Missiles shields the truth?

Why would you do something as foolish as that?

Are you not aware that our ICBMs have had the capability to be launched remotely from aircraft since 1968?

The Launch Control Center is also a bunker deep underground. So assuming you are correct, somebody pounds it with a couple of nukes and takes it out.

Then a Navy E-6 (military version of the Boeing 707) known as "Looking Glass" then takes over, and can fire any or all missiles remotely.

 

This is basically an extension of the Nike program (this was the culmination of the Nike-X program). The technology at that time simply did not exist to make missile on missile kills, so like the Nike Hercules and Nike Zeus before it, it relied upon a small nuclear explosion to take out the target. That way it only had to be reasonably close, not to actually "touch" the incoming warhead.

With the advances over the last 30 years, such weapons are no longer useful. We have proven the capability to intercept missiles and aircraft with kinetic kills, so using nukes to kill nukes is obsolete.

 

Missile shields are easy to overwhelm with lots and lots of missiles.

And a few of the BM's will get through anyway just due to the law of averages.

In Israel with Saddam was lobbing missiles at Israel it was easy to shoot them all down. There was still debris damage since the laws of physics say that an object in motion will stay in motion -- and on target.

The same thing will probably happen in Seoul if Kim J.U. launches missiles against the S.Koreans.

 

That assumes you have ballistic missiles (and most especially the nuclear warheads) to waste on overwhelming missile defenses.

Incidentally, the Sprint ABMs with their 5 megaton warheads had an interesting safety feature in case they missed an incoming ICBM warhead.

The heat on their noses as they plunged back toward Earth caused the warhead inside to deform in a manner that prevented them from detonating upon
impact with the ground.

 

We don't use the word "assumes".

Try "presupposes" next time.

 

This actually goes back to the ideas of limited nuclear exchange (battlefield) verses an all-out strike (global thermonuclear war).

In the first, the concept was that it would be limited to Theater Based weapons, like the Pershing series. 20-200 kt yield, no more than a few directly in the battlefield. The idea was in this scenario the weapons would only be used on the battlefield (central Europe), and exchanges would not escalate to direct exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

But in an all-out nuclear war, then pretty much everything would be set off at once, and no holding back. Bombers released from fail-safe points, Carrier based aircraft loading their nukes and taking off for targets, and all nukes in silos launched. A few submarines launching at close in targets, while the rest silently loiter to pick off any further targets designated that survived the initial salvos.

The problem is that there is really no way to ever make a real "shield". To many targets, to much land to protect. That is why in the Soviet-Russian system, they only concentrate on a single point, protecting Moscow (prior to ABM they also protected key military facilities).

The US with NIKE was a bit more wide spread. They also protected key military bases, but as well large population centers. This is an interesting part of our past, and one that most do not even know about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nike_missile_sites

Growing up in LA, I frequently played in the Sepulveda Flood Basin in the early 1970's. And I do remember going to the fence sometimes at what looked like a National Guard armory and watching the soldiers inside do their work. I even saw them sometimes going down hatches underground. It was not until many years later that I realized that was a NIKE launch facility, with live nukes ready to fire.

http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/nike/sites/la-96l.php

And a few years ago when I lived in Fairfield, there was a similar site about a mile from my house. The RADAR for that was a mile or so up the hill. Most people really have no idea how many of those were scattered around the country. There are 2 open still as museums, in case anybody wants to visit one. SF-88 is just north of the Golden Gate Bridge outside of San Francisco, and I have visited it many times. The other is in Sandy Hook, New Jersey (it was part of the New York defensive system).

 

To be fair, to make a serious dent in a massive nuclear strike (1,000 ballistic missiles carrying 3-5,000 warheads) you need orbital boost phase missile defenses.

Probably energy weapon based.

 

With current technology very difficult. However, with future tech maybe.

In WWII, there was the idea "the bomber will always get through". This is due to by the time you detect bombers, there will be too much bearing on you in vast numbers. However, with the invention radars and AAM missiles, you can intercept bombers before they reach their targets. That is why in the 50s there was this fighter-interceptor race. Then ICBM was designed to counter that.

You have to create a radar powerful enough to lock on an enemy ICBM with your own missile interceptor in space before it gets close to you. Previous methods where ineffective because the missiles would bearing on you, you can intercept so much before a warhead his your city.

Victory doesn't come with a shield, but a point of the sword. Russia isn't that worried about just a shield for any shield can be countered with enough strikes. However, if US launches first strike with SLBMs, Russia's surviving arsenal may not be enough to pierce the shield.

Remember Russia's missile submarines are only on patrol 1-2 at sea not their full force. Their silos based ICBMs and road-mobile ICBMs bases are all mapped on satellite.

