIA, a BMD system currently operational and deployed globally, with a long track record of success in frequent and rigorous testing in the exact arenas where GMD was most deficient. Finally, the crux of your argument seems to be “Why haven’t you people solved the single most complex defense engineering problem to date?” This oversimplification demonstrates a lack of the context and wider understanding where you normally excel. You belabor minor problems with BMD systems while ignoring the much more pressing concerns. For example, even if we develop a perfect BMD system tomorrow which can never be circumvented, the political fallout will make nuclear warfare MORE likely in the short to moderate term, not less. Additionally, the extremely highly classified nature of programs like nuclear arsenals and associated systems means that forming reasoned opinions in this sphere typically requires years of study and training and the acquisition of a lofty security clearance. It is difficult for me to believe that you have done so.
I would encourage you to study military research, development, testing, and procurement in much more detail before releasing more content in this sphere. It is easy to write a video script or article saying “this program is over budget, behind schedule, and imperfect.” It is devilishly difficult to build an effective military system and implement it in the real world while under military, budgetary, and political pressures. Frankly, the tone of this video smacks of disrespect to those of us who spend our working lives doing the latter while ensuring misinformed armchair scrutiny from those espousing the former position.
I intend the above as constructive criticism only, and I look forward to your next video with the earnest hope it will be a return to form for you.
So much butt hurt from the Americans. Because the video doesn't have the usual dose of adulation about US military prowess you have become accustomed to on CZcams?
Professional or not, once that decision is made in some part of the world to go the Nuclear route, it will be several missiles cause they aren't trying to send you a warning shot.
Everyone will be 4ked, it doesn't matter what improved system you confide in.
He also left out quite the elephant in the room, SLBM. Subs can operate anywhere and could lurk off any nation's shore, giving even less time to react. The naval aspect to this problem wasn't even addressed in the video. Maybe he will address this in the next video.
roasted.
Polymater says we're not protected. Are you saying we ARE protected?
@@dannydaw59 I’m saying that there are factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions in the video.
Without diving too deep into sensitive matters, I will say this: while we lack a reliable ballistic missile defense system, the United States does not require one in order to be protected from nuclear actors. We have a nuclear arsenal of our own to deter an adversary from attacking us. That said, the limited BMD systems we have in place are reliable ENOUGH to protect us from an accidental and/or rogue launch of one or a handful of weapons. My personal opinion is that this is not only sufficient, it is exactly what is desirable. If we suddenly developed a missile shield which could completely prevent a massive nuclear strike by another major power, the geopolitical fallout would be immense. Deterrence would collapse. The risk of nuclear war would skyrocket. It would trigger a massive nuclear arms race to circumvent this new BMD systems and develop similar systems. All of this places not only the United States but countless nations and billions of people in lethal jeopardy.
The crux of my argument is this: military procurement is hard. Apart from those who have worked in the defense industry, few have an idea of just how hard. Nuance matters, and what is intuitive to the public is not always practical or desirable. A lot of smart people work on these problems, and while our work is far from perfect, there are very few times where a member of the public has known better than the countless full-time professionals who work behind the scenes to keep the peace.
The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five."
_ Carl Sagan
and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do
I think the moral is it doesn't matter how many anyone has. A single match is enough for a runaway reaction. (I'm being captain obvious rn)
waist deep in gasoline? Lucky gits.
You win best comment of the day, sir.
Actually a lot match won't set gasoline on fire. The fumes are what causes the fire.
The American Physical Society took down its report ten days ago and has cited errors in their assessment. It is strange to leave this withdrawn report as the key argument for why near launch defenses can’t work.
Funny, it appeared today and is marked as today. Maybe an older version? But then why not an edit. I didn’t make any claims about effectiveness of any system, just the quality of references. Perhaps that isn’t important to you, it is to me.
@@thomasr.jackson2940 Why is it 1440p, if it's 10 days old?
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz How is what happens with Nebula sleezy?
Yeah and you don’t think it’s a coincidence it was taken down right before the gas pipeline attack?
@@thomasr.jackson2940 it’s been on nebula for weeks
Threat of nuclear retaliation is really an underrated defense system
Brilliant observation! It's really surprising that this wasn't the main strategy of the west from 1945-1991.
The biggest issue with these systems is that a very reliable anti-missile defense nullifies MAD.
The video is pretty poor through out but the cost comparison seemed the worst. No attempt to consider time scale of the cost. No explanation on if that cost was r&d, deployment, support. It then compared it to the cost of aircraft carriers with what I assume is the unit cost from what I have seen previously. I was also under the impression that aegis with one of the newer SM missiles can be used to intercept in the boost and the terminal phase now as well. Also completely ignored how the USA cannot say if it was effective due to the destabilising nature towards MAD doctrine. Normally this channel does better.
Agreed especially the fucking lame ending
The US doesn't care if it's missile defense is destabilizing. It it's best to show that it is effective. The cost comparison is a little unfair, but we do spend an absurd amount of money on missile defense.
@@samuelfischman6949 But it just becomes a numbers game. You'd never want to tip your hand regardless, could throw lies as a play but ambiguity with confidence is easier.
