3 ms·

So what you’re talking about is probably the midcourse defense system in Alaska, which targets missiles in the middle of their flight path and hopefully protect

by elil17 7y ago

So what you’re talking about is probably the midcourse defense system in Alaska, which targets missiles in the middle of their flight path and hopefully protects the entire US from ICBMs (although we don’t have enough interceptor missiles defend against a Russian attack and it’s not clear that they could actually hit the incoming ICBMs). There’s another kind of missile defense system, which targets the missile payloads as they are falling (in their terminal phase). These systems are highly effective, but they can only defend a small area. We have them around military bases, Washington D.C., etc. They won’t work against Avangard.

nabla9 7y ago
Terminal phase intercepts don't work against ICBM's. They work only against SRBM's and some IRBM's with slower terminal speeds. Even small intentional wobbly in a fast warhead requires so fast mid-course corrections that it becomes physically impossible for a missile to do. Sprint missiles used nuclear explosions and neutron flux to disable incoming nuclear warheads from distance but even they have to get relatively close and they probably don't work against conventional warheads.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  Wouldn't the missile itself be a warhead for conventional use? Depending on its mass, at hypersonic impapct speeds?
jessriedel 7y ago
> There’s another kind of missile defense system, which targets the missile payloads as they are falling (in their terminal phase). These systems are highly effective, but they can only defend a small area. We have them around military bases, Washington D.C., etc. Do you think "highly effective" is fair? The article I read about THAAD suggest it's probably effective against short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballastic missles; marginally effective against a limited number of ICBMs; and essentially ineffective against a large number of ICBMs. Against an adversary like Russia that has a ton of ICBMs, I don't think THAAD systems can protect even a small geographic area like DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense

by elil17 7y ago

nabla9 7y ago

Terminal phase intercepts don't work against ICBM's. They work only against SRBM's and some IRBM's with slower terminal speeds. Even small intentional wobbly in a fast warhead requires so fast mid-course corrections that it becomes physically impossible for a missile to do. Sprint missiles used nuclear explosions and neutron flux to disable incoming nuclear warheads from distance but even they have to get relatively close and they probably don't work against conventional warheads.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
Wouldn't the missile itself be a warhead for conventional use? Depending on its mass, at hypersonic impapct speeds?

jessriedel 7y ago

> There’s another kind of missile defense system, which targets the missile payloads as they are falling (in their terminal phase). These systems are highly effective, but they can only defend a small area. We have them around military bases, Washington D.C., etc. Do you think "highly effective" is fair? The article I read about THAAD suggest it's probably effective against short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballastic missles; marginally effective against a limited number of ICBMs; and essentially ineffective against a large number of ICBMs. Against an adversary like Russia that has a ton of ICBMs, I don't think THAAD systems can protect even a small geographic area like DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense