|
United States24805 Posts
This talk recently about whether or not the USA could repel an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) got me thinking about exactly how you would destroy such a weapon. Around the world there are several systems that attempt to perform similar functions, but I have no idea if any of them are actually feasible for hitting something traveling at 18,000 miles per hour (29000 kph). I know Israel has had success repelling small-scale rocket attacks from Gaza: they predict the impact point of rockets mid-flight and intercept the ones that are headed near cities.
I can think of at least three ways to prevent a potentially nuke-equipped ICBM launched from North Korea aimed at the west coast of the United States (although with the way West Coast TL users make fun of us East Coast TL users I'm not sure we should intercept the missiles at all) from reaching its target. I don't think there is an immediate threat of this based on what we know about North Korea, but if nothing else it's an interesting thing to think about.
The first is something I'm pretty sure already is being worked on, and is at least partially operational. From the west coast, an anti-ballistic missile is launched to strike the incoming warhead. This is extremely difficult to pull off given the speeds, geometry, and other factors. According to Wikipedia there is an installation in Alaska that uses a kinetic projectile (as opposed to one that gains thrust from fuel) for such a purpose. If explosives are added to the projectile, the precision needed drops so long as the timing of the detonation is well timed. How we track the incoming missile well enough to pull any of this off I have no idea, but I know it is being worked on.
The second is to attempt to intercept the missile shortly after launch. Through a combination of satellite observation and other observational equipment in the region (such as in South Korea) it is possible to identify when an ICBM is being launched... after all it is just a slightly smaller version of a space shuttle launch. An attack from a nearby ship might be able to catch the missile before it gains sufficient altitude and speed to be unreachable by weaponry that can be installed to a ship/sub/nearby country. Blowing it up over North Korea would probably be the best case scenario. If laser weaponry comes along quickly enough, perhaps it would shine (ha) in such a situation.
The third is to launch a large missile from a location roughly along the path an ICBM would be likely to travel. With proper timing, and an ICBM that's designed to travel slightly faster (with shorter range) than an incoming one, perhaps a large missile could 'chase' the other missile from behind. Tracking something from behind is much easier than intercepting it from in front, or the side, as such speeds. However, a missile capable of traveling that fast would be very difficult to maneuver, even the small amounts necessary to track from such a position. If a nuclear warhead was used however, the distance between the target and the interceptor wouldn't have to be reduced as much. I don't know what the fallout of a high-altitude nuclear explosion over the Pacific would be, but it might be preferable to a nuclear explosion three feet over the city center in San Francisco or Seattle.
The nice thing about these three ideas is that none of them are mutually exclusive. You can attempt to intercept the missile at launch, attempt to intercept it with a similar ICBM launched at an intermediate location (maybe Japan?), and attempt to intercept it with an anti-ballistic missile launched from the target location's region (California, Alaska, etc).
I hope that all of these ideas have been given careful consideration, and working technology is coming along nicely. Who knows... we might need it some day.
|
If the ICBM was hit through option 1 or 2, would there still be nuclear fallout?
(Newb here)
|
United States24805 Posts
On March 17 2013 13:51 NationInArms wrote:
If the ICBM was hit through option 1 or 2, would there still be nuclear fallout?
(Newb here)
I guess that depends on how it was designed by the country that launched it, but I'd guess no. The system that is used to detonate the bomb would not work if it was destroyed by an explosion/impact. It's not like dynamite where it would add to an explosion. There would be a little bit of nuclear debris, but nothing like what would be created by the chain reaction.
|
Regardless if its a ICBM or rockets from a MRLS flying at thousands of kilometers per second, having to hit these warheads with another missile at the right trajectory is extremely difficult. If the intercepting projectile hit the rocket but not the warhead head-on will there be sufficient energy to actually detonate it?
Honestly, there's nothing really practical until we fully develop a more precise intercept system like a high-powered laser or small smart projectiles. There's also thought of intercepting a nuclear warhead at the wrong time or location, all that fallout would still cause collateral damage.
Just want to say I don't want to start an argument of American military assets and the lot. But some of the statistics for systems like Israels Iron Dome and the US's PATRIOT seems faulty, just fabricated to receive more funding.
|
I don't know that much but I was under the impression that the current projectile interception systems are extremely accurate and precise. It's definitely extremely difficult to intercept such projectiles but I thought the systems in place (including Iron Dome and PATRIOT) were very much capable of hitting them. You're probably right though. Hmmm.
|
Hong Kong9180 Posts
It's a matter of proportionality, AEGIS and the land-based system should be able to defend against the one or so ballistic missiles sent over from North Korea assuming that ever happened. No current ABM system, or even those known to be in development, can ever hope to defend against massive first-strike launch by competent Tier 1 nuclear nations.
Only the threat of retaliatory launch and second-strike capability can deter effectively, assuming the opponent nation is rational.
|
Every time the US has worked on a project like this, the Russians have threatened us and said it would be considered "an act of war." This has a lot to do with the fact that if we had an ABM system, there would a major change in the balance of world power, because we could, in theory, launch missiles against them and they could not retaliate with their own missile launch.
This is a good article on wikipedia about the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_II
|
Hong Kong9180 Posts
The land-based missile systems Russia has been complaining about simply cannot defend against the kinds of actual thermonuclear exchange that can be initiated by that country. They are simply blustering about for show in order to establish domestic legitimacy.
|
Another possibility is a laser, and there have been experimental lasers attached to jets as a trial. The idea is that you heat up the missile until it explodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
Operational costs and technological difficulties make it sort of a futuristic option, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
