Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DanielNoWrite t1_iymaf30 wrote

Possible? Sure.

Likely? Absolutely not.

Reliably intercepting even existing ICBMs is a ridiculously difficult engineering challenge. The damn things are travelling at 4 or 5 miles/second through space, they can fragment into multiple independent reentry vehicles complete with decoys. Stopping even one is a challenge, even when we know in advance it will be launched. Stopping a full attack is crazy.

Added to this, if the technology somehow was developed to stop ICBMs, there are plenty of other delivery systems existing or in development..

It's likely that offense will have the advantage over defense for the foreseeable future, and even if that changes, the cost of a single bomb getting through is so high, no one will ever willingly to bet on their interception systems.

80

patryuji t1_iymfg69 wrote

Right now, the best case defense is likely to try to detonate a nuclear weapon in air that will envelope the maximum number of incoming ICBMs to render them inoperable. So long as it is more than a few miles overhead, it should not injure anyone on the ground (this was tested several decades ago).

​

EDIT: Since I made a somewhat less than credible claim, I realized I should edit this to add a link to support said claim:
https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/07/16/156851175/five-men-agree-to-stand-directly-under-an-exploding-nuclear-bomb

36

UniversalMomentum t1_iymrb63 wrote

The US has 4 major layers of ICBM defense. Mid-course interception appears to have the highest probability at up to 80% if a mid-course shot is available.

>The most reliable defense against ballistic missile attack is the U.S.’s Aegis Ballistic Defense (Fig. 2). The Aegis RADAR is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and integrated with the broader Command and Control and weapon systems aboard Aegis Class destroyers. The Aegis system is also available in land-based systems. The Aegis system is designed to combat short- and medium-range ballistic missiles through use of RADAR tracking and interceptor launch. The Aegis system has an approximately 80% intercept success rate.

Here is a good article explaining the different phases of Boost, Mid-Course and Terminal and a quick summary on systems design for each phase.

https://www.mwrf.com/markets/defense/article/21848658/the-3-major-phases-of-effective-missile-defense-systems

13

ghandi_loves_nukes t1_iynv39w wrote

Once direct energy weapons reach the multi-megwatt output ballistic missiles will become less of a threat. The Navy has already integrated a 250kw direct energy weapon with Aegis & had deployed them in the fleet.

1

frobelmust t1_iyq3870 wrote

orbital laser pinpoint defence network can do it. in fact, the mirror side of the dyson sphere tech (which is only 10 years away), is a saturation level of hundreds of thousands of instant kill lasers on the inside of the dyson sphere. powered off the sunlight and battery arrays, point defense orbital lasers can destroy any quantity of icbms at launch, land , air or ocean. It guarantees peace on earth and the end of crime. These laser arrays can also instantly slay any criminal or dictator on sight.

−2

niboras t1_iymg3bd wrote

You mean like missile command? Do they have to use a roller ball to target?

3

ghandi_loves_nukes t1_iynv72w wrote

Hell to the no for track balls, the operators always spill soda or energy drinks in the.

1

phileo t1_iymrruf wrote

Nuke nukes with nukes. Got it!

2

CotyledonTomen t1_iyo7tdq wrote

Wont that still spread fallout through air currents? I dont know if thats better, but isnt that what would happen?

2

patryuji t1_iyocp57 wrote

Check out the story I linked.

TLDR: with an air explosion you don't really get fallout because there isn't much matter (dirt, trees, asphalt, concrete, etc) to irradiate and spread during the explosion.

7

CotyledonTomen t1_iyofena wrote

Right but it says many died of cancer with 1 bomb, and nuclear war is a whole lot of bombs.

1

patryuji t1_iyozvmm wrote

Yes, many died of cancer (including others involved in the Nevada test sites).

Then again, 2 died in their 80s, 1 at 71, 1 at 63 and potentially 2 others are still alive and in their 80s (one of the 2 being the camera man).

Sounds like better odds than actually getting hit with a nuclear weapon.

4

reflect-the-sun t1_iymhb94 wrote

No offence, but you're talking about tech from the 60s and 70s (50-60 years ago) and attempting to answer this question based on very limited knowledge of what has been in development since then, 99% of which is classified. The most modern solution we know of is the MKV, which hasn't been heard of since it was 'cancelled' in 2008.

