3 ms·
As I understand it, the only serious "explode the interceptor" proposal was to use nuclear interceptors against ICBMs. That provides a modest radius of non-proj
by Bartweiss 9y ago
As I understand it, the only serious "explode the interceptor" proposal was to use nuclear interceptors against ICBMs. That provides a modest radius of non-projectile destruction, and more importantly provides a large radius of fuse/control-disrupting radiation.
So when it comes to "shooting down a Scud near the ground over a city", you're exactly right. Blowing up your interceptor only works when you've got a high-tech target and are willing to make quite a mess yourself to stop the thing.
- blattimwind 9y agoWell detonating nuclear warheads (literally) near some important asset of yours is probably always some kind of last ditch effort.
- bigiain 9y agoI did a tour of the Nike missile site in the Marin Headlands / Golden Gate Park once. They were very careful to "neither confirm nor deny" whether the site ever had nuclear payloads, but they _did_ make a point to tell everyone that the beautiful mechanical targeting computers had Sacramento programmed in as a target, "just in case"...
- Bartweiss 9y agoYeah, probably not the sort of thing you go and do to stop a 5-kiloton conventional warhead.
- Symmetry 9y agoNot necessarily, it would be going off pretty high. Much higher than in this video with people directly underneath. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc