How would the prospect of global nuclear war change if missile defense systems grew in technology?

Currently, there are no missile defense that can effectively stop a major countries entire nuclear arsenal. But what if this changed in a decade? In that case, there would not be a threat of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear weapons, and all other missiles, would be useless against countries that possessed advanced missile defense systems.

How would this change the outlook of WWIII, were it to ever happen?

 

You are not wrong in stating this would - effectively - render nuclear missiles more or less useless, and the threat of MAD would be severely weakened. It entirely depends on who gains this technology first, and whether or not they choose to utilise it. If the Russian Federation gained such technology before the US does, it would ruin MAD for the US, as Russia would suddenly gain immunity from that doctrine, giving them free reign to deploy their missiles with very little consequences (potentially).

This does, however, depend on the potential of this technology. If it could intercept and destroy incoming missiles at an orbital or atmospheric level, it is possible that any negative effects would be negated, however, if this interception method was below the atmospheric level, it is possible the effects of the ICBM could actually be worsened. Radiation is radiation and nuclear arsenals are absolutely no joke - air detonation would perhaps do as much, if not less, as damage as a planned explosion. If the ICBM could not be intercepted in the atmosphere, the actual objective of stopping the missile is perhaps inconsiderable to the damage still done.

So, let's assume we have the perfect playground. Both nations have atmospheric-level defence systems. Both nations can stop a nuclear attack, no matter its form of deployment. Now what?

Firstly, the MAD doctrine would not cease to be, as both nations are still enormously powerful with great militaristic potential. It would, regardless, be severely weakened. Most likely, we would see an increase in traditional warfare, rather than proxy wars. It would change the outlook of WW3 entirely, as with the threat of total annihilation eradicated, we would perhaps see very heavy-footed diplomacy from 'superpower' nations, which could eventually lead to a war. The attitudes toward the war would also be changed - as with a strong air force and army, people would feel much safer due to their missile defence systems, and feel much more comfortable entering a major war (though still, of course, not comfortable, but much more so) despite not actually being safer, as MAD has secured peace and stopped major conflicts since 1949, people would still feel safer.

The inevitable result would be an over sense of confidence and willingness to enter another major war, despite another major war with conventional weapons probably being a worse case scenario than tactical nuclear detonation. Nukes may wipe out a city, but the continued bombing of a city with conventional weaponry will demoralise, destroy and ruin any hope of future progress. Nukes may do the same thing, but you can cripple a nation economically and financially by conventional bombing rather than "let's just delete them from history" if you really want to win a war, end it and then make the other country suffer for another 50 years. Britain, for example, didn't end rationing until the early 50s, almost a decade after the war ended. Its economy still hasn't recovered today. British industry was effectively ruined, and London today still spends millions uncovering and detonating unexploded bombs from WW2.

 

Let's say they invented missile turrets like this one...

https://goo.gl/images/05HKp3

Except that they could be mounted on trucks to be mobile. I think this is similar to the THAAD system being deployed to South Korea. These can shoot down aircraft, missiles, as well as shoot at objects on the Earth like tanks.

Then what? Let's say that all countries on Earth had these on every inch of their border.

Would we see a return to ground troops and trench warfare? It would be like going back in time to WWI.

Oh yea, and they shoot lasers. Lol.

 

So essentially a more effective THAAD?

I don't think we'd be seeing a return to trench warfare, but definitely more traditionalist warfare types, absolutely. I highly suggest you read a post I've written on a similar topic here.

 

What type of traditional warfare?

Do you have a link to the post?

 

Nuclear weapons could still be used as what would happen is they would use nuclear shells fired from artillery.

There is also nuclear torpedo's that would be used against ship's at sea. On top of this there is the threat of something like a bunch of suitcase nukes being used in the big city's.

 

There is absolutely no system that is 100% effective. And ultimately there are ways to defeat any system, if you know how it operates.

As for THAAD, it was never designed to defend against ICBMs, it is only really effective up to Intermediate Range missiles.

The closest thing we have to a system to defend against ICBMs is AEGIS Ashore. But I can not see this ever being used in the US. It would be so expensive and would require essentially rebuilding a system at least as extensive as the old NIKE system. And I can't see us ever paying for that and agreeing to that much of a manpower expansion.

And not only ICMBs would be a threat. Conventional bombers can still carry nukes also, and can easily find ways to get through almost any defense put up.

 

Ah, but there are other ways of delivering nuclear bombs..
For example teams carrying suitcase-nukes could be landed by rubber boats from subs on any shoreline in the world and fan out to place them on time fuses iin every major city.
it's not a new idea, the nazis landed saboteur teams in America from U-boats in WW2.
WIKI- "On the night of 12 June 1942.....the team came ashore....brought their explosives, primers and incendiaries, and buried them along with their uniforms, and put on civilian clothes to begin an expected two-year campaign in the sabotage of American defense-related production"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

 

"Suitcase nukes" are a fantasy. They really only exist in bad spy novels as a Macguffin.

And why go to all that effort, when you can simply load bigger nukes into cargo containers, and have them delivered directly to where you want them to go?

 

ABM systems do not cause the enemy warhead to detonate; the radiation from the materials in the warhead is minuscule compared to an actual detonation. Interception outside the atmosphere poses the same problem as the destroyed warhead will still re-enter, with the radioactive bits falling to the ground.

 

1- If you google "suitcase nukes" you'll see pics like below. Governments say they haven't got any, but they would say that wouldn't they? Their advantage is that a dozen terrorists could easily easily smuggle them far inland and detonate them simultaneously on time fuses, and it'd be goodbye to city centres everywhere-





2- Yes, a cargo ship could carry a single big nuke into any port, so the Coastguard better be on their toes when muslims get their hands on nukes..

 

Military secretes and technology are most fleeting. Every offense and defense means becomes non-effective soon enough. Think about when the first castle or cannon was deployed. The users must have felt invincible for a while. Submarine was a formidable weapon for a while. Then destroyer and depth charge were invented.

The driver of a war is greed-fear combination. The imperialism of Europe produced some winners among them, acquiring a lot resources of the world. As the world conquest was nearing the completion, the left-out European nations, like Italy and Germany, feared the winners. That precipitated the World Wars. After the fierce destruction they have learned to live in cooperative coexistence; they have shaded their greed and fear against each other.

A child is born with basic needs. As long as the needs are met, it does not acquire fear. But as we grow, our life gives pains, and we start acquiring fear. Greed is fear of not having enough for future. That cannot be helped. But the huge contributing fact is that the world we live in is greedy and mean. That creates fear. As long as mankind lives with pride and greed, there will be wars. Man is learning, but slowly. Technology has outrun its wisdom. It will probably take devastating destruction before we learn. Not only our politics, but our commerce is also extremely greedy. That creates fear in the downtrodden. In the game of greed all involved lose.

The large international coalition showed us in the Desert Storm war that conquering each other has gone out of fashion. But humanity has not learned to tame it commercial greed. We still want dominate the world for material gains. USA created such an Invisible Empire after the World Wars. Communism is inherently expansive. And rogue nations are born out of greed for power.

 

Good God, you are using a photo of Peter Pry to show what a suitcase nuke would look like?

OK, can I stop laughing yet?

How about now, can I stop laughing?

That thing was an absolute joke, and absolutely nobody but nutcases on Conspiracy Theory sites thinks it could really work. Of course, this is the same guy that claims a single nuke would release an unstoppable EMP pulse that would wipe out half of the electronics in the country.

He is a pure and simple alarmist, and not to be taken seriously at all.

As an FYI, the smallest "backpack nuke" ever built was the H-912, basically the warhead pulled form the old Davy Crockett atomic 120mm recoiless rifle. It weighed over 100 pounds, was almost the size of a trash can, and was a whopping .19 kilotons. There have been over a dozen conventional explosions that have been more powerful than that.

 

But mate, it's a fact that miniaturised atomic bombs were being made over 60 years ago (see photos below), so it's quite feasible that they're being made even smaller today..

The Davy Crockett rocket-fired nuclear bomb-


Atomic artillery shell-

 

Uhhh, did I not just talk about the Davy Crockett in the post you quoted? It had a yield of .19 kiloton, something else I just said.

They are not being made smaller. Even the DC barely had enough fissible material to detonate, any smaller and it would have been a fizzle.

And trust me, there is absolutely no way that 800+ pound atomic artillery round is going to be put into a suitcase. Notice it takes a crane to move it into position, with 2 men turning the crank. That thing is about as portable as a motorcycle with no wheels.

Good luck strapping a Honda GL1000 onto your back and lugging it somewhere.

 

How much does the warhead inside the shell weigh?

 

That's ancient 1950's history mate; you're too trusting if you think modern governments haven't secretly come up with smaller lighter nuke bombs by now that can be carried around in a kiddies lunch box..

 

It is science.

First of all, it is an atomic (fission) reaction, not a nuclear (fusion) one. And what you are looking for is critical mass.

Unless you have an amount of fissile material that exceeds the critical mass to allow for the fission reaction to start, you will never have anything.

For uranium, that is around 114 pounds. Trust me, there is absolutely no way you are going to shove 114 pounds of uranium into a child's lunchbox.

Trust me, there is no way to get around the laws of physics.

Now granted, there is one way, to make an implosion type of device. By using explosive lenses you can raise the pressure and heat, therefore you need less fissile material. But that apparatus is even larger and heavier than the uranium that is replaced.

So please, find me a scientific explanation for making a lunchbox sized nuke, and I will be glad to listen.

 

Lunchbox? No.
Backpack? Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

 

*sigh*

How many times do I have to say that it existed, and that I have specifically mentioned it in here?

A device that weighed well over 100 pounds, was the size of a trash can, and had a blast that only measured 0.19kt?

And it has absolutely no shielding, and is "dirty" as hell.



I would be much more worried about somebody making a large ANFO bomb than I would of something like this.

 

That's the SADM, in operational guise, for insertion by parachue behind enemy lines. The warhead inside it is not that big and not that heavy; if you were not worried about all the things you need to worry about when you area military planning to use it operationally, you need not worry about all that size and weight - the weapon itself is not much larger than the laser printer in my office.
Note that the W54 warhead could be set to produce a 1kt yield.

The ANFO bomb is not "dirty as hell" and doesn't terrorize people like a nuke does.

 

The advantage of baby nukes is- small size, but big bang..
For example something the size of this atomic shell could easily be transported in a terrorists van or motorboat, whereas a whole fleet of trucks would be needed to carry 15 thousand tons of TNT..

 

Do some research, will you?

Tell us, what is the critical mass of Uranium?

The SADM was modified from the W54, it was not an W54 warhead.

I know ANFO is not, it is a conventional explosive. What I mean by dirty is that the SADM has no shielding, so is easily picked up by any radiation detector. There would be no way to hide that thing.

And ANFO does not terrorize people? Talk to the people in Oklahoma City sometime then.

 

Heh.
The W54 is implosion plutonium device, and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds.

And...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
What's your point?

There's lots of places along our border that do not have radiation detectors.

People are more afraid of what they can't see.
The equivalent of 20-1000 tons of TNT going off, coupled with the radiation hazard, will make OKC look like a walk in the park.

 

OK, now what exactly are we talking about?

Are we talking about a device that the United States or Russia could make, or are we talking about a device that some Nuclear Blackmail type nation like North Korea or Iran could make?

Because if you are talking about making an implosion type Plutonium device, only a handful of nations are aware to even come close to making that kind of weapon (France, UK, Russia, China, US). India can not do it, Pakistan can not do it, North Korea can not do it, Iran can not do it. In fact, of the last 4 I listed, 2 of them appear to be having major problems even processing and refining Uranium, let alone Plutonium.

And the Koreans have also had a lot of problems with fizzles, as well as under-yield tests. That tends to be one of several things. Either a failure to achieve critical mass (not enough material or impurities), or improper lensing if an implosion type device (or a combination of the two).

Not really.

Any entry point that has trucks pass through them has them in place now, as do our International Ports. More and more truck weigh stations on the highways have them as well. These detectors are able to also pick up conventional explosives in addition to radiation.

Oh, and these detectors are in place in at least some INS checkpoints.