You can bet your balls that the USA has multiple layers of defences against foreign missile attacks far beyond our comprehension.

Edit; I'm definitely not American, but that's just how it is.

6

DanielNoWrite t1_iymo911 wrote

...that really isn't how it is.

The engineering challenges are well known, the tests and success rate is documented as it's not possible to keep secret. I am American and my masters is in military development. We do not have a magical ballistic missile shield hiding up our sleeves.

14

Guzikk t1_iyovx0z wrote

I was working on military simulations, mainly predicting ballistic trajectories using ML models during my CS degree. It was fun, and I thought these simulations were easily replicable in real-life scenarios.

3 years later I had a conversation with my friend that is working on this subject on a daily basis, for one of the Israeli companies that build such systems (not RADS). He explained why - even in 50 years - we wouldn't be able to create a 100% accurate anti-missle defense system.

4

UniversalMomentum t1_iyn8ej7 wrote

We have 4 layers of ICBM defense. AEGIS should have a decent intercept rate. Sure you can overwhelm it, but it should shoot down a quite a few missiles. A masters degree doesn't mean you've kept your info updated, it just means at one point in your life you got a degree and at face value you're just some rando on the internet making claims without providing proof.
https://www.mwrf.com/markets/defense/article/21848658/the-3-major-phases-of-effective-missile-defense-systems

3

[deleted] t1_iymtdbd wrote

[deleted]

0

TheDrummerMB t1_iyn00n4 wrote

>AEGIS should have a decent intercept rate. Sure you can overwhelm it, but it should shoot down a quite a few missiles

lol think you just proved their point

2

DanielNoWrite t1_iyn6j15 wrote

I'm aware of the various missile defense systems we've developed. None have demonstrated a consistent ability to shoot down ICBMs.

We've had more luck with short and medium range defense, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

With ICBMs, you either have to shoot it down during boost, which means you more or less have to be on station waiting for the launch, or you have to shoot it down midcourse, when it's going 15,000mph a hundred miles above the planet.

They talk about terminal defense, but I'll believe that when I see it.

The closest thing we have to a real defense capability is the GMD, which claims a "50% success rate" against individually launched missiles, with advanced preparation and warning, and a couple more caveats besides. It's nothing close to a real world demonstration. At best it's a last ditch Hail-Mary strategy.

The simple fact is that it's really, really hard to shoot down something moving that fast. A bullet is standing still by comparison. And even if we could that doesn't solve for hypersonic cruise missiles, stealth bombers, or any of a half dozen other deployment strategies.

If we did develop truly reliable ballistic missile defense, it would probably be a bad thing, as our adversaries would presumably not be too far behind, and we'd enter a world in which nukes could be deployed through other means without the risk of being immediately blanketed by ICBMs in response.

1

reflect-the-sun t1_iympevy wrote

I respect your answer regardless of your background, but now you have information that I can use to demonstrate my point.

Based on your knowledge, how long would it take to fire a Russian nuke from the moment the order is received?

−2

DanielNoWrite t1_iyn7kvc wrote

I don't know offhand, and the actual tested time may even be classified, but for context the number typically given with for American missiles is under five minutes between the president issuing the order and the missile leaving the silo.

From there, it depends on whether the missile was land based or launched from a sub, but for land based missiles it'll be hitting it's target perhaps half an hour later, and significantly shorter if it's launched by a sub offshore.

2

reflect-the-sun t1_iyndruv wrote

So if you can infiltrate comms then you've got a 30-minute heads-up on the launch. From the situation in Ukraine it's clear the USA and her Allies already have access to Russian comms on the battlefield and within the Russian govt so we can assume they'll know when a launch order is given.

Considering the USA has wide-angle video surveillance satellites with a 10cm resolution and AI processing they likely know everything that's happening at each launch site, and they'd have them pre-targeted, including Russian subs that they're tracking 24/7.

Finally, all they need is a weapons delivery system to target one of these launch sites and fire upon it within the 30-minute launch period. Better still, fire at it as the launch is taking place and take advantage of collateral damage to the launch site.

