My point is, they only have to shoot a few and our own missle defense shield would disable itself.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
its all part of a much larger integrated system.
back during NK missile test, the aegis ships stationed in the seas near japan tracked the missile's trajectory, and now an aegis cruiser equipped with the standard missile capable of intercepting ballistic missiles is stationed in the area. Japan also has these ships with similar intercept capabilites stationed there, and the standard missile has a 7/8 success rate, with the cause of the 1 failure being corrected.
to quote wikipedia
even the ships stationed some hundreds/thousands of miles away can intercept the missiles a hundred miles above the ocean, and at the same time I'm sure the people who man the ICBM interception sites in CA/AK would have been ready to fire.
they don't need to tell us when or where they are going to launch, we already know, and if we don't, we know seconds after launch, there are satellites, radars, aircraft, I'm sure there are still operatives within other countires, and a plethora of other information sources for us to draw from.
also the kinetic warhead isn't supposed to detonate the weapon, and I also believe the goal of the systems is to intercept the missiles before MIRV seperation, but they have conducted tests against smaller reentry vehicles successfully with the standard missile.
back during NK missile test, the aegis ships stationed in the seas near japan tracked the missile's trajectory, and now an aegis cruiser equipped with the standard missile capable of intercepting ballistic missiles is stationed in the area. Japan also has these ships with similar intercept capabilites stationed there, and the standard missile has a 7/8 success rate, with the cause of the 1 failure being corrected.
to quote wikipedia
even the ships stationed some hundreds/thousands of miles away can intercept the missiles a hundred miles above the ocean, and at the same time I'm sure the people who man the ICBM interception sites in CA/AK would have been ready to fire.
they don't need to tell us when or where they are going to launch, we already know, and if we don't, we know seconds after launch, there are satellites, radars, aircraft, I'm sure there are still operatives within other countires, and a plethora of other information sources for us to draw from.
also the kinetic warhead isn't supposed to detonate the weapon, and I also believe the goal of the systems is to intercept the missiles before MIRV seperation, but they have conducted tests against smaller reentry vehicles successfully with the standard missile.
Strange that you are so faithful in our military capability.
We cant even find domestic planes in our own airspace moving 600mph. But we can find smaller missles, moving an order of magnitude faster, and an order of magnitude higher.
I have heard nothing over 50% for ICBM interception with a missle.
And again, even if the launcher is mobile, a real nukes EMP will be MASSIVE if it detonates 100 miles above the ground. The ship would be disabled after the 1st nuke was destroyed.
This appears to be because you have absolutely no grasp on how EMP and nukes actually work.
The nukes that are intercepted by these missiles are not going to detonate at all but merely break up, creating effectively ZERO EMP. Nukes have to be triggered in a precisely time series of explosions in order to actually create a nuclear explosion.
Furthermore, the average nuke's emp creation is going to be minimal. In order to have a major impact you're talking about a large warhead detonating very high up above the earth, one detonating at a typical lower level won't do that much. You also appear to be insanely overestimating how damaging EMP from a single nuke would actually be, which is a fairly common phenomenon. On top of this, all the systems involved with the missile defense shield will certainly be emp shielded to a degree, or using emp resistant electronics, which further reduces the significance of the issue you're talking about.
Have you taken a class in nuclear physics?
The only thing you have right is the warheads wont go off if they are effectively destroyed. But the 1st change to nuclear technology when this shield is online will almost certainly be detonation when countermeasures are close to the missle.
Just to repeat, with a direct kinetic hit there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the nuke will detonate. It takes explosives detonating in a precise order in the right places to actually generate a nuclear explosion its not like regular bombs. The one scenario where this might occur is a near miss where damage throws the nuke off course, but you're still looking at a nuke going off near the ground and likely was away from the missile system. You could also be looking at the nuclear missiles simply slamming into the ground and being destroyed before going off. It would mean a radiactively contaminated immediate area, but not anywhere near what happens if that nuke had actually gone off.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
If the EMP is as bad as you say, what do you think will happen to the satellite/inertial guidance systems, and targetting systems within the missiles being launched.
