6 ms·

> US Military getting ready to blast all objects in the sky with counter-nukes. The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles). Having

> US Military getting ready to blast all objects in the sky with counter-nukes. The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles). Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. While you're correct, the planes don't want to be in that crossfire, the missile targeting system would more than easily account for civilian aircraft and avoid them.

dragontamer 5y ago
> The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles). Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. While you're correct, the planes don't want to be in that crossfire, the missile targeting system would more than easily account for civilian aircraft and avoid them. ICBMs travel in excess of Mach 10, and typical SAMs are Mach 1 to Mach 5. -------- Instead of using a small explosive to bring down an enemy nuke, surely there's an idea to use a bigger counter-nuke? Sure, there's going to be a ton of fallout, but that's still better than losing the entirety of San Francisco. Its a lot easier to hit an enemy missile with a big-bomb, rather than using a little bomb. IE: load those SAMs with nukes and have at it. Even if you're slower, you got the strength and blast-radius of a nuke and have a better chance of bringing down the enemy ICBM. ------ I don't think its an issue of "airplanes would be hit by a SAM". I think it's seriously the risk of airplanes literally getting caught in the blasts (that were aimed at the enemy missile).
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Instead of using a small explosive to bring down an enemy nuke, surely there's an idea to use a bigger counter-nuke? Yes; Russia protects Moscow with such a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s...
- chemeng 5y ago
  The US relies primarily on the Aegis system for ICBM defense, which uses the SM-3 capable of Mach 10+. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    As with all things military, why have one project in a well funded area, when you can have many?! Army - Patriot Army / Missile Defense Agency - THAAD Army / Air Force / Missile Defense Agency - Ground-Based Midcourse Defense w/ GMI Navy - Aegis w/ SM-3 (also, Aegis Ashore)
- baseballdork 5y ago
  These aren't typical SAMs. They're ABMs. Something like the SM-3[1] has a similar velocity as an incoming ballistic missile. ABM tech tends to rely on hit-to-kill instead of detonating a warhead. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    Thank you, I forgot the name of the ABM missiles. SAMs are conventionally used as anti-aircraft missiles.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Didn't know about this one. It greatly surpass in speed the old but famous Patriot missiles.
ouid 5y ago
There is essenitally no fallout from an undetonated warhead. Plutonium is not that radioactive. It's just fissile.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  They're talking about nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles; blowing up an incoming nuke with an airburst nuke of your own. We don't have them currently, but both the US and Russia have tinkered with the concept. Do it high enough up and it's got similar fallout to the atmospheric tests we used to do. Not great, but better than millions dead on the ground.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > They're talking about nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles; blowing up an incoming nuke with an airburst nuke of your own. High-altitude airbursts produce essentially no fallout; fallout is from tossing irradiated ground debris into the air from a ground burst or near-ground burst. Other than the missile itself and it's target, there's nothing for a high-altitude airburst to make fallout from. > We don't have them currently, but both the US and Russia have tinkered with the concept. “Widely deployed”, not “tinkered with”.
dotancohen 5y ago
Unless they are flying over Ukraine, apparently.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Hasn't stopped us in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s... (currently active!) Fallout is better than a city blowing up - we used to test nukes in the atmosphere, and while we've recognized that's not great, the calculus changes a bit with a nuke coming to blow up NYC or LA. You're right that we don't have nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles currently, opting for more accurate conventional ABMs, but that's more about the US and Russia trying to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
uwuemu 5y ago
Fallout worry is not a thing with modern ICBMs and warheads (not the way you're imagining it). By the time the ICBM enters the terminal phase nothing can (currently) stop it. It's just a deployed MIRVed/MARVed warhead, ie. a set of a dozen or more hypersonic glides tipped with nukes and you have barely minutes to do anything even if you could. No, the way you stop a modern ICBM is you shoot it down with a nucler tipped anti-ICBM missile mid flight during its mid flight/coast phase, way before it had a chance to deploy. This basically happens in space and no fallout is going to reach the ground.
- midoa 5y ago
  There are non-nuclear options for ICBMs. The most interesting is Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... Basically you launch a missile that intercepts a high altitude missile and launch an object at it in a 'hit-to-kill'. It's been fairly successful in testing according to the link.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles SAMs aren't an alternative to nukes because SAMs can be nukes. The (retired) US Nike-Hercules (intended for anti-bomber) and Nike-Zeus (anti-warhead and, at least in testing, also anti-satellite for Zeus B) are examples. (Note, if you live in the Bay Area there are a whole bunch of decommissioned bases for these missiles around.) > Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. Nuclear airbursts that aren't in close proximity to the ground relative to yield have essentially zero fallout (fallout is basically irradiated debris from the ground kicked into the air by the explosion.) It may or may not increase the amount of flash radiation, but that's a shorter-term, smaller area problem. But the US doesn't (at least officially, and I doubt this could be effectively concealed) rely on nuclear air-to-surface defenses any more. But any nuclear attack has an EMP risk, and I don't think a plane is where you want to be during an EMP. Plus, people on the ground when a threat is confirmed have a better chance of being able to follow an order to shelter than those in the air. From a civil defense perspective, “ground the planes in the potential target area immediately and unconditionally on launch warning” makes a whole lot of sense.