@@eenis1281 the fucki** lame ending, excuse you
Good comment
Strategic VS tactical doesn’t mean close vs far. Tactics is the realm of winning a battle. Strategy is winning a war. A nuclear missile would end the war so its strategic. Russia has been talking about tactical nukes, which means it would be using small nukes in the normal course of the war to win battles.
It's an oversimplification that is objectively true. If you want to send a missile across the world, you use strategic nukes. If you want to deploy it on a battlefield closer, you use a tactical nuke. So, chill
@@kingace6186 while it is true that strategic strikes will generally target farther targets, it is not what makes it strategic, and that is important when giving a definition, also he apparently doesn't know what a ballistic or cruise missle is because the definition he gives for those is wrong. The missle is called ballistic because it has a ballistic trajectory, while a cruise missle cruises using aerodynamic lift using wings. Watched this video in my recommended because I don't know much about the topic of icbms, however I knew this channel is a joke when he can't even get these simple and intuitive definitions right and am reminded why I don't watch most of these click bait geopolitic channels who just pump out narrative based content.
If you want good content go watch Military Aviation History, he researches his topics well, even making research trips to the bundeswehr military archives and inviting experts in the field when he is less knowledgeable on the topic, like in his video on cruise missle bombardment, he invited a senior research fellow from the Royal United Services Institute.
@@jossbraakman6518 But be fun to be so pompous and conceited.
Strategic vs. tactical is a question of target, not weapon. Targeting front-line military units with nuclear weapons is using a nuke tactically. Targeting just about anything else is using a nuke strategically. Nuclear weapons that are designed to be used tactically are almost always much lower yield and much shorter range than those designed to be used strategically.
I don't know why Iron Dome was even mentioned as it is designed to interceptor artillery and short ranged rockets. It is not designed to intercept ICBMS.
The problem is also that developing functional anti-ICBM technology changes the balance of the game that is nuclear deterrence by a lot: in other words, if a country announces a functional anti-ICBM missile tomorrow, it will become much more of a nuclear threat, which makes the world a whole lot more dangerous and unstable. Nuclear defense can actually be dangerous, at least in the short term.
But uneffecient nuclear defense is good at calming fears
1983. Reagan tells the world about the Strategic Defense Initiative and the Soviet Union collectively shit itself.
Exactly! Mutually Assured Destruction has been preventing nuclear annihilation for decades and with this technology it will have irreversible damage
The argument of this OP is that it's safer for two people to hold a gun to each other than for one of them to wear a bullet proof vest 🤣 I'm glad you don't advise the police department
Yes, it could create some temporary tension, but it would be no worse than when the US unveiled that they had the Bomb the first time around. After WW2 the US was initially the only country with nukes and, despite having a tenuous relationship with the Soviets, this didn't lead to war.
ultimately, the most likely result would be a race to develop the tech to catch up to the US (if they even invented it first), once the tech is developed it would be a net zero change. One thing's for sure, you don't want to be the last one to have it
Which is precisely why the most rational action is spending trillions developing an effective missile defence system whilst publicly proclaiming it a failure right up until the moment you use it. And why certain adversaries are suddenly really interested in hypersonic cruise missiles.
The US and Russian rader and missile bases architecture look like things out of sci-fi movies. It's quite cool to see, but also incredibly scary at the same time.
because its so ancient?
@FD&BJ they definitely worked during the Cold War. I doubt they are still maintained today
@FD&BJ Russia are very defensive to the point some call it paranoia if there is something they make sure works it’s there missile defence systems they made the Russian dead hand (perimeter system) due to how defensive they are lol no need to make baseless claims
my grandpa was a carpenter and helped build military bases in artic Canada during the cold war
The airdefensive system can only protect infrastructure like bases others but not whole city
I learned that before they had the computer mouse, they just used guns.
I thought you were joking
Murican instincts run deep.
check out 2:10
I was wondering about that myself
AMERICA BABYY!
You can't compare Iron Dome to at Patriot, THAAD, GMD, Aegis, or any of that. Iron Dome was designed to shoot home made rockets, not ICBM fired into space with no preplanned course. The system we have for ICBM is still the best in the world, so you're giving out false signals about America's defense to those who know very little about military defense period. It's not an easy task to shoot a missile in space with another missile, yet it's still better than any other nation. The best defense is offense anyway. It's always been like that.
And the systems you listed all operate differently, so comparing them is stupid to begin with, is that right?
The US can't retaliate against an Iranian attack on the US fort in Iraq. The US is trailing on Hypersonics. During the Hawai false alarm every one was hopeless and helpless..imagine hiding under a table during a missile attack worse still with a nuclear attack GOD forbid. The only problem with US is it is trailing on most front but its rethoric to go to war continue. You think the Russians and others are stupid.?
Surprised you didn't even mention hypersonic missiles. I work in the missile defense industry. That is the main concern these days.
And our counter missiles can’t even hit the older conventional long range missiles.
Maybe lasers or rail guns will be needed for those. Or just an advanced hacking software that stops them from launching.
@@infidelheretic923 we can hit advanced missiles, I assure you
My "favorite" detail there is how absolutely piss poor the detection system in northern Canada is. We might as well be undefended for all the good it'll do.
glide phase interceptor
@@nurkleblurker2482 why you didn't hit 9/11....or isit an inside job🤔 to get ur way to illegally invade weak IRAQ or Arab countries
That is the LAST notification for a video I’m trying to get bro 😭
Watch Russia start using nukes in Ukraine
US missile defense is better than the public is allowed to know about, obviously
then click off
@@dailydoseoffakenews3922 it’s a joke goofy
Aegis SM-3 IIA can mid course intercept ICBMs. It has a much better track record than GMD.
