What happens to the fallout if a nuclear missle is intercepted?

[Anonemous]

More likely the NK rocket will fail somewhere above China/Russia on it's way to the U.S.

 

[Bateluer]

I think Vdubchaos is a little confused. Missile defense screens have been developed since the 1950s, and systems of the last 20 years are very effective. We've been designing them to target and drop the ordnance fired from nations who are technically competent, like Russia. If we can take out a Russian ICBM reliably, its not even going to be an issue taking down a NK regional missile.

 

[TridenT]

An intercepted warhead is unlikely to denonate as a nuclear explosion. An interception might ignite the warhead in a conventional explosion/fire spreading plutonium and uranium ash. It will likely rain down on the southern hemisphere where no one important lives anyway.


How long and how far ash might spread depends on particle size and is very difficult to estimate. Finer ash = longer time in the atmosphere and farther travel distance.

This.

An intercepted warhead is very unlikely to go off. (Why? Because they're made to detonate when they arrive at their target!)

 

[AznAnarchy99]

When are we bombing already? We hit Iraq thinking they had WMDs. NK is threatening to hit us with WMDs and we're like "mehhh".

 

[IronWing]

When are we bombing already? We hit Iraq thinking they had WMDs. NK is threatening to hit us with WMDs and we're like "mehhh".

Iraq had stuff Bush, Cheney, and company wanted to steal. NK is running out of dirt.

 

[sdifox]

When are we bombing already? We hit Iraq thinking they had WMDs. NK is threatening to hit us with WMDs and we're like "mehhh".

no oil :whiste:

 

[Brovane]

Translation: it's not difficult to shot a bullet out of the sky

It's VERY difficult. Matter a fact it's so difficult that such technology has never really been very successful.

BUT plenty of money has been pulled from American public during Cold War and NOW for such "failed projects".

American's don't seem to mind. It gives us that sense of security. Our politicians and corporations know VERY well that there is a HUGE market for that.

What would be your criteria for success? Iron Dome for the Israeli's seemed very succesful at hitting a bullet with a bullet.

 

[Rakehellion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlWCcqyPD1s

 

[Brovane]

Congrats, I saw that on Reddit too.

I wouldn't entrust millions of lives to the Patriot system. It's OK as a last-resort defense system after all else fails, but the best safeguard is to prevent them from launching missiles in the first place. Plus it can only intercept at lower altitudes, not the higher altitudes that a good ICBM flies at (hundreds or thousands of miles above sea level).

A true MDB system is multi-layered. Also different missiles have different threat envelopes and speeds of travel.

Rockets Defense - Systems like Iron Dome. Which Israeli did a great job at showing how this could work in the real world. HAMAS was nice enough to provide the targets for this demonstration.

Tactical Missile Defense. These missiles travel less than 3000 mph. Systems like the Patriot and Russian S-300V are ABM systems in this category.

Theather Missile Defense. These missiles travel less than 6700mph. Deployed Defensive systems are the Israeli Arrow System, US THAAD and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System also the Russian S-400 system can intercept missiles in this category.

Strategic Missile Defense. This is the long range ICBM's which can be coming in at 17,500 mph. Deployed systems are the Russian A-135 and the US Ground-Bases Mid-Course Defense system.

Sometimes people mix-up the different ABM systems. A patriot isn't really effective agains the faster in-bound missiles. However some of the Theather Missile Defense System can be effective against a stragetic missile like a a ICBM. For example if a THAAD does have some limited effectivness against a ICBM but the ICBM has to be inbound fairly near it's setup location so a THAAD cannot protect a large area. However the Mid-Course system in theory can protect a large area of the US.

For Tactical and Theather missile defense the systems can work fairly effectivelly. The Patriot system in Gulf War 2 was fairly effective at shooting down SCUDS. In Gulf War 1 the system wasn't mature enough and wasn't nearly as effective.

The strategic system is where a lot of the argument seems to be around but people mix up the different systems. Just because Strategic level ABM doesn't work real well doesn't mean that Theather or Tactical doesn't work. Both the THAAD and Aegis defense system's have racked up a lot of sucesses in testing. The Mid-course system has had a lot more issues. Considering the complexity of a Strategic system this is understandable. However to say that ABM money is wasted beause we don't have a really effective Strategic system is disingenous. Considering that the Mid-course system is one of several ABM systems the US is developing. Also at the strategic level you are dealing with a lot more classified material. Performance of ICBM's, decoy systems etc are classified material for countries that posess such systems. Also the performance of said ABM systems to shoot down the ICBM's has many classified parts. So realistically we just don't have all the information.

 

[DrPizza]

You didn't read the thread, did you? That's not a strike plan. That's propaganda. It's like looking on a map and saying, I'm going to hit New York.

A strike plan would actually have missile trajectories and force movements. Those aren't trajectories. They're straight lines on a map. Which, BTW, is not how flying vehicles work.

They are if the map is a mercator projection.

 

[Ichinisan]

no oil :whiste:

Where's all this oil we got from Iraq?

 

[exdeath]

Lay off the news.

Whatever happens happens, it's out of your control/don't worry about it.

Don't let our fucked up media possess you with fear....

PS. also chances of a missle interseptions are VERY slim. US has tried for years and many test were failures (but they do a great job to assure public they can shut down anything in the sky). Think about it, they are telling you they can shut down a bullet that's going hundreds/if not thousands of miles an hour from the sky (with another bullet). Chances are slim (but I'm sure it's possible).

Most missile defense systems are just another way to extract money from public > corporations.

Guess you've never seen Phalanx, SM3, or EKV in action.

I've held morter and 155mm artillery rounds shot down and riddled with 20mm rounds. BULLETS shot down with bullets, not even missiles or rockets.

 

[Mixolydian]

Where's all this oil we got from Iraq?

yeah!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Where's all this oil we got from Iraq?

Powering the gas guzzling military SUVs. :biggrin: hopefully when they get back there will be a quarter tank left.

 

[sdifox]

Guess you've never seen Phalanx, SM3, or EKV in action.

I've held morter and 155mm artillery rounds shot down and riddled with 20mm rounds. BULLETS shot down with bullets, not even missiles or rockets.

I doubt they can handle ICBMs though.

 

[Vdubchaos]

What would be your criteria for success? Iron Dome for the Israeli's seemed very succesful at hitting a bullet with a bullet.

Here you go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21751766

We paid for that too. Not sure why.

I think Vdubchaos is a little confused. Missile defense screens have been developed since the 1950s, and systems of the last 20 years are very effective. We've been designing them to target and drop the ordnance fired from nations who are technically competent, like Russia. If we can take out a Russian ICBM reliably, its not even going to be an issue taking down a NK regional missile.

Just because your government says they have a missile defense system, doesn't mean it actually works.

Missile defense systems have been a failure for Decades....and they continue to be. Until public actually gives a shit, our "future" money will continue to be funneled thru to their buddies in big corps.

This doesn't apply to missile defense ONLY either. This applies to just about every war fought past 30-40 years. Most people say "we fight for freedom".....the reality is, they just take the money from public and funnel it to corps in the name of "fear".

Yet we continue fighting useless/worthless wars and the results are always the same.

To make things even MORE interesting, we actually are LOSING our freedom AND rights during all this time.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Here you go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21751766

We paid for that too. Not sure why.



Just because your government says they have a missile defense system, doesn't mean it actually works.

Missile defense systems have been a failure for Decades....and they continue to be. Until public actually gives a shit, our "future" money will continue to be funneled thru to their buddies in big corps.

This doesn't apply to missile defense ONLY either. This applies to just about every war fought past 30-40 years. Most people say "we fight for freedom".....the reality is, they just take the money from public and funnel it to corps in the name of "fear".

Yet we continue fighting useless/worthless wars and the results are always the same.

To make things even MORE interesting, we actually are LOSING our freedom AND rights during all this time.

LOL Thanks I was having trouble shitting this morning :biggrin:

 

[_Rick_]

To properly intercept ICBMs, you have to intercept them in the boost phase. Once they're in the re-entry face, interception becomes much harder, as you have 12-16 times the number of targets, and they're actually more maneuverable than the actual missile. Half those targets aren't even equipped with warheads, so intercepting them is pointless - except you don't know which is which.
Closing speed is hypersonic. Warheads are hardened against EM pulses and atmospheric re-entry. The most likely means of interception is a close-proximity nuclear explosion (within a hundred meters, for best results). This is likely to trigger a massive EMP, and will take off-line your missile defense system. With conventional warheads, the required precision is much higher, I would wildly guess within a few meters, at most. This requires precise tracking, guidance and high energy reserves for the closing move, to counteract evasive maneuvers. Also, your system has to be resistant to enemy EMP, specifically the warhead, but also the ground stations for guidance, tracking and control.

The problem with boost-phase interception is, that the interceptor has to be in the air before the launch, or be launched simultaneously, from very close by. This almost renders it equal to an anti-force first strike, as your assets have to be in position and on a hair trigger, to intercept. This requires massive reconnaissance effort, to cover all launch sites, and a massive air- and sea-borne force, in permanent readiness and extreme proximity to the territory from which you expect launches.
In the case of NK, this is rather feasible, if they had a significant ballistic missile capability, but in the case of China, it would be impossible to pull off.

This is, why it's so tempting to put your warheads into orbit during peacetime. You can use them both to intercept ICBMs during the boost phase, and you can drop nukes on your enemy, without having to actually launch anything.

Also, comparing an ICBM intercept to a Scud intercept is rather generous. Scuds are "slow" "low-altitude" medium range (<2000 km) missiles, that give plenty of warning time, and face atmospheric drag for most of the flight phase. They're equipped with single warheads, and I suspect have low terminal maneuverability. Their warhead is designed to detonate on/close to impact, where a MIRV will usually aim to detonate at 200-1000 meter altitude. a Lucky CIWS might be able to take a Scud apart in terminal, but I'm not sure if the system can even track a Mach 8+ MIRV.
Similarly, most tactical intercept systems probably scan for launches inside the theater, and are unlikely to even detect a MIRV, which will usually approach from around 45°, at "radar infinity".
The flight envelope of a MIRV basically prescribes the use of a dedicated defense system, and the demands to those are barely being met by current implementations.
On the other hand, defending against significantly sub-orbital missiles with only single warheads, is significantly easier, especially if they require a direct hit to inflict the required damage.

 

[Number1]

LOL Thanks I was having trouble shitting this morning :biggrin:

He thinks he is in a P&N thread.

I find people like him insufferable and that why I stay out of P&N.

 

[Agent11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

Too bad this project was ended, would be perfect for NK.

 

[sdifox]

They killed the airborne chemical laser? shame

 

[JEDIYoda]

I wonder if Obama will defy every peace treaty like Bush and nuke North Korea if it comes down to it. We all know black presidents have bigger wangs than white presidents. Except Clinton.

I wonder if you know how to start your own thread???

 

[Brovane]

Here you go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21751766

We paid for that too. Not sure why.

So a professor without access to all the data makes a conclusion that it doesn't work and you fully believe his conclusion as fact now?

 

[Saint Nick]

Lots of interesting stuff ITT guys, thanks.