If a nuke were to be intercepted...

[Velk]

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: f95toli
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.

Millions is probalby a better word, but it's not like they would be expensive. It's Uncle Sam we're talkign about. You're willing to spend trillions on R&D to get a laser defense system but unwilling to drop a few million on a few billion 1" ball bearings and launchers? c'mon

An excellent plan with only two minor problems.

Problem 1 - as anywhere in the USA could be a target, you are going to need a lot more than a few billion ball bearings and launchers to cover all of it.

Problem 2 - a nuke is inbound right for LA. You launch 100 million ball bearings at it and destroy it ! Yay ! You now have 100 million ball bearings in the sky over LA - they aren't going to stay there though.....

Of course, it's better than being nuked, so they can't complain can they ;p

 

[thunderroller]

nothing will happen dont worry

 

[Gamingphreek]

Yeah, im about an hours drive from washington. Im not worried or anything but hey if i hear "Nuke in bound or something" i need to know what is happening.

-Kevin

 

[roguerower]

Damnit, i live 20 miles from Washington. I'm screwed

 

[Darkstar757]

Originally posted by: roguerower
Damnit, i live 20 miles from Washington. I'm screwed

Dude I m 3min from the White House. Im the one screwed

 

[twharry]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Fallout is really pretty overrated. Granted it's better to avoid it than not. However, people still live in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and those were the only major releases of radioactive materials (TMI doesn't count).

TMI doesn't count because there was no radiation released.

 

[nick128]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: f95toli
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.

Millions is probalby a better word, but it's not like they would be expensive. It's Uncle Sam we're talkign about. You're willing to spend trillions on R&D to get a laser defense system but unwilling to drop a few million on a few billion 1" ball bearings and launchers? c'mon

An excellent plan with only two minor problems.

Problem 1 - as anywhere in the USA could be a target, you are going to need a lot more than a few billion ball bearings and launchers to cover all of it.

Problem 2 - a nuke is inbound right for LA. You launch 100 million ball bearings at it and destroy it ! Yay ! You now have 100 million ball bearings in the sky over LA - they aren't going to stay there though.....

Of course, it's better than being nuked, so they can't complain can they ;p

Solution 1: we have megatons of scrap metal EVERYWHERE, in all reality copper BBs would do the job when you consider how fast the thing is going, a copper BB could be equated to a freight train. Resources i don't see a problem. The launchers pose an interesting question, but with all teh SAM stuff we have (and if not we can always buy asian...) i don't see that being that big of a deal

Solution 2: Anybody who is hit by a falling ball bearing in teh wake of averting a nuclear detonation a) was dumb enough to be outside during a nuclear threat, therefore deserves no right to procreate anyway; b) i thought the intent was to stop it BEFORE it got there, so we'd ahve billions of ball bearings over teh sky of california, the eastern pacific, etc. Just my rebuttal

 

[nick128]

Lol, i'm an hour's flight and a 12 hour drive from DC. Hell i'm an hour from cincinatti which is probably one of the last targets. a nuclear blast in parts of that city would be considered an improvement...

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: f95toli
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.

Millions is probalby a better word, but it's not like they would be expensive. It's Uncle Sam we're talkign about. You're willing to spend trillions on R&D to get a laser defense system but unwilling to drop a few million on a few billion 1" ball bearings and launchers? c'mon

An excellent plan with only two minor problems.

Problem 1 - as anywhere in the USA could be a target, you are going to need a lot more than a few billion ball bearings and launchers to cover all of it.

Problem 2 - a nuke is inbound right for LA. You launch 100 million ball bearings at it and destroy it ! Yay ! You now have 100 million ball bearings in the sky over LA - they aren't going to stay there though.....

Of course, it's better than being nuked, so they can't complain can they ;p

Solution 1: we have megatons of scrap metal EVERYWHERE, in all reality copper BBs would do the job when you consider how fast the thing is going, a copper BB could be equated to a freight train. Resources i don't see a problem. The launchers pose an interesting question, but with all teh SAM stuff we have (and if not we can always buy asian...) i don't see that being that big of a deal

Solution 2: Anybody who is hit by a falling ball bearing in teh wake of averting a nuclear detonation a) was dumb enough to be outside during a nuclear threat, therefore deserves no right to procreate anyway; b) i thought the intent was to stop it BEFORE it got there, so we'd ahve billions of ball bearings over teh sky of california, the eastern pacific, etc. Just my rebuttal

What kind of launchers do you plan to use for these ball bearings, and how are you going to hit a warhead that's going to explode a mile or more up?

Just making giant shotguns and firing them in the general direction isn't likely to work.

 

[eastvillager]

1st. You don't have to hit the incoming missile with your anti-missile. It is much easier to put something up there in its trajectory that it will hit, yielding a kinetic kill. Just put up a decent size debris cloud in its path, and you'll kill the missile.

2nd. Nukes don't just explode. They're fairly delicate, fairly complex, and require their internal conventional explosives to function as intended to get the desired yield. You're not going to trigger that event just by damaging the missile. Lets pretend you did, even then, that is a better end result than letting it come in as planned.