They will fall victim just as fast as our anti ballistic missile system.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
the launch systems would be though in the case of staggered launches, more so than any west coast intercept system, since in theory the intercepts should be closer to the launching territory.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
It may be effective against North Korea and such, where you can have dozens of interceptors for every missile they launch, and the locations they launch from is pretty compact. But Russia, and probably China, you can forget it.
They have multiple reentry vehicle capability, plus they have decoys, plus they have maneuverable warheads to evade an intercptor. But even without all those, they have numbers, and they have huge landmass, and mobile launchers from trucks, trains, submarines. So they can easily overwhelm a defense system. Because with the amounts of missiles they have, they only need to be 5% effective, while our interceptors would need to be 100% effective.
They have multiple reentry vehicle capability, plus they have decoys, plus they have maneuverable warheads to evade an intercptor. But even without all those, they have numbers, and they have huge landmass, and mobile launchers from trucks, trains, submarines. So they can easily overwhelm a defense system. Because with the amounts of missiles they have, they only need to be 5% effective, while our interceptors would need to be 100% effective.
I would tend to agree, but that would only be the case if they shot down the missle near its home territory, and not over the pacific as they have been in tests.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
russia/china launching a nuclear strike is pretty absurd.
I consider these countries of the sort that wish to continue to exist. nuclear strike versus the US would go against that.
Can you try to make sense? The reality is this would be a dumb idea which would be extremely difficult to implement. Its not like it would be easy to stick a radar on the ICBM that could detect an incoming missile in time. If it detects the incoming radar of a missile, it would be extremely easy for the US to fake this in order to get the missiles to blow up. If a unit capable of generating this is close enough to the launch site, they could basically blow these missiles up in the enemy's face. Furthermoe the US doesn't have to worry about kinetic interception anymore and knows that missile units coming remotely close with a powerful radar beam is good enough.
Your logic on "missiles launched at intervals" is increadibly flawed. First of all the satelites providing guidance would suffer as much as anything else. Any issues with the rest of the missile defense system could be fixed just about as quickly. Even more importantly basically any plausible enemy in the near future wouldn't have the option of extended staggered intervals that the missiles are being launched. The US will quickly launch its own nuclear counterattack with ICBMs, which at a minimum are going to target the enemy nuclear weapons sites. The enemy is in a situation where they have to "use it or lose it" and they can't simply send out their weapons over an extended period.
The only exception to this would be Russia which has a comprehensive enough nuclear arsenal to probably have some survive a US counterstrike. However I don't see the point of even trying to build up a missile defense system capable of shooting down all of Russia's still massive nuclear arsenal given there simply isn't a realistic chance of a fullscale nuclear exchange with Russia anytime remotely soon. (We could always change our policies later if the political realities change in the future.)
Warheads. We've actually done a lot to reduce our overall number of missiles. It's either our current amount or current target amount is 1300, or something around there. However, unlike other countries, we know our delivery systems work. I made a comment about Russia earlier, but I guess no one remembers the Russian missile tests a couple of years ago. There was a mixture of failures to launch and launches that went the wrong way.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
wasn't that one of the big scares in Y2K that the russian missiles would all fail and launch?
it is for certain the operational status of much of the russian icbm arsenal is in question, I've seen in articles that some believe the US can obtain a first launch capability against russia now.
anyways that's one of my biggest fears of nuclear attack is a failing russian system, more than them actually launching at us.
Yes, there is definitely a place for USA weapons systems that though inneffective in deterring much of the future Russian nuclear first strike ICBM missile barrage that is definitely coming, will be effective against single ICBM'S launched from turd blossom commie regimes like North Korea.
Beam weaponry in my opinion, is the direction the USA ought to go with regards to countering the future Russian attack. We also need to secure our borders to prevent the implantation of large Russian nuclear weapons under our feet. Combined with finally doing something about the existing networks of Russian, Chinese and other mafias that are occupying America in increasing numbers. Most of whom are just acting as another layer of espionage and black-ops facilitation under the cover of being just criminals.
I must say i'm disappointed in the progress of our missile interceptor technology thus far. There are apparently some very serious obstacles they are trying very hard to overcome. Primarily to do with the fact it's all about shooting a bullet with a bullet.