The GMD isn't being tested as much because funding is being moved to NGI (Next Generation Interceptor).
From an engineering perspective missiles interception is perhaps one of the most technically complicated problems on earth. You're essentially taking something already difficult, launching a rocket into space. But needing to do it dynamically when an ICBM launches. Rather than a pre-planned course, a chosen date, scrapable with bad weather, with a normal rocket. It must go when the ICBM goes, no matter the circumstances.
On top of the difficulty of a kinetic warhead, an interceptor that physically smashes into the ICBM.
Not even thinking of the systems that sense track and decide when to launch interceptors.
It's flabbergasting it works at all, to be honest.
Comparing it to an Aircraft Carrier as if it's lesser just strikes me as odd. And looking at the end product rather than what's really important, the lessons learned and the experienced gained. It's about creating the technology that can do this and applying it to future generations of interceptors. Because this is a new technology. Not just another iteration of mature products. And it's an incredibly difficult problem, if not frankly impossible. Now, whether or not any of this is worth it is another question.
But I kinda dislike how you painted missile defense and these systems. It lacks a lot of context and a lot of details, and frankly perspective. It just feels like you're pushing a negative and uninformed narrative to people who most likely know nothing about it. They're the best on the planet. And their lack of reliability indicates the difficulty of the problem more than the incompetence of the engineers. Hopefully they will lead to greater systems in the future. From an engineering and technology perspective they're incredibly cool. It's an emerging technology and treating it like a scandal is either misguided or malicious. I couldn't say.
Between SM-3 IIA and GMD we'd likely be able to intercept one off ICBMs from North Korea. But large scale or honestly even multiple would most likely never be feasible.
I felt the same way. I was expecting something new or surprising to back up his negative attitude, but all I got was failure rates and cost, which I was already well aware of.
Failure rates are a sign it needs improvement, not that it's useless.
Cost... how much is an intercepted nuclear ballistic missile targeting an American city worth?
Plus from what I gather some of these ICBM's have countermeasures against Kinetic kill vehicles such as releasing dozens of decoys once in mid course , making it harder to hit the actual warhead , its like rocket science mixed with tank combat so it makes sense that its so damn expensive and that protection is limited , frankly the fact it works at all is probably a crowning achievment of mankind in my opinion , my only real issue with this technology (once it polishes itself up) is that you could hit the dreadnought trap where introducing such a revolutionary piece of kit while game changing also invalidates not only the enemys weapons but also your weapons , which leads to a new arms race and more geopolitical tension as now once again everyone is on some relatively equal playing field , basically with these counter missile systems the concept of MAD deminishes meaning the probability someone will eventually put the system to test gets higher imo.
@@Essentially_Nobody who the fuck are you lol? Not sorry
@@notsogood4321 its also . . well
practically a money sink
You could invest massive amounts of money to build a system which could intercept practically any attack on the US
but thats money not spent on modernizing the military, maintenance, training, R&D, etc
and youre much more likely to use an F-35 than have to deal with a nuclear strike
@@Essentially_Nobody What are you looking for?
The Claim about the SM-3 Block 2A being able to intercept ICBMs?
Some countries routinely over hype or prematurely advertise what they have and can do; countries like Russia and China come to mind.
The USA is usually quite willing to keep things quiet until the appropriate time comes.
Boeing sure was quiet about its self crashing feature
Because there is no need to declassify new discoveries to China and Russia
@twerking bollocks i mean, to be fair, ive only heard of this sci fi tech from popular media and video games than any sort of military leader's speculative thoughts.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Exactly! So-called Stealth aircraft are actually _not "invisible" at all._ Lower-frequency radar (LFR) arrays are capable of spotting stealth fighters in the air. Although LFR can't provide enough data to lock onto a target, other means are available to intercept.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz The primary answer is one of basic _Human Behavior:_ The best way to control large populations is
A.) Always maintain a narrative of some "Other" group (External Countries or Internal Minorities) wanting to do harm, framed in such a way that it's these "others" that are the cause for all problems at the individual level [AKA: Divide and Control]
B.) Provide violence based entertainment - and poor quality food - to continually perpetuate the fear response of the population [AKA: Bread & Circuses]
The ruling classes in Almost all Countries use these 2,500 year-old proven political techniques...because they work.
I'm suprised at the lack of quality research and failure of logic in this video. This channel is known for better and this honestly puts doubts on previous videos.
Well the timing on this one is fitting
The video actually isn’t true. US Missile defense strategy relies on off-shore defenses. And they are highly effective at their job.
THERE IS ONLY ONE system that can intercept such a missile, and it has been tested 18 times in ideal conditions. It failed at 8 times.
8:45 you didn't mention that the warhead splits into a bunch of pieces, then you have to guess which one the nuke is. They might all be nukes, depends on the design.
And target discrimination is a highly classified capability and likely why they stopped testing, so that further information on GBI would not be revealed.