 

The Russians must have very little faith in their early warning systems to think there is a real chance the U.S. could carry out a successful disarming first strike.

 

You have just correctly described MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - which kept peace during the cold war.
Only a few light-headed generals on either side believe a first strike would work.

 

The problem is first strike is always on the table. The US doctrine has always been counterforce rather than countervalue on civilian targets. This is why US SSBNs patrol near Europe rather than near USA.

Russia isn't going to launch it's remaining arsenal to destroy the US because US destroyed silos hidden in rather unpopulated areas.

 

I didn't think the current Ohio class SSBNs patrolled near anywhere.

 

Ohio's surfaced near Scotland when Russian escalated tensions last couple years.
https://www.google.com/amp/freebeac...r-missile-submarine-surfaces-in-scotland/amp/

Russia fears the US deeply because of this. The SATAN 2 and their Nuclear doomsday torpedo are reminders of the horrible damage Russia can inflict even with a first strike and a good missile defense. However, they are propaganda above anything, their days as a superpower are over.

 

The 'first strike' is not likely to come from a power like Russia. It's going to come from nutcases like Iran, Pakistan, or some other failed state.

And, ECM doesn't have to rely on distant missile delivery systems any more, so that tactical thinking is on the way out; it will be a different world in 10-15 years with the new technologies being brought on line.

The 'iron dome' used in Israel is effective against medium range missiles, and is very effective at stopping most mass attacks, and the few that get through occasionally are not hitting any important areas; the main targets are very well protected. They also learn from those that got through and adjust accordingly; you never know if they let a few get through just to keep its real capabilities a secret. Just because a system isn't 150% effective doesn't make it a 'failure' and useless as nothing at all, in any case. It will work in South Korea and other small region quite well.

The main concern with such effective systems is if the side that has them becomes unstable for whatever reason if some nut jobs gets in power they may take that advantage and go on the offense.

At then end of the day, it's still best to take the other side out first, period; all the endless whining and sniveling about 'fairness n stuff' can come later.

 

Iron dome is for rockets and artillery. For missiles it's the Arrow that is used.

 

Aren't the Arrow and Patriot systems closely related?

 

Patriot was designed more for aircraft rather than ballistic missiles. Israelis made the Arrow to get better capability against a potential attack from Iran.

 

It's capabilities are constantly being tweaked, experimented with, and expanded; if it isn't already integrated with the longer range missile defense systems, which is highly unlikely, it will be soon.

 

The Tamir was being tested by U.S. Army people in Israel last year with Iron Dome; it's only $40,000 and the performance is more than adequate. I haven't checked on the latest updates about that; it's a jointly produced missile, forgot by which companies.

 

To the OP.
In real life, nuclear weapons are extremely finicky and delicate devices. The conventional high explosive triggers have to detonate very precisely. Something they are not going to do after being hit by an interceptor missile and tumbling uncontrolled to the ground miles below.

And even if they had a "salvage fuse" that was able to detonate them after an ABM hit, they will most certainly be miles away from their original target.

Needless to say it is much better for a 300 kiloton warhead to detonate 20 miles from Los Angeles than over the city proper. The difference is the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

Can it deflect a couple missiles from a rogue state, if it can that is enough, such a launch would be an act of war with a WMD even if shot down allowing us to respond and it would be devastating we are still the only globally projecting superpower, no one else is. Smash into pieces comes to mind.

 

depends if our early warning satellites are actually watching for a launch.

Contrary to public belief, our satellites do not scan the whole Earth. By and large satellites can only detect something they are looking for in the first place.

Which is why entire fleets of ships on the ocean can avoid satellite detection.

 

Modern interceptor missiles don't explode to deflect warheads, they smash them in space by colliding against them. So a missile moving that fast against another piece of metal is going to completely obliterate the warhead, it's not going anywhere near earth besides debris burning up in the atmosphere.

 

AWACS and similar aircraft are the eyes in place in hot zones, and they are very effective at early warning, as are other aircraft and some naval assets. Iron Dome is fully integrated with all the other Israeli defense systems. It will soon be indistinguishable as a separate tactical system; it already is indistinguishable in many areas.

 

The "high explosive" I was referring to was not in ABMs but in nuclear warheads themselves. Fusion warheads require fission explosion triggers to generate the extreme heat for fusion to be initiated. And those fission devices require conventional explosive triggers to compress the fissionable material to a point it acquires critical mass and detonates.

If the conventional explosive fires out of sequence or incompletely (something that has happened occasionally when U.S. bombers carrying nuclear bombs crashed and burned) then the fission triggers won't detonate which means the fusion warhead won't detonate)