Shooting a tactical nuke at an incoming ICBM make more sense to me. That would be more like pheasant hunting with a 12 gauge. If it's way out over the Pacific or over the Northern ice cap there's plenty of room for the fallout to dissipate in much less populated areas. We can also perhaps develop a tac-nuke that delivers a neutron or EMP blast that fries a missile's guidance circuitry.
Beam weaponry in my opinion, is the direction the USA ought to go with regards to countering the future Russian attack. We also need to secure our borders to prevent the implantation of large Russian nuclear weapons under our feet. Combined with finally doing something about the existing networks of Russian, Chinese and other mafias that are occupying America in increasing numbers. Most of whom are just acting as another layer of espionage and black-ops facilitation under the cover of being just criminals.
I must say i'm disappointed in the progress of our missile interceptor technology thus far. There are apparently some very serious obstacles they are trying very hard to overcome. Primarily to do with the fact it's all about shooting a bullet with a bullet.
Shooting a tactical nuke at an incoming ICBM make more sense to me. That would be more like pheasant hunting with a 12 gauge. If it's way out over the Pacific or over the Northern ice cap there's plenty of room for the fallout to dissipate in much less populated areas. We can also perhaps develop a tac-nuke that delivers a neutron or EMP blast that fries a missile's guidance circuitry.
Sats are not in the atmosphere. They would not be effected by the EMP. In a nuclear exchange you dont target nuclear sites... They are obviously well entrenched against a nuclear strike... Common sense.
Unless i am sorely mistaken, neither Iran nor NK use sats to guide their missles.
Uh, EMP is most certainly not limited to the atsmosphere! On your second point you are COMPLETELY wrong. During the Cold War the enemy ICBM sites were key targets for the opposing side's nuclear arsenal. During the 1960s its true that the US figured that its nuclear silo sites could survive a nuclear strike because ICBMs couldn't achive a direct hit, but by the 1980s this was clearly no longer true even for the Soviets. The US's Minuteman III missiles can hit within 120 meters of their targets which is quite sufficient to take out fortified launch sites.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/usnukes.html#mmiii
By the way you might want to note how the link includes the observation:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/usnukes.html#mmiii
We can always send a second warhead at the same site just to be sure since its not like we lack the warhead arsenal to manage this. The reason so much emphesis was put onto submarine launched nuclear weapons in the first place was because it was recognized that land based ICBMs could conceivably be taken out with a first strike. (Right now outside of Russia our navy is quite capable of constantly having an attack sub follow any nuclear ballistic submarine while it is at sea and promptly sink it in a wartime scenario. We may be able to do this with Russia as well but its not quite as obvious that we could be certain of being able to always track all of their "boomer" subs while they are at sea.)
Acanthus
You do target enemy nuclear missile silos with your ICBMs, if the probability of their missile being their is higfh enough to spend your shot at it.
Here's a fact most people miss. If "Nation A" initiates a surprise nuclear first strike, that action can actually put themselves at a considerable disadvantage, if their opponent, "Nation B", responds within the ideal window of opportunity to reply with their counterattack. Because "Nation A" has emptied most of it's missile-silos and "Nation B" then switches away from empty targets to still active targets.
If Nation A plans on launching first they will try to decapitate their opponents response capability using every means possible. From what i've read, we could talk all day on just this.
Here's just my conjecture based on what i've learned thus far on this very important subject.
You do target enemy nuclear missile silos with your ICBMs, if the probability of their missile being their is higfh enough to spend your shot at it.
Here's a fact most people miss. If "Nation A" initiates a surprise nuclear first strike, that action can actually put themselves at a considerable disadvantage, if their opponent, "Nation B", responds within the ideal window of opportunity to reply with their counterattack. Because "Nation A" has emptied most of it's missile-silos and "Nation B" then switches away from empty targets to still active targets.
If Nation A plans on launching first they will try to decapitate their opponents response capability using every means possible. From what i've read, we could talk all day on just this.
Yeah, i retract my earlier statement, i honestly though our silos had been upgraded since the 1970s.
Ummmmmm, because NORAD knew they were hijacked half an hour before they even reached NYC for 400, Alex! The fact that military planes couldn't get scrambled within minutes over the most important city in the country is a fine indication of the quality of our homeland security.
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