@@aidanmattson681 it always baffles me the cognitive loops people will go through to believe something they want to believe. It's why conspiracies are so hard to debunk, because people want to believe them. This is the same. No one wants to believe that America would be just as fucked as everyone else in a nuclear war.
You're also forgetting the most successful method of missile interception: soft-kill. I assure you the government is not ignorant to this. Also anyone here really needs to understand that the complete information on this subject is no doubt highly classified, and PolyMatter is drawing conclusions based on open source information. I think if anything this video helps justify the need for more missile defense research.
I agree, frankly the program could be half as reliable with twice the budget and the research would still be necessary
@@Kyler1Ace Yeah, if you skimp out on missile defense and it turns out that you need it... you've literally lost everything. You've lost 100% of the country by trying to save 0.1% of its resources.
How do you soft kill an ICBM? Making them fizzle instead?
@@pierrecurie Is he talking about laser weapon systems? I think that's the new game changer as far as defensive weapons are concerned.
I don't think soft-kill means what you think it means. And if it actually does, then, it has never been successful and never will be. ICBM's are closed systems (not entirely true, however they really do not need outside information to function).
Israel does have a system against ballistic missiles, its called Arrow (or Hetz) and it predated the more well-known iron dome.
Its been in service since 2000, and the latest iteration is said to have above 90% effectiveness
Israel is dealing with scuds...if ICBM come their way its a different story
90% effectiveness against what? Arrow 3 needs two interceptors per incoming missile as to maximize interception rates so it almost definitely does not have “90%” effectiveness. If it did then the United States would completely replace all their GMD and Thaad systems with it. Even if it had 100% effectiveness it still wouldn’t be enough to counter volleys of ballistic missile as it would eventually run out of interceptora
@@DanielMousavi1 Most of the air defensive missle cannot protect all cities only can protect several infstructure sites. Even Israel Iron dome system couldn't shoots down hamas, islamic jihad rockets from gaza only shoot few the rest fall down the cities causes death and injury. The missile defensive system can protect only important sites.
And it was just used!
that map is very confusing, at least add labels or a north arrow pls
In the last GMD flight test, the same incoming target was hit twice by two different interceptors. (Scott Manley did a great video on it)
CZcamsrs frequently cite outdated reliability data about GMD, because its a classified program, you aren't SUPPOSED to know what it can really do, but it works way better than this video would lead one to believe.
And GMD tests are against slow ICBMs without MIRV tech. So basically, only stuff from Iran or NK. Not Russian or Chinese modern ICBMs.
@@SilverforceX ICBMs are not slow. They're by definition "fast". The speed of an ICBM is defined by it's range. China's short range ballistic missiles are no faster or slower than North Korea's short range ballistic missiles, just as North Korea's long range ballistic missiles are no slower than China's long range ballistic missiles. They both go at over Mach 10 on re-entry.
Somehow you haven't heard of submarine launched missiles. I'm not talking about ballistic ones, I'm talking about cruise missiles, launched from submarines, aircraft, or even surface ships. Plus I think defending the nation from atomic annihilation is much more important than one of 12 fleet carriers. You seem to dismiss the "system" part of the nuclear defense system.
Incoming flight vehicles can have 10 nuclear warheads.. there will be decoy and in a real war prepare to be toast. The US dont have bunkers.
impossible to hide. No way to run. Only peace can help. So fight for peace.
I agree with many commenting here that this video went a bit rogue on the explanation of this topic. Not your best work unfortunately. False comparisons are made, a highly simplistic approach is adopted which sidesteps all the complexities of military strategy and you don't have any warrant to claim that America has a problem in this area. This implies the public record of information is up to date or you have access to special knowledge, which you don't. The r&d, investments and strategies and dare I say assets of the us military are well kept secrets. We just aren't in a position to be able to say with any confidence that there exists some weakness in the defense of the most powerful country in the world, let alone in the condescending tone you adopt here.
A minor correction, the distinction between strategic and tactical attacks isn't the range, but the target.
A tactical strike hits military targets that directly provide fighting power, while a strategic attack targets infrastructure and industry to reduce the long term capabilities of the nation.
I thought I was bugging. For the first time while watching a polymatter video I found myself repeatedly thinking “well this is uninformed”.
I mean if you think about it, 100s of millions of dollars are spent across the top governments in the world in military intelligence, espionage, etc. & THEY don’t even accurately know what the US is capable of defensively. So to expect that polymatter would even remotely be accurate is absurd.
But after seeing the comments, I feel more at ease, knowing that pretty much every viewer thought some version of this 😭
Ah yes, the US definitely has a super top secret fusion powered thermonuclear space laser that's going to shoot down all the ICBMs. All these commenters think that "this is uninformed" because you want to believe that you're safe. It's a way to hide from the actual truth that every moment of your existence you are 30 minutes away from nuclear hellfire and there is not one god damn thing anyone can do about it.
I think the patriot has bad reputation depending on who you talk to . But remember that system and the iron dome system has been tested more then any other one it it’s kind
S400 has never been used in combat only data we have is from the Russian..
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY TOO.
“Always trust the Russians” 😂lol
@@janiss5634 Patriot is not capable of nor intended to intercept ICBMs, so it's not really relevant to this issue. Same goes for Iron Dome.
