Depends on what range you want to do it. the whole principle of a high altitude nuclear burst to take out a cloud of incoming ICBMs seems to do just as much harm as it does good, and with normal EMPs, you're looking at the same problems you'd face just launching a missle at it, as far as timing, burst pattern, etc. goes.
if you were just wanting to fry the electronics though, it would be easier and safer to use some of the microwave RF transmitters to blast a few million watts of energy down half a degree of arc in the direction of the ICBM. That would cook about anything you wanted, including lunch.
you think the odds do not change from 60% when you are only after one missle? This problem has been researched by NORAD ever since there has been IBM's . In the 70's the terrorist equation was added. If nessesary using a nuclear interceptor missle will be use to stop a strike on this nation. Not all sattilites put up by the shuttle are spy sattilites. some are 100 times the wieght and 50 times the size of a spy model. Also who said you ever needed to make a sattilite in one launch and package. Lasers are not the only way to defeat a missle. The shotgun type round which puts a thousand balls of steel in the path of a missle has been proven to work.
I should start by pointing out that 60% is just an example, not a real figure.
My point is that shooting down an incoming ICBM is extremely difficult and no method will ever be 100% efficient, so lets say that billions of dollars are spent developing a system that can shoot down a single incoming ICBM with 75% probability; that would be very good by military standards.
Now, can you imagine an American president telling his/her voters: "We have spent a significant part of our budget developing a highly efficient missile defence, now there is only a 25% probability that a ICBM will reach a major city"?
I doubt it.
And yes, I think the odds drop when we are talking about a single missile, a limiting factor is always the range of the system (airborne lasers have a range of about 300 km, missile based systems need to know exactly where the ICBM is within 3-4 minutes after launch); if you know where the ICBMs are coming from you can position your defences to cover as much area as possible; a single missile can be launched from basicallly anywhere (a ship for example).
Also, with a single missile it is more likely that the attacker will try to protect the missile by using counter-measures and they are pretty effective (as pointed out in the article in Scientific American I linked to, and in the APS report).
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.
So, in conclusion, I don't think it is possible to build an efficient missile defence, not today and not in the near future. Besides, even a 100% efficent shileld could not protect you from a short-range missile launched from a ship a few kilometers from the coast; or a from a bomb smuggled into the country, or built in a small workshop, building a bomb is easy once you have the uranium/plutonium; hance an efficient shield would only mean that the attacker chooses one of these methods instead.
My point is that shooting down an incoming ICBM is extremely difficult and no method will ever be 100% efficient, so lets say that billions of dollars are spent developing a system that can shoot down a single incoming ICBM with 75% probability; that would be very good by military standards.
Now, can you imagine an American president telling his/her voters: "We have spent a significant part of our budget developing a highly efficient missile defence, now there is only a 25% probability that a ICBM will reach a major city"?
I doubt it.
And yes, I think the odds drop when we are talking about a single missile, a limiting factor is always the range of the system (airborne lasers have a range of about 300 km, missile based systems need to know exactly where the ICBM is within 3-4 minutes after launch); if you know where the ICBMs are coming from you can position your defences to cover as much area as possible; a single missile can be launched from basicallly anywhere (a ship for example).
Also, with a single missile it is more likely that the attacker will try to protect the missile by using counter-measures and they are pretty effective (as pointed out in the article in Scientific American I linked to, and in the APS report).
The problem with the shotgun method (and any other method) is the range, you would need thousands of them.
So, in conclusion, I don't think it is possible to build an efficient missile defence, not today and not in the near future. Besides, even a 100% efficent shileld could not protect you from a short-range missile launched from a ship a few kilometers from the coast; or a from a bomb smuggled into the country, or built in a small workshop, building a bomb is easy once you have the uranium/plutonium; hance an efficient shield would only mean that the attacker chooses one of these methods instead.
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
i think something important to point out is that a terrorist nation will most likely not "launch" an nuclear weapon... it will be detonated onsite.
Want something that will scare the crap out of you? Pick up a copy of a book titled "The Curve of Binding Energy" by John McPhee (printed in 1974) -- THAT will open your eyes to how easy it is to obtain nuclear material...
also, fission bomb building is very easy, if you're not looking for efficiency or wouldn't mind a fizzle yield... fusion devices are quite a bit more dificult, but not necessarily out of the realm of any university physics student (or grad student).
Want something that will scare the crap out of you? Pick up a copy of a book titled "The Curve of Binding Energy" by John McPhee (printed in 1974) -- THAT will open your eyes to how easy it is to obtain nuclear material...
also, fission bomb building is very easy, if you're not looking for efficiency or wouldn't mind a fizzle yield... fusion devices are quite a bit more dificult, but not necessarily out of the realm of any university physics student (or grad student).
That is the airborne laser that was already mentioned in this thread, it is almost useless against an ICBM because the range is only about 300 km, you would need to have hundreds of the airborne at the same time to create an effective "shield".
