Insight into the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine

While "surfing" at random, I came across this article.

It tells of a Soviet program called "Parimeter"

www.brainwaving.com...

This may, or may not, be true enough to hold much water, but I thought it made for an interesting read.


I was with the State Dept. many years ago and remember some talk abuout such things even then. I would not be all that surprised if this were proven correct.

The waters of international conflict never stay calm for long. A recent case in point was the heated exchange between the Bush administration and Russian president Vladimir Putin over Georgia. “It’s nonsense not to talk about Perimeter,” Yarynich says. If the existence of the device isn’t made public, he adds, “we have more risk in future crises. And crisis is inevitable.”

The mistake that both Yarynich and his counterpart in the United States, Bruce Blair, want to avoid now is silence. It’s long past time for the world to come to grips with Perimeter, they argue. The system may no longer be a central element of Russian strategy—US-based Russian arms expert Pavel Podvig calls it now “just another cog in the machine”—but Dead Hand is still armed

We all love this exchange from "Dr Strangelove". Can't get more real than this.

"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!” cries Dr. Strangelove. “Why didn’t you tell the world?” After all, such a device works as a deterrent only if the enemy is aware of its existence. In the movie, the Soviet ambassador can only lamely respond, “It was to be announced at the party congress on Monday.”

As I understand, we can shoot down or disable most incoming missiles, correct?
But their "doomsday machine" consists of ... more missiles?
What makes those missiles so special that they're guaranteed to cause total annihilation?

I admit I don't know much at all about this subject, so I'm curious.

reply to post by trollz


The purpose of "Parimeter", as I see it, would be in retaliation if they were hit by a surprise pre-emptive strike.

The system would be triggered even if all the command centers were knocked out as retribution for an attack.

M.A.D. "Mutually Assured Distruction" was just that.

A plan that "if anyone starts a nuclear war - we all loose."

reply to post by trollz


You can NOT shoot down intercontinental missiles with multiple warheads. There is no technology for that. They enter earths athmosphere with thousands of miles per hour, releasing a dozen or more working warheads while chaffing up the radars with hundreds of fake decoys.

Do you remember the defense system Patriot? Well, it didn't shoot down a single one of Saddams rockets, but several of Israels own planes. The technology may sound simple in theory, but in reality there are very small inaccuracies in the detection of an incoming rocket adding up to enough wrongness that those rockets will be missed by several meters - so either you deploy a dozen interceptor rockets per incoming rocket, which is nearly impossible if there are THOUSANDS of warheads, real and fake, in the air. Or you accept defeat (reality).

Of course, the military doesn't accept defeat. So they ignored reality. And pretended that nothing like that could even happen.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


I was watching Mad Men, I think it's the third season and Jet Set is in the title. Don and Pete are in California. It looks like a tropical paradise but at a meeting they see a sales pitch for MIRV rockets which can split up into 37 independent targets. The salesman says total annihilation for whatever they target.

I really like (with some kind of horrified fascination) stories about doomsday devices. In this area lie machines like the Project Pluto. Or Project Orion.


Yay.

If we attacked the Russians the Russians would launch all their missiles at us. They don't fool around. We would do the same thing. They could blow their first wave of missiles off anywhere and the radiation would slowly destroy us. I doubt if our missile defense system would protect anything other than Washington and a few other places. We are expendable.

There was this short story, I think it was from Arthur C. Clarke, in which an anonymous soldier listens to the recorded words of his president telling them that even the ultimate doomsday weapon, a station beyond the moon, equiped with the mightiest H-bombs, could not protect their motherland from the nuclear attack.

So he listens to the voice of his president, tears in his eyes as he looks down on his glowing, smolten motherland, anger growing and ready for revenge, his fingers on the buttons to release thousands of thousands of megatons on the anxiously upwards looking heads of the enemies, when he finally hears the last words:

"Soldiers, comrades of the now deceased Soviet Union. Hear my last command. Our mightiest weapons couldn't protect us, your bombs did not shield us from doom. This is my last order: Shoot your weapons into deep space and let them explode in a far distance as the final sign of our will of abdication of revenge. Nobody will return to live if you drop them unto the heads of our attackers. Release them and return to earth, the survivors will gladly accept your help as highly skilled and trained men."