The concept of 'fratricide' when targeting/planning high yield weapons is just as easily applicable to the defender trying to knock those weapons out. As somebody has mentioned previously, EMP may be an option, or even relatively low yield nukes. After all, it would be better to have a relatively low yield defensive air burst, the sooner into the flight of the enemy missile as possible instead of that missile reaching its target.

The tech is there to put in place an anti-missile system that would be at least 85% effective, imho. There are a couple reasons you won't see one any time soon, though. One is politics. Whichever nation has the perfect/near-perfect anti-missile system suddenly finds itself in a position of having considerably less to fear from any other country, and may choose to take advantage of that situation. I'm not saying the USA would do that---allthough we do the same thing with air superiority on a daily basis in the middle east---but the potential for that to occur places huge international relations issues in the way of implementing such a system. Second reason is cost, we can't afford it. I am a firm believer in the saying, "if you want peace, prepare for war", but going too far and destroying your economy isn't the solution. Just ask the Soviet Union about that, hehehe, although communism and the inherent corruption that system generates was their larger problem.

I don't think ICBMs are the nukes the US has to worry about most at this point, anyways.

 

[roguerower]

People, here is the answer, plain and simple. PLASMA-yeild warheads.

 

[roguerower]

Originally posted by: twharry

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Fallout is really pretty overrated. Granted it's better to avoid it than not. However, people still live in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and those were the only major releases of radioactive materials (TMI doesn't count).

TMI doesn't count because there was no radiation released.

Oh, did a research paper on this last year. Around Chernobyl there's something like a 10 mile DEADZONE. And those are some fed up kids being born

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: f95toli
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.

Millions is probalby a better word, but it's not like they would be expensive. It's Uncle Sam we're talkign about. You're willing to spend trillions on R&D to get a laser defense system but unwilling to drop a few million on a few billion 1" ball bearings and launchers? c'mon

An excellent plan with only two minor problems.

Problem 1 - as anywhere in the USA could be a target, you are going to need a lot more than a few billion ball bearings and launchers to cover all of it.

Problem 2 - a nuke is inbound right for LA. You launch 100 million ball bearings at it and destroy it ! Yay ! You now have 100 million ball bearings in the sky over LA - they aren't going to stay there though.....

Of course, it's better than being nuked, so they can't complain can they ;p

Solution 2: Anybody who is hit by a falling ball bearing in teh wake of averting a nuclear detonation a) was dumb enough to be outside during a nuclear threat, therefore deserves no right to procreate anyway; b) i thought the intent was to stop it BEFORE it got there, so we'd ahve billions of ball bearings over teh sky of california, the eastern pacific, etc. Just my rebuttal

If it is landing in america it is, by definition, an ICBM ( unless the canadians launched it I suppose 8) ), so it's going to be travelling outside the atmosphere and come almost straight down at it's target. The only way you could hit it with ballistic projectiles is at it's launch site, or as it's coming down - i.e. right over it's target.

Having millions of ball bearings travelling at several hundred miles per hour raining down on the city is going to be less devastating than being nuked, however the inhabitants are unlikely to accept it as a viable solution - just look at the kind of damage hail does and imagine that multipled several hundred times...

 

[twharry]

Originally posted by: roguerower

Originally posted by: twharry

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Fallout is really pretty overrated. Granted it's better to avoid it than not. However, people still live in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and those were the only major releases of radioactive materials (TMI doesn't count).

TMI doesn't count because there was no radiation released.

Oh, did a research paper on this last year. Around Chernobyl there's something like a 10 mile DEADZONE. And those are some fed up kids being born

But TMI and Chernobyl are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Nothing significant happened at TMI, it was just a bunch of media people who were scared and stupid.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: nick128

Originally posted by: f95toli
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.

Millions is probalby a better word, but it's not like they would be expensive. It's Uncle Sam we're talkign about. You're willing to spend trillions on R&D to get a laser defense system but unwilling to drop a few million on a few billion 1" ball bearings and launchers? c'mon

An excellent plan with only two minor problems.

Problem 1 - as anywhere in the USA could be a target, you are going to need a lot more than a few billion ball bearings and launchers to cover all of it.

Problem 2 - a nuke is inbound right for LA. You launch 100 million ball bearings at it and destroy it ! Yay ! You now have 100 million ball bearings in the sky over LA - they aren't going to stay there though.....

Of course, it's better than being nuked, so they can't complain can they ;p

Solution 2: Anybody who is hit by a falling ball bearing in teh wake of averting a nuclear detonation a) was dumb enough to be outside during a nuclear threat, therefore deserves no right to procreate anyway; b) i thought the intent was to stop it BEFORE it got there, so we'd ahve billions of ball bearings over teh sky of california, the eastern pacific, etc. Just my rebuttal

If it is landing in america it is, by definition, an ICBM ( unless the canadians launched it I suppose 8) ), so it's going to be travelling outside the atmosphere and come almost straight down at it's target. The only way you could hit it with ballistic projectiles is at it's launch site, or as it's coming down - i.e. right over it's target.

Having millions of ball bearings travelling at several hundred miles per hour raining down on the city is going to be less devastating than being nuked, however the inhabitants are unlikely to accept it as a viable solution - just look at the kind of damage hail does and imagine that multipled several hundred times...

