4 ms·

Speaking from the experience of being under regular attacks from Russian cruise and ballistic rockets for the last year, I can tell you, that with enough missil

• wffurr 4y ago
  The HE warheads in conventional missiles are readily set off by impact or damage. The nuclear chain reaction in a fission warhead requires precisely timed detonation of shaped charges all around the nuclear pit; which is highly unlikely to happen in an uncontrolled fashion from damage.
  • hkpack 4y ago
    We don't know how warheads are configured. It is possible that detonating over enemy territory is still better than just falling down. So the sequence may be started if the rocket 1) knows that it is close to the enemy territory. 2) it senses damage.
• stouset 4y ago
  Not to discount your personal experience, but nuclear weapons are very different from conventional ones. A nuclear device has to go through a very specific, very precise sequence in order to create a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion. Conventional weapons don’t have this same design, and so could easily demonstrate your observed behavior. Without the firing sequence occurring, a nuclear bomb that is intercepted early becomes a dirty bomb. The nuclear material is spread out over a much smaller blast zone and can contaminate the area with fissile material. But the odds of it producing a nuclear explosion are virtually nil unless the bomb/missile has explicit countermeasures that force a detonation prior to intercept.
  • hkpack 4y ago
    I agree that the full explosion is the least likely outcome, but it still very possible. Cruise missiles are intercepted by a rocket exploding in front of it. As we know (for example from the MH17 investigation) - the major damage is done by shrapnel from the intercepting rocket. The level to which the incoming missile is damaged by shrapnel will very - it can be very slight damage by just a few elements, or a very heavy one. We don't know how the nuclear warhead is configured. It is sensible to predict, that the detonation mid-air over enemy territory is the desired outcome. So the light damage may start the detonation sequence by design. Hypersonic missiles are much harder to destroy because the timing needs to be much more precise. It means that the rocket may receive much lighter damage, which increases the chances of starting the detonation sequence and exploding before hitting the ground.
• zoomablemind 4y ago
  ... - some will "negativey" launch and fall back at the launch site - some will "negatively" stabilize and crash early at unpredictable point midflight, sometimes in a field or over a populated part of Belgorod or other border city in russia. In either case the detonation is not supposed to happen by design but the russian sur-reality gives no guarantees. They know this themselves which does not mean anyone there would take responsibility for this, god forbid.
• concordDance 4y ago
  Do I upvote this because it provides interesting knowledge on a subject that is hard to acquire (what happens when you intercept a conventional missile) or downvote it because it doesn't apply to the topic at hand of nuclear explosions (the conventional part of the missile will do all these things, but the nuclear part is far too sensitive to exact detonation timing, complete explosions and precise distances)?
  • olddustytrail 4y ago
    My last upvoted comment was on the "Diff Models – A New Way to Edit Code" thread, where I gained 6 points for pointing out that chicken eggs are in fact bigger than cow eggs. I think you're safe enough to upvote this.
  • gggggg5 4y ago
    It's also about the wrong kind of missiles, cruise missiles and not ballistic missiles.
• ilyt 4y ago
  I guess it depends where the nuke gets hit. If it hit any of the detonation devices around charges chances are the fission won't happen (as it needs very precise condition or that it will be severely reduced in force). If it hits propulsion of the missile, then falls on the ground and the detonation circuit goes "right, that's good enough, let's explode"...
• gggggg5 4y ago
  I don't think there's been a single documented interception of a ballistic missile in Ukraine. Cruise missiles are an entirely different thing and largely irrelevant when it comes to delivery of nuclear weapons.
  • hkpack 4y ago
    You are right, sorry for not being clear. Neither ballistic nor hypersonic cruise missiles were intercepted because of the lack of capabilities. However, US has such capabilities, and I think the results would still be very similar with the only difference that ballistic warhead (or its parts if disintegrated) will land not that far from the target when intercepted after the apex. I just wanted to tell that intercepted missiles resulted in different outcomes - they go off course, explode right away, disintegrate and fall in big parts, fall and explode, or fall almost intact without exploding.
    • gggggg5 4y ago
      >However, US has such capabilities, and I think the results would still be very similar with the only difference that ballistic warhead (or its parts if disintegrated) will land not that far from the target when intercepted after the apex. When it comes to ballistic missile interceptions, they tend to occur (if they occur) at a minimum of tens of kilometers from/above the target. Ballistic missile interceptions are fundamentally different from cruise missile interceptions too, cruise missiles are often disabled by shrapnel from the interceptor merely exploding near the missile. This isn't a great approach for terminal phase ballistic missiles, so for those you mostly see kinetic interceptors that actually have to directly hit their target. In the case of a successful interception, you're unlikely to see anything but disintegration.