@@hydra70 I meant in general not for icbms
Seems like you messed up polymatter, you gotta address these comments
This is more poorly researched than that time real life lore pissed off the train enjoyers.
If America has a Missile Defense solution, you wouldn't know it exists.
Definitely black budget, at least until the next system is created and operational.
Yes you would. You can't keep something that big a secret. There is no such thing as a secret weapon, at least not for very long.
@@skynoceros_ Top Secret, For those only with the proper clearance, etc.
Can we believe that what they had published for the public to see are even the true data that they had?
Personally, I disagree with much of the sentiment of this video. While i’m sure everything presented in the video is true, i think it’s very pessimistic to look at it in this way. As another commenter said, how does this system compare to that of rival countries? Not only that, but i believe 50% effectiveness is pretty good. As you said at the beginning, shooting down a ICBM is like shooting a bullet at a bullet in space. Almost impossible, yet by some miracle US engineers have created a way to do so, albeit with 50% effectiveness. I definitely believe that it could be better, and that with more work we could have a extremely capable defense system. I also believe that doing so would cost hundreds of billions more. I don’t know about the rest of America, but defense against nuclear annihilation is something i’m willing to throw my tax dollars at.
I tend to agree with your post, except I wouldn't call 50% pretty good. I mean, I'm glad to have it, and the cost doesn't bother me considering what other stuff we blow money on, but I certainly think it's ok to say "hey we need more" when it's such a serious issue.
You’re proposing a new nuclear arms race. It’s not worth it because once one nation begins funding a new superior system, it’ll push every other nuclear nation into a zero sum game. This will in turn just lead to lower economic activity to prevent an apocalyptic scenario that will not be prevented even if we invested trillions into a superior shield against other systems. So the cost isn’t worth it and it’s impossible to get 100% accuracy. We’re better off spending trillions into dominating the digital space then it is to dominate conventional nuclear systems. AI is the new nuclear weapon.
@@valiantparagonvideos2383 Yeah, 50% is not good, but as PolyMatter said it never was meant to be the solution. After 9/11 the US needed a stopgap for a problem long overdue, Bush rushed the program so that we could have at least something. We need a better defense and GMD failed at what it set out to do initially, but it has been a successful stopgap that should help us until we have an actual solution. All I hope is that that solution comes sooner rather than later.
It's 50% effective for a handful of ICBMS, not hundreds of them. If Russia launched a first strike our defenses might only stop 1-2% of the incoming warheads
Let's just say your one half will survive cuz of your brilliant investment and your other half with just disintegrate during an event of nuclear fallout...😂🤣 (P.S Your tax dollars are worthless in an event of nuclear annihilation. So American, It's just pathetic...)
Alternatively, the US may have a more effective method for combatting missile launches that is top secret. That airforce space plane isn't spending years in orbit for no reason.
no just probably a way to get billion's In funding
That's almost certainly not the reason for the X-37B, there's a wide variety of weird secret stuff it could be doing, but probably not that.
is anyone else only getting this video available in 1440p?
Yes, me too.
The iron dome isn't meant to engage 100% of all rockets iirc. It calculates where the rockets will land, and if it is expected to land in a populated area, then it launches its own missiles. So i think not mentioning that is slightly misleading.
I love how we’re now Aegis systems shore but I ended up not getting FCA and got ET when I signed for the ACEF program in the navy
Personally i've always believed the US actually has fairly impressive Anti ICBM system that we jut aren't aware of. Mainly because that's the point, if we or other nations knew the US had a capable Anti ICBM than that causes issues. Since MAD operates on the idea of us nuking anyone who nukes us or our allies. If the US + maybe its allies have anti ICBM tech capable enough to even take out a decent chunk of Nuclear weapons. Than it could encourage in a counter initiative way the use of said nuclear weapons.
Or potentially even worse for the US, encourage hostile nuclear nations to look more into Anti ICBM tech. Which could further decrease the fear of using nuclear weapons, which could lead to all out war. Where these systems while potentially impressive, are in fact unable to deal with a overwhelming amount of missiles.
Either way, the US having a secret ICBM defense would not surprise me one bit. And for the sake of us all, I hope if they do: They keep it secret, and instead let the GMD look like a iffy one. Or atleast I hope we have a better ICBM defense.
A functioning total missile defense system would be too big and too expensive to hide it would involve trillions of dollars and millions of people. It would be like trying to keep the F-35 program a secret. There is no top secret magical thermonuclear space laser that is going to shoot down all the missiles. There is GMD, and maybe SM-3 Block IIa. Nothing more.
lol US the Messiah of the world 🤮
This is the same U.S. that couldn’t defend against jumbo jets launched from its own soil that it knew about
The American military is far from dumb. They've been well-funded and you can just look at the current state of military technology and what's on the horizon; it'd be harder to believe that the military has NOT been considering this ever-present threat and applying new technology to have multiple options of dealing with it. And it's obviously going to be a high priority to keep it under wraps.
@@GuinessOriginal if you shot down Civilian Aircraft, that can make more problem than leave them reach the target
Every time you test a missile you reveal more of its capabilities making counters easier to develop.
A big reason why GBIs aren’t tested much is because those tests are security risks.
Please include 720p and 480p for slow networking areas its only showing 1080+
Pretty sure you forgot missiles being launched from subs.