Furthermore, I am sure the Russians are aware of this potential threat to their launch sites. If you watch this clip, you'll see that the missile is on a mobile launcher and features a complex launch function to minimise static positioning with a short launch time-period and rapid acceleration. It would also explain why Russian is developing terror weapons like this.

If the USA can destroy air-gapped centrifuges in Iran for making uranium you can bet your balls they can target and neutralise nuclear-capable missiles for threatening their country.

0

DanielNoWrite t1_iynh5wz wrote

I mean no disrespect, but this simply doesn't reflect reality.

You begin by casually assuming penetration of Russian communications is so absolute we'd know of a launch order, based on our abilities to monitor battlefield communications and track the mass mobilization of the hundreds of thousands of troops?

Then you seem to misunderstand that "30 minutes" is the time until the missile hits Washington DC, not the time until the launch, and frankly it wouldn't make much difference even if that were the case.

Also, we somehow have the ability to hit all their launch sites before they even fire?

Also, we're tracking all Russian subs 24/7?

Then you compare all of this to cyber-sabotage of Iranian centrifuges. Which isn't at all related and also hasn't stopped Iran's nuclear program.

The US has amazing capabilities, but it's not magic. There is zero chance we would be able to prevent or even significantly mitigate a nuclear attack were it to occur.

If North Korea happens to launch a single missile our way, we might be able to stop it, but I wouldn't count on it. A country like Russia launching an attack would be the end of the world for everyone.

9

Crafty_Mix_1935 t1_iymjppp wrote

Not to mention the independent war heads can maneuver in route. I don't think the public can handle this information. Look at the mass hysteria in the 50's and 60's.

4

[deleted] t1_iymlqc1 wrote

[deleted]

−1

DanielNoWrite t1_iymoz4g wrote

There is really no comparison between a medium range cruise missile and a an ICBM, they're entirely different problems.

Shooting down a cruise missile is a lot like shooting down a plane. Intercepting an ICBM is like swatting a meteor from the sky.

3

[deleted] t1_iymqqxu wrote

[deleted]

−1

DanielNoWrite t1_iyn80zo wrote

My point was not that it's the same, it was simply that cruise missiles and short/medium range ballistic missiles are routinely intercepted by the same or similar systems used to shoot down planes.

This is very different from what is required to deal with an ICBM.

2

cabur t1_iynkskd wrote

Defense always lags behind offense. This is demonstrated by the time period of….forever?

3

Ipearman96 t1_iyogkpn wrote

You could argue that world war 1 the machine gun meant that defense was higher than offense, of course then the tank was invented which combined with infiltration tactics helped offense regain some of it's capabilities. You could also argue that the later parts of the us civil war defense was stronger than offense. The battle of cold harbor is a pretty good point in this direction as perhaps is the battle of the crater though that one can be blamed on poor coordination. However coordination is one of the hardest things for offense to get right especially pre radio.

1

StreetSmartsGaming t1_iymuz40 wrote

The other issue is they've been stockpiling these fucking things for 70 years. If someone launches a nuclear strike its not going to be just one. It's going to be hundreds or thousands at once. Especially if you have some sort of defense system likely to get some or most of them.

Theres a reason they call it mutually assured destruction.

1

SGTWhiteKY t1_iynz7c7 wrote

No one has added new weapons in a while. And much of all countries nuclear stockpile is dated, and much of it is nonfunctional. Hell, Russia has been taking nuclear warheads out of cruise missiles for use in their current conflict.

2

Epyon214 t1_iyp2a4g wrote

It's the kind of thing I'd bet on and test on myself to show how confident I was in my shield technology, almost like how people who believe in their bullet proof vests might volunteer to be shot while wearing it.

The key is you then have to make nukes not only ineffective but a liability, if you want to get rid of them all. If the location of a nuke is known there are things that can target it, and potentially cause it to detonate.

1

WolfOfBelial t1_iyq4m54 wrote

In 20-30 years lasers will be able to stop most physical targets. Germany is already testing laser system that stops mortar rounds in the air.

1