5 ms·
I wonder if there's any chance this could spur development of effective anti-ICBM laser systems. Considering that nuclear ICBMs are the only real existential th
by Causality1 8y ago
I wonder if there's any chance this could spur development of effective anti-ICBM laser systems. Considering that nuclear ICBMs are the only real existential threat to the United States, I'm often surprised they don't spend a huge chunk of their defense budget neutralizing that threat.
- azernik 8y agoThat was the focus of an enormous effort back in the 80s (SDI), but the solutions were not at the time technically feasible. Lots of these technologies for defeating shorter-range missiles are spinoffs of the different approaches explored in the SDI program, but these systems still don't have the performance or cost required to intercept hundreds or thousands of multi-km/s incoming ICBMs and SLBMs within, say, a half-hour window.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 8y agoI worry if a single nation would be first to develop effective ICBM countermeasures, the whole MAD doctrine would collapse on the spot and we'd have a next world war on our hands.
- arethuza 8y agoFrom what I remember of the difficulties of the Star Wars program - ICBMs are most vulnerable and easiest to spot during their boost phase - which tends to happen, rather inconveniently, over your enemies territory. The RVs themselves are small, hardened and move incredibly quickly and are also surrounded by a plasma shield during reentry which may interfere with targetting with a directed energy weapon.
- js8 8y agoThe MAD doctrine actually collapsed at the end of the Cold War, that's why they decided to sign the INF treaty (and also reduce nuclear arsenals): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For...
- rqqt 8y agoIMHO the MAD is still the status quo as of right now. It kept the peace for 50+ years. (Excluding all the "little" wars.)
- js8 8y agoThe INF treaty maintained MAD as a status quo. However, since it is now dead, there is a risk of MAD (which only works in theory, because it assumes "salami" tactics, short-range weapons and anti-rocket systems are impossible) collapsing again. The result can be either a nuclear war or another return to sanity.
- Shivetya 8y agoMAD only works if the other side is concerned about the welfare of its people. I know that many would prefer to think otherwise but the USSR was just as concerned about their own people as the United States was. They don't have oceans on both sides as a buffer. that out of the way, it is regimes that don't show a real concern for their people that is the danger. the only hold on them is the vulnerability of those making the decision. once they show disregard for their own welfare is when everyone should be worried.
- Udik 8y ago> regimes that don't show a real concern for their people that is the danger. I doubt that these exist, "look, these people are crazy and suicidal and don't even care about their own children" is a common propaganda statement, with the clear purpose of de-humanising the enemy. Even the most ferocious dictators care about some of the people, and about their own cultural heritage, and the country they rule. Nobody wants to be wiped off the face of the earth.
- azernik 8y agoAnd even if they don't care about any of those things, their people are the source of their power.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Aeolun 8y agoOr they’ve already neutralized it, and are perfectly happy to have the world believe the opposite.