I think this video missed the mark, it comes off one sided and more as a hit piece against US defensive strategy without due credit.
First off, repeatedly calling a system ineffective when it has a 55% success rate is..... Kinda inaccurate. Even the chance we could shoot down a missile with coin flip effectiveness could still save lives. would we want this to be more of a guarantee? Absolutely. Would you take a 50% chance over no chance? I would. This also contributes to deterring the threat of nuclear war given there exists a chance that the missiles are blown up before getting to the US. The most effective deterrent is one we never have to use. You could argue that this system's efficacy is in its contribution to preventing war, beyond its chance to save lives.
The comparison to carriers is an indicator of cost, but I think there's subtext that we'd be better off buying carriers than a missile defense system. I believe this is a false comparison, they protect against different threats. Yes missiles are much more expensive to combat, did you expect otherwise? Sure carriers might help ensure we could retaliate, but that means the following conflict would be exclusively punitive. Having a possible defense means there could be something left worth protecting.
There's also some discussion that the missile defense program was rushed through its development, discussed as being poor management. What alternative was there? This kind of warfare is an existential threat, and I can definitely understand wanting to try and get some defense on the grid rather than telling people "just don't worry about it, there's nothing you could do".
Inefficient? Yes. The wrong choice? I guess reasonable people could disagree. I'm not a defense die hard, there's plenty wrong with the system, and this system warrants review, and critique. But please, do it right. I watch polymatter because you normally do incredible writing, with great researched viewpoints that expand my views. Doing a hit piece like this takes away your credibility when it's not done correctly. Again, not saying you need to agree with how this program is run, but at least represent that side of the story effectively.
I think you're being way too oversensitive here. He started out claiming that the costs sunk in developing anti-missile technology was valid and warranted, BUT it is still not enough for what you're actually trying to protect against. You might say 55% is great, BUT AGAIN, it's the idea of what that 55% actually means in terms of 'success', and you're still dealing with nukes. The hit and explosion of a nuke is just a part of your problem if it makes landfall.
YES, the US government is doing what it can, but the video is making people aware of what the holes in the strategy are, mostly by no fault of the actual people developing that strategy. It's the reality we all live in, it's not a hit piece by any measure.
The vids are getting slow and clickbaity
Big bruh moment
This video is pretty unfounded
You mean; "Bruh, this vid is shit!" moment?
Listen man this isn't my wheelhouse at all I just find this all very interesting understanding geopolitics as best I can. I had to stop the video though and read the comments. I agree with many of the well meaning intellectual comments here about this missing the mark. I have a check mark so hopefully you see it and read into the topic more. Amplify smart talking people for a constructive conversation basically. Lots of classified unknowns in this field that make it hard to report on but like others have said it's probably best US defenses stay that way.
I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Grigg's comments. I am also a defense professional and can tell you without any hesitation that systems have been developed and very successfully tested that the public knows nothing about. There's always a chance of human error or a technical malfunction but, by-and-large, we are far ahead of the rest of the world - in many ways
What I find interesting to think about; this is what systems are public. What about everything that is under top secret classification? Surely we are far better in secret than we would ever admit to being?
Of the secret could be we're worse off than what they say
What if thy actually have a defense just, (lime the IRON Dome) but it's just kept secret because it's not a any good other wise?
The best missile defense is the absolute certainty of an immediate and massive retaliation that inflicts unacceptable losses.
For some reason, the video only has 1440p available and my PC is not handling it well.
Especially when combined with 60p. I would assume CZcams just hasn't rendered the lower quality versions yet.
Ah yes existential dread!
Is there some reason I can only watch this in 1440p60 HD? Did you make the decision to only offer an HD version of this video, or is this something on CZcams's end? My internet is not fast enough to keep up. A lower quality version would be appreciated.
8:27 “NORTHER KOREA”
I was stationed at pearl harbor when this happened, all the military personnel assumed it was a drill, because they do test loudspeaker announcements all the time.
I don't care if only 10% effective, build it! Damn your own video shows that it had 55% effectiveness and that's good enough for me. Better than 0%. And also do you really think they are going to tell everyone what they really have??! To a CZcamsr?! I don't think so buddy.
Biggest problem is that it gives you a false sense of security. 🙄🙄
amazing video
Man I love your videos
stategic= city, infanstructure, resources. tactical= military postions and direct battle field support.
If there are N missiles fired at you, and you want the average number of missiles which hit you to be under one, you need to shoot down at least N-1 missiles. This means your defence system has to have an error rate of less than 1/N. If a single round of your anti-missile defence system has a 50% chance of intercepting a missile, you need log2(N) rounds of it per missile you wish to intercept. This means that in total, you need N*log2(N) rounds of missile defence to "successfully" defend. This means that if ICBMs and anti-missile defence systems cost the same amount, intercepting 100 missiles will cost the defender roughly 7 times as much as it cost the attacker. And intercepting 1000 will cost 10 times as much. So it is that we've successfully invented a form of warfare which is more expensive for the defender than the attacker. It took 300000 years, but we've finally done it.
That's assuming that at such scales the defense isn;t someting entirely different all together. If it costs so much, a space based laser like what was proposed in star wars would be more feasible.