1. LA would not be targeted... what? The terrorist want to kill a bunch of gangstas, underprivelegded children, and mexicans?

2. I don't see millions of ball bearings raining down on LA to be a problem. Recoup the damagess by legalising crack and taxing it... ahahaha.

3. Wouldn't Washington (state), Virginia, and Hawaii be much more likely targets? Our Naval power is why we are #1. Taking out Aircraft Carriers would seem like the most ideal way to critically damage our military force.

 

[mdchesne]

1. armed
2. prearmed
3. travel
4. proximity failsafe
5. interception failsafe

option 1.
The missle is armed when the SAM/AAM intercepts. Depending on location in relation to the US (assuming we are the 'innocent' victims in this hypothetical plot' and the altitude, one of three things can happen:
- high altitude: nuclear fallout from the nuke spreading throughout the atmosphere. Like water vapor, these superheated nuclear materials will travel with the winds across the world, plaguing everyone. However, it will be diluted in the air and thus not as toxic as if it were lower. Necessary missles for this to occur: cross-continental ballistic or atmospheric 'hoppers'
- medium altitude: fallout will follow the nearest world wind pattern. i.e. gulf stream, jet stream, mediteranean, etc. Fallout will be denser, larger materials. actual nuclear rain wll be observed within air currents affected for up to a 2,000km distance from interception point. about 15-35,000feet
- low altitude: high concentration of nuclear fallout. ground will be devasted from force of heatwave. loss of life expected near 90%. radius small, approx. 10km. similar to the tests in nevada on project manhattan (80-foot tower detonated 'fat man'). about 1,000-10,000 feet

(this is why atmospheric testing is banned...it hurts us all)

option 2.
In the prearmed state, the missle or rocket is between its travel and armed states. This is where failsafes and preemptive strike jetisons are checked and armed before the actual warhead is primed. In case of an interception and the failsafes are not completely checked, the warhead will simply be destroyed or redirected in case of failed obliteration. Possible fallout from 'dirty bomb' syndrome in which the payload is detonated from the interception payload, but the nulear material has not reached critical mass to create the full nuclear effect. Dirty bomb is the cheap way of causing nuclear casualities with a nuclear device. Deaths come from nuclear poisoning caused from nuclear fallout. In this case, fallout will not be fine, but a girtty, sometime marble-sized nuclear-contaiminated materials. Fallout reduced to area directly below point of interception with varibale of wind and humidity.

option 3.
travel is when the rocket is heading towards it's target. Depending on the manufacturer, the rocket is not primed or in its preemptive stages (noone wants a nuke going off on takeoff). Interception is generally obliteration due to combined payload of intercpetion device with concentrated fuel from deliverance rocket. If not, fallout similar to option 2 occurs.

option 4.
proximity failsafe can be viewed one of two ways.
The payload can set a proximity failsafe where if the payload is within a certain distance of it's target and it is intercepted, it will still detonate it's charge. This fail will prime the payload to reach critical mass upon a proximity of the target, to a larger extent than what it would have without. It will be traveling a greater distance in primed status.
Another way is less agressive and more passive, reserved. If the payload is within a certain distance of a target and the payload is primed, a remote deactivation can occur within a certain period of time to disarm the payload and self-detonate the package (what you see in movies featuring a concervative American president watching his nuke approach russia...but at the last minute he gets a call saying 'it wasn't the russians' and he presses the abort button)

interception of a proximity failsail with agressive intent will trigger a nuclear explosion similar to in a low-altitude option 1.
self detonation will render the package harmless

option 5.
Intercpetion failsafe is a totally agressive means of preventing interception. The package will be equiped with anti-intercpetion devices such as heatpemitting flares and a massive ammount of tin strips to deploy to confuse tracking radars. There are generally nuclear0equipped cruise missiles or submarine-based rockets. Short distance travelers, but pre-primed at launch. interception at any point between launch and target acquisition wil result in low-alititude Option 1.


hope this helps. Never thought military knoweldge would come to use in a computer forum
you can view these on the CIA declassifieds spread out on the net. bunch more variables and option, forgot them though...very, well, "if this and this and this happened, and this and this were in play, then this option is possible"

 

[imported_Kensai]

I betcha that if someone launched a nuke at the US, the US would counter with a nuke.

 

[mdchesne]

that's not the policy of the US. some radical group in Kenya gets it's hands on a nuke, launches it using corss-continental rocket at the US, they'd not counter with another.

first is interception (defense)
then the information gathering which lasts about 5 hours ot uncover origin, reason, variables. why would we launch a nuke immediately? war with kenya? we'd win, but it would cause alot of controversy.... then again, that's what Bush likes.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Yeah. They intercept it with a nuke. (Fight fire with fire. )

 

[ribbon13]

Do you have any idea how much havoc two nuclear blasts occuring near the ionosphere would cause? It's pretty impossible because of failsafes (nukes don't go off unless they're at thier target be it place or time), but if it did happen, we'd lose a hell of a lot of telecommunications and the reprecussions would be felt worldwide.