3 ms·
30MT 1 KM away is probably similar to ~5MT directly overhead by back of the envelope calculation. Sufficiently secure still I would say. None of the published
by srvmshr 4y ago
30MT 1 KM away is probably similar to ~5MT directly overhead by back of the envelope calculation. Sufficiently secure still I would say.
None of the published warheads specs are 30MT & even 5MT would be the combined strength of few MIRVs. And note that most warheads are airbursts not ground penetration type. That can make a lot of difference
- idontwantthis 4y agoThe point is that it's an immobile target with known protections, and missiles are accurate enough to hit it directly as many times as necessary. I'm sure it's specifically targeted by sufficient weapons to destroy it. It could survive a lot, but not enough. And, like I said, the proof is that it doesn't actually handle much of NORAD anymore. NORAD is mostly above ground because any immobile target is hopelessly vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base This is where NORAD is based now. Also, I read the article wrong, it's 30MT at 2km away.
- srvmshr 4y agoThe move to Peterson AFB was not a security measure, but a cost saving measure by the USAF & GAO. Lot of concerns were posted about the same by few Congressman. https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-express-concerns-over-norad-move https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-ex... Plus, THAAD is meant to speed up ABM capabilities over time. Going by experience following this area, one of the reasons why you don't hear much about it is probably because USAF is pretty serious to keep the specifics under cover as long as possible.