dragontamer 5y ago

> The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles). Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. While you're correct, the planes don't want to be in that crossfire, the missile targeting system would more than easily account for civilian aircraft and avoid them. ICBMs travel in excess of Mach 10, and typical SAMs are Mach 1 to Mach 5. -------- Instead of using a small explosive to bring down an enemy nuke, surely there's an idea to use a bigger counter-nuke? Sure, there's going to be a ton of fallout, but that's still better than losing the entirety of San Francisco. Its a lot easier to hit an enemy missile with a big-bomb, rather than using a little bomb. IE: load those SAMs with nukes and have at it. Even if you're slower, you got the strength and blast-radius of a nuke and have a better chance of bringing down the enemy ICBM. ------ I don't think its an issue of "airplanes would be hit by a SAM". I think it's seriously the risk of airplanes literally getting caught in the blasts (that were aimed at the enemy missile).

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Instead of using a small explosive to bring down an enemy nuke, surely there's an idea to use a bigger counter-nuke? Yes; Russia protects Moscow with such a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s...
chemeng 5y ago
The US relies primarily on the Aegis system for ICBM defense, which uses the SM-3 capable of Mach 10+. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
- ethbr0 5y ago
  As with all things military, why have one project in a well funded area, when you can have many?! Army - Patriot Army / Missile Defense Agency - THAAD Army / Air Force / Missile Defense Agency - Ground-Based Midcourse Defense w/ GMI Navy - Aegis w/ SM-3 (also, Aegis Ashore)
baseballdork 5y ago
These aren't typical SAMs. They're ABMs. Something like the SM-3[1] has a similar velocity as an incoming ballistic missile. ABM tech tends to rely on hit-to-kill instead of detonating a warhead. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
- throwaway946513 5y ago
  Thank you, I forgot the name of the ABM missiles. SAMs are conventionally used as anti-aircraft missiles.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Didn't know about this one. It greatly surpass in speed the old but famous Patriot missiles.

ouid 5y ago

There is essenitally no fallout from an undetonated warhead. Plutonium is not that radioactive. It's just fissile.

ceejayoz 5y ago
They're talking about nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles; blowing up an incoming nuke with an airburst nuke of your own. We don't have them currently, but both the US and Russia have tinkered with the concept. Do it high enough up and it's got similar fallout to the atmospheric tests we used to do. Not great, but better than millions dead on the ground.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They're talking about nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles; blowing up an incoming nuke with an airburst nuke of your own. High-altitude airbursts produce essentially no fallout; fallout is from tossing irradiated ground debris into the air from a ground burst or near-ground burst. Other than the missile itself and it's target, there's nothing for a high-altitude airburst to make fallout from. > We don't have them currently, but both the US and Russia have tinkered with the concept. “Widely deployed”, not “tinkered with”.

dotancohen 5y ago

Unless they are flying over Ukraine, apparently.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Hasn't stopped us in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s... (currently active!) Fallout is better than a city blowing up - we used to test nukes in the atmosphere, and while we've recognized that's not great, the calculus changes a bit with a nuke coming to blow up NYC or LA. You're right that we don't have nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles currently, opting for more accurate conventional ABMs, but that's more about the US and Russia trying to reduce their nuclear arsenals.

uwuemu 5y ago

Fallout worry is not a thing with modern ICBMs and warheads (not the way you're imagining it). By the time the ICBM enters the terminal phase nothing can (currently) stop it. It's just a deployed MIRVed/MARVed warhead, ie. a set of a dozen or more hypersonic glides tipped with nukes and you have barely minutes to do anything even if you could. No, the way you stop a modern ICBM is you shoot it down with a nucler tipped anti-ICBM missile mid flight during its mid flight/coast phase, way before it had a chance to deploy. This basically happens in space and no fallout is going to reach the ground.

midoa 5y ago
There are non-nuclear options for ICBMs. The most interesting is Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... Basically you launch a missile that intercepts a high altitude missile and launch an object at it in a 'hit-to-kill'. It's been fairly successful in testing according to the link.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles SAMs aren't an alternative to nukes because SAMs can be nukes. The (retired) US Nike-Hercules (intended for anti-bomber) and Nike-Zeus (anti-warhead and, at least in testing, also anti-satellite for Zeus B) are examples. (Note, if you live in the Bay Area there are a whole bunch of decommissioned bases for these missiles around.) > Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. Nuclear airbursts that aren't in close proximity to the ground relative to yield have essentially zero fallout (fallout is basically irradiated debris from the ground kicked into the air by the explosion.) It may or may not increase the amount of flash radiation, but that's a shorter-term, smaller area problem. But the US doesn't (at least officially, and I doubt this could be effectively concealed) rely on nuclear air-to-surface defenses any more. But any nuclear attack has an EMP risk, and I don't think a plane is where you want to be during an EMP. Plus, people on the ground when a threat is confirmed have a better chance of being able to follow an order to shelter than those in the air. From a civil defense perspective, “ground the planes in the potential target area immediately and unconditionally on launch warning” makes a whole lot of sense.