Two issues:
1: ICBMs and anti-ICBMs don't cost the same amount, because the cost of the ICBM includes the cost of the nuclear warhead
2: Even if it is seven times more expensive, so what? North Korea has an economy smaller than that of Beverly Hills, California. The US can easily outspend them 20 to 1 without too much difficulty.
@@michaelimbesi2314 all 21 b-2s are worth more in total than NK gdp
why's the vid quality at 1440p? I can't play it without constant buffering!
The Star Wars laser defense research program had made a lot more progress than is commonly known.
Engineers were able to do things that physicists said was impossible.
Although the topics are sometimes upsetting, your videos always make my day better. Keep up the good work!
At least our adversaries have defense systems just as pitiful. MAD baby
amazing vid
I love these videos
If you want to know what Russia's answer to Star Wars and BMD was you should read the book "The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy" by David Hoffman. Its a rather terrifying read but something everyone who wants to have a holistic view of BMD effectiveness and policy should be required to read. I have been reading about this subject for over 20 years and have had many sleepless nights contemplating it. I suggest anyone interested to also search out other books on the topic such as US Ballistic Missile Defense and Deterrence Postures: The New Cold War Era Perspective on the Wartime Use of Active Missile Defenses
by Grzegorz Nycz.
Can you summarize Russia’s answer?
Thank you for shareing...Im going to her those reads right away
@@adurpandya2742 give rusty aks to everyone who’s left alive and send them in a frontal attack.
@@max7971 America is separated by an ocean. How would the survivors even atk?
@@adurpandya2742 Russia's answer was to build a sophisticated and dispersed data collection and control mechanism for their nuclear forces. This system would use sensors and other inputs to determine if nuclear war had commenced. If it had and nuclear detonations and radiation were detected and political and military leaders were not able to be reached it would automatically launch specialized missles into the upper atmosphere. These would in turn start the launch code sequences for the land and sea based weapons of the USSR. It was made to ensure retailiation in case of a massive US preemeptive attack or pershing/cruise missle decapitation strike.
Isn't it illegal to use those emergency alert sounds in media productions? How were you allowed to make the intro of the video using the exact frequencies? There was a Half As Interesting video about that where I thought he went into excruciating detail to avoid them and indicate that it would be extremely bad for anyone to use those sounds outside of an emergency.
Not to mention his "this isn't a real alert" text was small, faded white text in front of clouds.
@@hydra70 huh? The sound that plays at 0:13 in Polymatter's video is literally the exact same sound you reference as being illegal to play. am I taking crazy pills or something? Who is upvoting this comment, your 4 alt accounts?
I'm wondering is it fine to use it in video game? Black Mesa game has many instances of these alert sound.
I forgor to add Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 too.
The video is clearly cut there. The opening note is all he thought he could get away with.
awesome!
I like how the control in the Cheyenne Mountain Complex is gun shaped.
Others: "what are you doing?"
Guy at controls: "oh, just firing off nukes. **pew** **pew** "
Hi, please make your videos have a 720p quality setting. Because my internet/laptop cannot watch videos in super HD
seconded
I'm not even going to take the time to specify an issue. This was not anything near the quality of content expected from the channel.
1:00 You can escape through the stargate from there. That's why it's part of the space force now as well.
Bringing back the cliffhanger, I see. :D
I lived on a base called PMRF when this happened. My dad was the executive officer. Pretty scary morning
A good video, but I believe your points on efficiency and cost may have missed the mark - pun intended.
On efficiency, a great deal more is desired from the GMD - which as you demonstrate suffers from poor development and the scale of the challenge. Capturing the issues of the GMD is the greatest part of this video - though it misses the "layered" approach of ICBM defence and doesn't necessarily capture the political/diplomatic and technical issues involved. I don't think a more difficult challenge can be articulated technically, nor can the true scale or capability of the system be truly known. The argument certainly needs to be made that it's deveopment needs to be reworked, which I think your video does excellent in doing. On cost, well..
It simply isn't economical to simply do nothing. You can save all that money, build more ships and do a great deal more, though ultimately you willingly roll over and allow your cities to be targetted in any exchange. All that extra capability is fine until the populations, ports, industry and society that prepares them is destroyed - at which point there is no getting any new systems, its probably gone for good. By comparison if you can shield even a small portion of those hubs, you continue to hold a strategic (and indeed societal) advantage over the adversary.
It is like preparing to fight with swords while your opponent has a gun, and not trying to have a bullet proof vest in counter.
Of course it gets a lot more complex than that. The MDA, Reagen's "Star Wars," whether the US can sustain this kind of spending, and what potentially exists in terms of classified projects or systems that feed into that "layered" approach.
As we face down the risks of what certain countries are willing to do for their continued survival, the question needs to be asked if it is worth not pursuing ICBM defence. Indeed as well, the consequences of failing to do so are equally horrific.
Wow this video went in hard, damning that. Frankenstein missile defence
why is this video only available in 1440p ? I don't have a high speed connection and this video is taking forever
Love your vids
There are 3 things I love in this world, food, family, and military logistics. I got all three now that I am in the US Navy.
Seems like a good life
CZcams has played every video I’ve wanted to watch today, except this one…
Yeah I just saw an infographic video detailing the whole protocol minute by minute including battleships that could fire missiles or rocket propelled missiles that can reach space and intercept it there
The Infographics Shoe has many topics that I'm interested in, but I do not watch it because the channel is ridiculously simplistic in its presentation and simplistic to the point that it is no longer accurate.