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
reply to post by trollz

 

You can NOT shoot down intercontinental missiles with multiple warheads. There is no technology for that. They enter earths athmosphere with thousands of miles per hour, releasing a dozen or more working warheads while chaffing up the radars with hundreds of fake decoys.

Do you remember the defense system Patriot? Well, it didn't shoot down a single one of Saddams rockets, but several of Israels own planes. The technology may sound simple in theory, but in reality there are very small inaccuracies in the detection of an incoming rocket adding up to enough wrongness that those rockets will be missed by several meters - so either you deploy a dozen interceptor rockets per incoming rocket, which is nearly impossible if there are THOUSANDS of warheads, real and fake, in the air. Or you accept defeat (reality).

Of course, the military doesn't accept defeat. So they ignored reality. And pretended that nothing like that could even happen.

Missile Defense is big business:
www.lockheedmartin.com...

Lockheed Martin-led weapons systems have achieved nearly 40 successful intercepts since the 1980s and continue to prove themselves in challenging tests and combat operations.

reply to post by LockNLoad


Yay, SBIRS.. That was a mayor failure: www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

Just look up all the mentioned projects, combined with "problems" or "failure", like "google sbirs problem". Not a single one project seems to be able to reach production status.

The "Doomsday Machine" isn't a machine. It's a biological weapon, a virus.

The few with the antibodies don't want a nuclear winter or widespread destruction.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
reply to post by LockNLoad

 

Yay, SBIRS.. That was a mayor failure: www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

Just look up all the mentioned projects, combined with "problems" or "failure", like "google sbirs problem". Not a single one project seems to be able to reach production status.

2 year old article, SBIRS is on orbit and exceeding expectations:

www.lockheedmartin.com...

SUNNYVALE, Calif., June 5, 2012 – The first Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]-built Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) geosynchronous (GEO-1) satellite, launched on May 7, 2011, is exceeding performance expectations and is on schedule to achieve operational certification later this year.

Originally posted by trollz
As I understand, we can shoot down or disable most incoming missiles, correct?
But their "doomsday machine" consists of ... more missiles?
What makes those missiles so special that they're guaranteed to cause total annihilation?

I admit I don't know much at all about this subject, so I'm curious.

Russian missiles and warheads these days are far too numerous and sophisticated to be intercepted by the minor US missile defense capability.

Russia has been upgrading and making new nuclear weapons ballistic missile systems well past the end of the Cold War. (The USA has frozen all development for 20 years, and eliminated the latest generation (80's MX) and currently deploys only the 1960's-70's technology Minuteman.)

The US missile defense is capable only against first-second generation low technology threats, e.g. North Korea or maybe Iran; probably not even India. I have the suspicion (without proof) that the current US ABM capability probably has a tactical warhead option, even though it might be technically illegal, if an actual North Korean missile was heading towards allied territory, they would probably use it. The ABM problem is still incredibly difficult, but if it uses a nuclear warhead (small, like 1-5kt) you have to get on target to within 50 meters instead of 2 meters. The 50m might be achievable in a real war scenario with a real enemy (not Russia) and not a cooperative test target, but not 2m.

The defense problem is simply so much more difficult than the offense problem technologically, and Russia in particular has been advanced in countermeasures, but even good USA warheads would be hard to intercept with USA technology as R&D in countermeasures has been going on since the 1960's.

I think the average person does not understand how extraordinary the technology, and how insanely brutal ICBMs are. Modern warheads go from stratosphere (say 70,000 feet, U-2 altitude) to ground level in 3 to 4 seconds. (and they hit within 100-300 feet of the target!). An ICBM attack looks like "Hey, what's that bright dot up there, wow it's moving..BOOM!"