8 ms·

The Nike system was a last line of defense against bomber formations. The main idea near the end of the program was to set off a surface-to-air nuke in the midd

The Nike system was a last line of defense against bomber formations. The main idea near the end of the program was to set off a surface-to-air nuke in the middle of a formation and take it out. (Yes, that means near the population centers which the Nike sites were situated around. ICBMs nullified the usefulness of the Nikes and they were all decommissioned around 1974.) Modern air defenses are the anti-ballistic missile stuff, interceptors located at the borders, etc.

angersock 11y ago
That gives you insight into the sort of absolute war they were prepared to fight. The world is, in some ways, a better place today.
- pkaeding 11y ago
  The world is better now than it ever was, in many ways: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-now-safer-and-better-than-ever-and-heres-t-1651264457 http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-now-safer-and-better-...
  - m_mueller 11y ago
    while that's nice, we're also running head on into a climate catastrophy, so it's sadly not for long.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Agreed that there is less of a death by nuclear war. But today there is a far greater chance of being shot by a an armed squad of uniformed men driving armoured vehicles. It's really apples and oranges, but people still die at the hands of violence today as they did in the past.
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
That's kind of misleading, it went more like: "it appears as though our missile attacks the center of mass of tight formations, downing none of the aircraft" "let's put a nuke on it and call it a feature"
InclinedPlane 11y ago
To be fair, exploding a few kiloton nuke at several km altitude (probably 30,000 ft or so) would have fairly minimal impact on the ground, and would, of course, bet totally worthwhile if it meant preventing dropping multi-megaton bombs.
- woofuls 11y ago
  Wouldn't a low yield nuclear weapon detonated at a relatively low altitude generate a localized EMP?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Wouldn't a low yield nuclear weapon detonated at a relatively low altitude generate a localized EMP? Probably, though Soviet strategic bomber formations probably wouldn't be operating at particularly low altitude and, IIRC, the idea was to intercept before they were over target (but not far enough away that it wouldn't be problematic!) anyway, and, finally, localized EMP and flash from a kiloton-range airburst is better for people on the ground than the effects of a megaton-range ground burst. If the Nike missiles around SF had ever been fired in anger, it would have been an effort to turn what would otherwise be total disaster into merely major disaster.
    - bigiain 11y ago
      One of the interesting things about the Marin Headland Nike station tour is the tidbit of information that they had targeting codes for Sacramento. So if the Ruskies invaded and occupied the state capital there was an "option"... (May well have been a bored volunteer making things up, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand...)
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    Likely. Although there's been remarkably little public research on EMPs. It's hard to say what impact that would actually have. Even if it fried every electronic device, that'd still be much better than a 10 megaton nuke going off above downtown.

angersock 11y ago

That gives you insight into the sort of absolute war they were prepared to fight. The world is, in some ways, a better place today.

pkaeding 11y ago
The world is better now than it ever was, in many ways: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-now-safer-and-better-than-ever-and-heres-t-1651264457 http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-now-safer-and-better-...
- m_mueller 11y ago
  while that's nice, we're also running head on into a climate catastrophy, so it's sadly not for long.
sandworm101 11y ago
Agreed that there is less of a death by nuclear war. But today there is a far greater chance of being shot by a an armed squad of uniformed men driving armoured vehicles. It's really apples and oranges, but people still die at the hands of violence today as they did in the past.

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

That's kind of misleading, it went more like: "it appears as though our missile attacks the center of mass of tight formations, downing none of the aircraft" "let's put a nuke on it and call it a feature"

InclinedPlane 11y ago

To be fair, exploding a few kiloton nuke at several km altitude (probably 30,000 ft or so) would have fairly minimal impact on the ground, and would, of course, bet totally worthwhile if it meant preventing dropping multi-megaton bombs.

woofuls 11y ago
Wouldn't a low yield nuclear weapon detonated at a relatively low altitude generate a localized EMP?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Wouldn't a low yield nuclear weapon detonated at a relatively low altitude generate a localized EMP? Probably, though Soviet strategic bomber formations probably wouldn't be operating at particularly low altitude and, IIRC, the idea was to intercept before they were over target (but not far enough away that it wouldn't be problematic!) anyway, and, finally, localized EMP and flash from a kiloton-range airburst is better for people on the ground than the effects of a megaton-range ground burst. If the Nike missiles around SF had ever been fired in anger, it would have been an effort to turn what would otherwise be total disaster into merely major disaster.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    One of the interesting things about the Marin Headland Nike station tour is the tidbit of information that they had targeting codes for Sacramento. So if the Ruskies invaded and occupied the state capital there was an "option"... (May well have been a bored volunteer making things up, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand...)
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Likely. Although there's been remarkably little public research on EMPs. It's hard to say what impact that would actually have. Even if it fried every electronic device, that'd still be much better than a 10 megaton nuke going off above downtown.