I can't recommend the Infographics Show to anyone.
what ? every country is vulnerable to this
ye but the US cares more about it and pretends not to be vulnerable
Okay?
I was really surprised that Hypersonic glide vehicles weren't talked about, but maybe that's for the part 2
ICBM fly faster than hypersonic missiles and is harder to defend against
@@Pwn3dbyth3n00b they do not go hypersonic unless they are hypersonic icbms
@@johningram4359 Typical ICMB speeds are 4-8km/s. The speed of sound is < 1km/s at all altitudes.
@@johningram4359 an ICBM by nature is hypersonic.
Don’t talk about things you don’t understand.
Oh, what a cruel cliff hanger!!
I hope the Part 2 talks about energy weapon capabilities in terms of missile defense
You mentioned Raytheon at one point, and I'm pretty sure they are working on these anti-intercontinental-missile missiles.
I think Raytheon is working on Hypersonic interceptors as well.
Everyone is "working on it" but that means that TODAY we dead
You are my favorite educational CZcams channel. Every one of your videos are informative, easy to understand and entertaining. All the best
Please do the video on the main problem!
And that's vs the old style of ballistic missiles....
This video took a whole lot of time to say very little. If nuclear exchange happened between the US and another world power, would both countries get obliterated? Yes absolutely, we've known that for quite some time. 80-100% deflection was always considered a pipe dream. But I disagree with the assumption that a success rate of 50% is considered non effective. Would you rather have 1000 nukes hit your country, or 500? Saying because we can't destroy most missiles, we shouldn't bother is honestly a rather ignorant statement.
In the video you fail to really go into the MAD doctrine and it's influence on missile deflection. Often these systems are meant to help ensure the safety of a country's own nuclear arsenal, so that in the event of an exchange, it has a good chance of retaliation. If you have a better chance of retaliating against a nuclear strike, then it is far more likely to ensure mutually assured destruction. Which helps prevent such exchanges from occurring in the first place.
Your analogies to the cost of a carrier class to an entire missile system is also very flawed. You showed the cost the carrier itself but failed to include the BILLIONS it took to research and develop the tech used in it. We know how to build boats, we've been doing that for centuries and have been keeping on top of most cutting edge tech. But a missile defense system capable of even TOUCHING an ICBM is a tech we've only really been exploring for more than half a century. So yeah, ofc an entire missile program is gonna cost more than the building cost of a few carriers (which keep in mind they are built for different roles).
And finally your sourcing is a bit sketchy if not misleading. The American Physical Society recently took down their report that you cited, admitting to some errors. So to include that paper in this video is quite unprofessional (not sure how far you make these in advance but it was atleast a week ago). And also in your review of the iron dome figures saying that the missiles it chooses to not engage are proof that it is not as effective as it seems. This is also quite misleading as if you actually look into it, you'll find that most of those missiles are ones that are deemed likely to miss or hit non important areas. During a missile attack, saturation of your defenses is a big problem so target prioritization is key for making effective use of your fire.
I hope you take some time to re-research this topic as it's rather shallowly explained in this video. Not to mention all the rapid developments we've been seeing with sensor coordination between destroyer platforms and satellites. Are there cost overruns, and dead end projects in the military? Yes absolutely and they should be investigated just like any other. But to say this is a huge problem in the missile defense sector seems to be overblowing the situation.
The war in Ukraine has shown how hard missiles are to stop. Even the much vaunted Russia systems are failing to intercept even basic missiles. MAD will continue to be the standard specially as hypersonic missiles are coming into play.
That sound at the beginning of the video is illegal to use. A movie used it and was fined thousands of dollars.
4:50 strategic refers to the size of the payload. a tactical nuke is smaller and can be fired in the field
Our missile defense is the enemy not wanting the same thing but worse happening to them. Our submarines are ready and willing
My dude the US has warheads moving around in Semi trucks.
But, if its a terrorist plot it wouldn't be ineffective isnt it? since they are ready to die anyway.
@@xanafein8453 Well, yes, there is a thing called the nuclear triad (land, air, sea). But our subs are never far from our enemies shores, and those nuclear warheads will be the first to smash into large metropolitan areas and capital cities, so it makes sense to take about them first.
@@MrGilang100 what do you suggest, that we do nothing? If they're ready to die, then there's nothing we can do to stop them in the first place. What we can do afterwards is wipe every single one of them off the face of the Earth after the fact. Terrorists aren't likely going to be able to acquire multiple nuclear weapons anyways, so we're not looking at a back and forth nuclear exchange. They'll get us once, and then we'll get rid of them for good, then until another group rises to hate us, their ilk will be extinct. Over time, people will get the message that if you attack us with nukes, we'll either wipe you out or hit you back with a significantly greater amount of force. All you have to do is make it not worth doing, and it'll happen less. No Muslim Jihadi is attacking the US for generations, for example. All the US military needs is an excuse and we will be back in the Middle East to finish the job, the way we did with Saddam Hussein, you can take that to the bank.
Cliff-hanger on YT videos…
It's the football equivalent of a cornerback in wheelchair trying to stop Jamar Chase
This VDO has the best ending I have ever seen, LOL.