The main problem is that lasers are not nearly as powerfull as most people think.
The main problem is that lasers are not nearly as powerfull as most people think.
roguerower
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2004
- 4,563
- 0
- 76
Maybe I'm the only sane person, but what terrorist would launch a nuke when they could fly to columbia and drive a boat w/ a nuke in it into the country, and then transport it via car. There goes your whole laser theory out the goddamn door. Have a nice day
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
So.... do we start building fallout shelters? For some reason I always wanted one. I think I would be fine as long as my ISP didnt get nukied. Maybe nuke-proof a FIOS line. The US would become one big ass internet cafe.
I agree, but I was under the impression that we'd have a good idea where the most likely launch sites/rogue nations would be, so we could make an educated guess as to where to put our resources?
As such, I don't ever see the all encompassing star wars type shield coming to fruition. At best you're looking at a "local effort" IMHO - so I would forget about surviving WW3 (as I guess you agree too).
This quote
seems to sum up the other main threat, which is the "lone terrorist" scenario. An interceptor based technology would be useless in such a case as the most likely route to the USA would be by land/sea and not by air.
I better stop as I feel I'm just restating the obvious now.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: roguerower
Maybe I'm the only sane person, but what terrorist would launch a nuke when they could fly to columbia and drive a boat w/ a nuke in it into the country, and then transport it via car. There goes your whole laser theory out the goddamn door. Have a nice day
Well since the topic of the post isn't a terrorist nuke, but rather if a nuke on a missle could be intercepted, then i think we're justfied in telling you to STFU. Have a nice day.
roguerower
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2004
- 4,563
- 0
- 76
Ok nick, take that dildo out of your ass. Just a little bit of friendly and HARMLESS banter. But if you wanna throw a hissy bout it. Go back to your boyfriend. And I
believe that the forum has shifted enough to warrant a terrorist backpack nuke. :|
You go STFU and Have a nice day.
believe that the forum has shifted enough to warrant a terrorist backpack nuke. :|
You go STFU and Have a nice day.
fact is nobody in theor right minds is going to explode a nuclear weapn after what happened in Hiroshima...
Time to disarm the world of nukes...But logic says "USA first"
Time to disarm the world of nukes...But logic says "USA first"
roguerower
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2004
- 4,563
- 0
- 76
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Having kept up with the thread, i want to ask one question to make something clear.
If a nuke were shot down with a something (Patriot Missile, Laser, ......rock) it wouldn't blow up?
You guys said this is because it is very stable. When they arm the nuke what exactly happens? I mean there is stil uranium or whatever in the Nuke even if it isn't armed so what is the difference.
-Kevin
If a nuke were shot down with a something (Patriot Missile, Laser, ......rock
) it wouldn't blow up?You guys said this is because it is very stable. When they arm the nuke what exactly happens? I mean there is stil uranium or whatever in the Nuke even if it isn't armed so what is the difference.
-Kevin
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
It's highly unlikely any nuclear detonation would occur.
Probably varies according to design and also classified(?).
There's still uranium or plutonium, but if the chain reaction doesn't occur, it's just some hunks of radioactive material, not a mushroom cloud.
To get the big nuclear boom from an implosion device, you need all the explosive charges to go off almost simultaneously. That's a very tricky thing. It's hard to see how a collision could set them off like that. It might set off one or three charges, but that won't give you the symmetrical implosion you need for critical mass and chain reaction.
I might be wrong but as far as I remember the result of a "asymmetric" implosion (that some of the explosives go off before the others) is that the plutonium will "explode" because of some fission in the part closest to the explosives that locally causes extreme heating, however there will not be a chain-rection.
When they tested the first plutonium bomb they estimated that an assymetric implossion would cause an explosion which would roughly be as powerfull as if a similar amount of TNT had been used.
Hence, (as Gibsons has already mentioned) in this case you would likely end of with a lot of plutoniumdust+isotopes of various kinds from the fission but that should only be dangerous if you are close to the explosion.
When they tested the first plutonium bomb they estimated that an assymetric implossion would cause an explosion which would roughly be as powerfull as if a similar amount of TNT had been used.
Hence, (as Gibsons has already mentioned) in this case you would likely end of with a lot of plutoniumdust+isotopes of various kinds from the fission but that should only be dangerous if you are close to the explosion.
roguerower
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2004
- 4,563
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Having kept up with the thread, i want to ask one question to make something clear.
If a nuke were shot down with a something (Patriot Missile, Laser, ......rock
You guys said this is because it is very stable. When they arm the nuke what exactly happens? I mean there is stil uranium or whatever in the Nuke even if it isn't armed so what is the difference.
-Kevin
Since the closure rate between the two objects is probably 20,000+ mph, when the nuke and the intercepting missile barely touch each other, the force would be great enough to cause the missiles to come apart because the slightest change in surface area can make everything come apart. You might have some secondary explosions, but for the most part, the radioactive components would scatter.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter